Rockets

Agree the driver should have backed off but if there was a cycle lane why didn't you use it, surely then this incident would not have occurred and is the exact reason tbe cycle lane is provided? You're "no compulsion to use it" comment validates the exact point I was making (and it seems to me) the driver was making too. Would you have been conceding to intimidation if you had used the cycle lane? To be fair your use of language is again validating the point I was making.

Just did reread your post. You chose not to use the cycle lane and a driver, who also claimed to be a cyclist, remonstrated with you for doing so. Pretty clear to me and pretty clear why it demonstrates my point that much of the ire aimed at cyclists is self-inflicted. If infrastructure has been provided why not use it - it's there for a reason and that's yours, and others', safety?

But Kid?.the council?s numbers don?t lie do they??.;-) Per first mate?s question earlier no-one is challenging my conclusion that the council?s numbers do not reflect the area-wide 7.1% reduction in traffic that Southwark claim to be due. If that is correct, then all of the reduction numbers are wrong and are creating a misleading picture of what is actually happening and explains why many, yourself included, aren?t seeing the supposed reduction with your own eyes. Why, because it doesn?t exist to the levels the council are claiming. There are also big questions marks on when the council collected the data for the monitoring report because the methodology document they put together states that all of the pre-scheme data was collected out of school holidays yet does not make the same claim for the post-scheme data. This report looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors designed to validated the council?s pursuance of the flawed LTN strategy.

And I would be prepared to put money on there having been zero reduction in car ownership within the LTN closed roads since they went in, one of the many objectives of the LTNs that have failed to materialise.

Northern and Wasely - in two posts you demonstrate why so many people are taking issue with cyclists at the moment. 1) Northern - you fail to acknowledge that the cyclist was in the wrong. He was as much of an idiot as the driver but you defaulted to that Pavlovian "the cyclist is never wrong" that so many pro-cycle default to. He hits the car window twice with force, he may even have hit the wing mirror (the noise is very loud as it is picked up by Jeremy's mic from the other side of the road) and it looks like he is trying to break the window and or mirror. The drivers' reaction is as bad as the catalyst for it but you cannot defend the cyclist, as much as I am not defending th driver. 2) Wasely - the "no compulsion to use it" narrative is one that also grinds on other road users at the moment (it's a close second to the "I can so I will whether I need to or not" - ride two abreast/ride in the middle of the road + narrative). When I cycle I am mindful of other road users and if there is infrastructure I use it. I presume you can't see how frustrating it would be to be stuck behind a bike using a carriageway that has cycling infrastructure along it? I suspect as a cyclist himself he felt that you didn't need to be doing that and that he would have been in the bike lane. As I have said before if every road user treats others as they would like to be treated then everyone could get on swimmingly but there seem to be a lot of my fellow cyclists who seem to think that following the rules and needing to consider other road users does not apply to them.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waseley Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As > someone > > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot > it's > > a little confusing. Your case would be > stronger > > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than > > make cheap comments for the pro car community. > > Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot > of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect > in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be > corrected. > > It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for > all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich > Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with > several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside > their vocal support for more through traffic on > side streets, they are committed > environmentalists, as the signs suggest. Rahx3 I do not own an SUV and I cycle, in fact you will probably see me and my family on our bikes most weekends - so better luck next time on the character assassination?;-)! Now, am I wrong in my assertation that the council's traffic reduction numbers are misleading as they have not factored in tbe 7.1% Southwark-wide reduction in traffic caused by the pandemic? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ex- my point is very clear. The council are > comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme > and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the > conclusion that the LTNs have been a success > because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic > numbers. > > But they also acknowledge in their "helpful > background note" (your words and I love the > wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the > post-scheme numbers they have published will have > been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1% > decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark > which has nothing to do with the LTNs. > > If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to > start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and > compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one > set of figures to create a level playing field. > Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or > adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in > traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim > that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the > Southwark area reduction in overall traffic. > > At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively > benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those > are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby > are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the > LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1% > lower to start with - do you not agree? Rahx3 - speaking of which any comments on the above? Am I wrong or am I right? If I am right then you can clearly see how the council is manipulating the data they present to try to skew the narrative in their favour.

I noticed that the Lib Dem flyer through our door was imploring people to vote for them locally to have influence on the Southwark wide picture as they are saying they are the only party that can start to call Labour to account at the council level. Interesting Legal that Cllr Leeming is feeling it from both camps....they created a new "third rail" for themselves. They may be in more trouble than I initially thought and I wonder if we might see the Lib Dems taking a more aggressive approach towards LTN review in the hope of hoovering up more votes. I think Labour are in big trouble locally but, let's be honest, they are reaping what they sowed.

I am a cyclist. I just don't like the way many of my cycling colleagues take a "holier than thou" approach to lobbying for cycling and I don't like their approach where they seem to think they are the only form of transport that should be allowed to use roads. Many of them talk about driver entitlement yet display the same signs in regard to cycling. The recent debate around the new Highway Code has been demonstrating this. There is so much misinformation out there put out by the anti-cycle and pro-cycle lobby due to the "war" that people are actually going to get injured as a result. For example, the give way to cyclists continuing ahead as you turn left is an incredibly sensible directive but the way it has been positioned by both sides of tbe argument is actually leading cyclists to believe cars have to giveway to them as they wait for you as they turn left. Yet the Highway Code states that cyclists must not cycle to the left of a vehicle indicating to turn left. So the new rule was inserted to protect cyclists in the immediate turn zone not a flotilla of cyclists following - they need to give way to the left turning vehicle. But no-one is mentioning that. And I posted Peter Walker's article as on the one hand he claims a "war on cyclists" being waged by The Times and on the other hand posts inflammatory comments about a vehicle being "specifically designed to kill children" and continuing his own "war on cars". Some in the cycle lobby have a very myopic view of the world. Jeremy Vine posted a video a few days ago of a cyclist trying to smash a driver's door and mirror at a junction and the driver gets out and throws a bottle at the cyclist. Both were idiots for doing what they did but Jeremy chastises the driver not the cyclist. We cannot tolerate bad behaviour by one and not the other and I am glad to see some police starting to police the bad cyclists who are tarnishing the reputation for everyone else and there are a lot of bad cyclists around at the moment I am afraid to say.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > ---------------------------------------. I would > much prefer to > > hear about what is being done to resolve the > > problems rather than photo op after photo op of > > her outside various sorting offices. > > > "Photo op after photo op"? How many have there > been? Quite a few....started in 2018 and have been a regular occurance (lots on her blog as well)...gone into overdrive the last few weeks.... Seems to be a lot of grandstanding going on by our local councillors on the issue yet no-one seems to be able to tell us what is going on or when it will be fixed. Perhaps they are powerless to do anything as it is a private company and clearly a management vs union/employee issue.

A week is a long time in the world of a pro-cycling lobbyist/antagonist and journalist...;-) Jan 31st https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2022/jan/31/the-times-editorial-cycling-licences Feb 5 https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1489874544462602240?t=mNIqp-7mJmLYHJPvOr1rDA&s=19

To be fair she has been visiting the sorting offices to try to resolve the issue for nigh on two and a half years now.....and it has been getting worse not better. I would much prefer to hear about what is being done to resolve the problems rather than photo op after photo op of her outside various sorting offices. Charlie Smith was on here saying we should expect some updates....has anyone heard anything?

Helen Hayes visited another sorting office ...does anyone know what she does when she gets there or are these just photo ops?

Interesting approach and whilst you can see the rational for doing it to try to hit those who drive massive 4-wheel drive cars for no reason it's a bit bottom trawling fishing process in that a lot of people who need bigger vehicles for their work, for disabled or elderly family members get caught up in it. It will also impact electric cars which are usually heavier than their petrol equivalents. Looks like another greenwashing revenue generating exercise from the council. Perhaps the scrapping of the Phase 3 and 4 LTN plans has left them with a revenue hole, despite the millions they have earned from the LTN cameras.

Ha ha and you suggest it's not true by linking to a click-bait article in Forbes written by a pro-cycling journalist whose books include Roads Were Not Built for Cars! As a cyclist I am glad that the police are clamping down on the growing number of cyclists who now ignore all the rules and give us fellow cyclists a bad name. The problem is growing and getting worse, despite the claims made by pro-cycling journalist Peter Walker. We can all see it for ourselves. Only today I was walking along Court Lane and had to move for a father and his two children cycling along the pavement - there was less "traffic" on the road than the pavement so I could not work out why they were on the pavement. And I see pro-cycle lobbyists like Jeremy Vine using cameras to film, share on social media and report bad driving to police to issue fines and I thought who is policing the bad cyclists? And it seems some councils are starting to do it - why? Because it is becoming a real problem and they need to encourage all cyclists to follow the rules or be fined. Just walk down to Margy Square and you will see more examples of bad cycling than good cycling every single day.

I can't wait to see our local councillors posting pictures of themselves out with police capturing red light jumping cyclists...;-) https://road.cc/content/news/police-catch-18-red-light-jumping-cyclists-90-minutes-289991?amp

Legal - I think you are right, a lot of people use their votes differently in local council elections. Granted a lot use it as a means to send a message to national government but also a lot don?t bother to vote at all and I think the issue for Labour is whether people who have not voted before feel motivated enough to get out and vote. I suspect the local anger with the way the council has treated many local residents may act as more of a catalyst to get out and vote than registering a message to national government. It is with me - I just need to decide where my tactical vote goes. The issue is that the Dulwich Village ward saw a pretty close run election last time and a small swing will have an impact. Bottom line is the council have, by the way they have managed the LTNs, created a one-issue election in many of the Dulwich wards and the choices seem clear on the mandates for each of the candidates in terms of their approach to LTNs. It has been incredibly foolish for the council to ignore the local sentiment throughout the local LTN debacle and it may come back to bite them in May. They massively under-estimated the backlash amongst the local community.

I wonder how they monitor - I suspect using tracked items as the barometer. We got a package of Christmas cards from the grandparents to each of our children that took 7 weeks to complete its journey. Interestingly none of the old mail seems to have been franked - does anyone know why that might be (and I think a few others noticed this as well previously)? Or have I just answered my previous question? Ribrob - I think someone tried to go to the sorting office to collect their missing mail and was told they couldn't as it was all piled high in bags still.

Are the same problems affecting the Peckham side of the Peckham sorting office?

And I saw Cllrs Leeming and Newens mustering with others outside Au Ciel this morning...I was half expecting a knock at the door from them later as they began canvassing. "Councillors, I have been expecting you. would you like to come in for a cup of tea.. I have a few things I would like to discuss with you...." Unfortunately they didn't come knocking. But it does look like some got the knock.... https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1487406307103629317?t=99jaG7XTX3W7cQ9oFXFSow&s=19 ..."lots of interesting and useful feedback"...you could interpret that in many ways...

Two copies of The Week junior landed today - one from 18 December and one from 15th January and two Christmas cards - straight to recycling thanks to the Royal Mail..... But Helen Hayes is on the case....again.....!!!

One Dulwich update: Dear all, More than 2,000 One Dulwich supporters Welcome to our new supporters ? as of today?s date, 2,107 of us have now signed up to the campaign. We continue to object to Southwark Council?s flawed scheme because, according to Southwark Council?s own modelling, it offers no overall improvement in air quality and instead: displaces traffic and pollution on to residential roads with schools and health centres; discriminates against those with poor mobility; damages the viability of local shops and businesses. In the run-up to the local elections in May 2022, it?s even more important that we make our voices heard, so please encourage family, friends and neighbours to sign up to the campaign: Support One Dulwich. Why is Southwark delaying the permanent traffic orders? On 24 January, Southwark Council sent out an email telling us that: the decision to approve the scheme was made on 23 December 2021; the permanent orders will come into effect on Thursday 17 February 2022; all principal and boundary roads will be monitored (although the email doesn?t say which ones); 24/7 monitoring has been introduced on Burbage Road, Townley Road, and Dulwich Village, and will continue on the middle section of East Dulwich Grove (near the Tessa Jowell health centre). Separately, we have just seen a second 21-day emergency traffic order dated 19 January 2022 (so running out on 9 February 2022) that keeps the junction of Calton Avenue/Dulwich Village/Court Lane closed. As before, the reason for the order is apparently ?to safeguard the high volume of pedestrians that are using this area to access schools and local businesses?. Embarrassingly for Southwark, they will have to make a further so-called emergency traffic order to span the gap between 9 and 17 February 2022. Otherwise the junction road closure will have no legal basis. It seems that the Council is intent on delaying the process of making the traffic orders permanent. Why? So that continuing objections can be legally ignored as the Council goes into the period of ?heightened sensitivity? in March before the May 2022 elections? (See the official guidance here.) The legal challenge In the meantime, work with the Dulwich Alliance?s legal team continues, thanks to all your generous donations to the Dulwich Alliance?s fighting fund. At this stage, based on legal advice, the Dulwich Alliance has decided to wait for the final details in the permanent traffic orders before taking next steps. Thank you for your continued support Does anyone with a sharp legal or political brain know why the council would be filibustering over making the closure permanent? Or have they hit a legal issue with their implementation - we know the emergency services have voice their opinion and been ignored about the DV closures?

Ex- my point is very clear. The council are comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the conclusion that the LTNs have been a success because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic numbers. But they also acknowledge in their "helpful background note" (your words and I love the wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the post-scheme numbers they have published will have been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1% decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark which has nothing to do with the LTNs. If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one set of figures to create a level playing field. Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the Southwark area reduction in overall traffic. At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1% lower to start with - do you not agree?

Redpost - you are trying to find something to back up your argument and failing. Southwark has consistently said, and even mentioned it in their LTN monitoring report, that traffic across Southwark was down hugely during the pandemic. Page 19 of their monitoring report plots the monthly traffic figures, showing that traffic was down significantly for much of the pandemic and never once got above 2019 levels. They also state that traffic was 7.1% lower in September 21 compared to September 19 and that "Results for motor vehicle flows in this report should therefore be considered in this context." So, all of those numbers they presented on traffic reduction (that many of you have been waving around as proof of success) have to take that 7.1% area-wide reduction into consideration because it is not factored into their post-scheme numbers. This is why so many of us have been questioning these numbers because we are not seeing or experiencing what they claim - and that is because their numbers aren't a true reflection of what is actually happening. For a true reflection they would have needed to remove the 7.1% from the pre-scheme figures or add 7.1% to the post-scheme figures. But they chose not to....anyone got any guesses why that might have been.....?

So, on the basis of that, and on the basis that Southwark has quoted that traffic across Southwark has been down by 7% during the pandemic, the numbers quoted by the council in their summary infographic, and in the main report, are wrong aren't they? Because they have not adjusted the pre-scheme figures on the basis of the 7% reduction in traffic during the Covid pandemic. They are not comparing like with like. So traffic has not declined 4% on Lordship Lane near Court Lane - it has increased by 3%. Likewise, it has not increased by 4% on Lordship Lane near Townley it has, in fact, increased by 11%. Croxted Road the same - no longer a 7% decrease in traffic but no change And so the list goes on...... The council are manipulating the figures to their own advantage and not levelling the playing field for a fair and balanced comparison. Thoughts?