Rockets

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jenijenjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > dougiefreeman Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > @rahx3 > > > > You?re really not in any position to demand > > > > apologies when you yourself refused point > > blank > > > to > > > > apologise for publicly insulting a group of > > > > predominantly elderly and disabled folk? > > > > #idiotsgate > > > > > > Can you point us in the direction of the post > > > where he did this. Or did he just disagree > with > > > them. > > > > > > Sure. Page 221. > > > > Legalalian wrote: "Seems to be an anti LTN > protest > > at he closed junction this morning." > > > > To which rahx3 responded: "Yep, a small number > of > > idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists > with > > their bags and placards." > > > > > > The protest was comprised of predominantly > elderly > > and disabled people who were peacefully > protesting > > following major disruption to their lives as a > > result of the LTNS and other measures. This was > > following unsuccessful attempts to have their > > concerns heard (let alone valued) by Southwark > > Council. > > > > You can read on from there to see how Rahx3 > > responded to the varying comments made on this > > reaction. > > Seriously? > > I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people > turning off the main road' I explained the context > of this. > > There were a few people who decided to block my > daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her > stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on > her bike). This was a few thoughtless people. > You've decided to say they were elderly and > disabled, although they weren't, to try and > reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and > dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable > people'. It's about as cynical as one can be. > > To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled' > is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue. But Rahx3 no-one was actually blocking your route up Calton Avenue were they - you embellished your story solely for the purpose of taking a dig at the protestors as the right hand-side of the junction was completely free of any blockage wasn't it?

But Ex- as someone who works in the industry would you be happy to put your name and reputation against the data, methodology and manner in which the council has handled this LTN process? It's got more holes than a piece of emmental and most people are concluding the council is either incompetent or corrupt(and there is another group that is pro-LTN that is happy to be spoonfed data that supports their view)! What I think you are highlighting is not confirmation bias but people saying "hang on a minute - that's not what the data says" and they are questioning the interpretation and manipulation. And when they scratch beneath the surface they realise that it is all just smoke and mirrors (and I very much suspect this is just the council's way of handling things and they have been doing it for years just no-one ever really looked beneath the headlines). Just look at the latest September results pdf infographic - some roads have been left off from the summary charts and it just happens that the roads left off are the ones with the increases (East Dulwich Grove, Underhill etc). Another oversight per chance?

Good update from One Dulwich...did anyone else notice how the council didn't put many of the +% increase roads onto their September report? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/why-wont-southwark-be-clear-about-the-data Skip to Content One Dulwich Open Menu Why won?t Southwark be clear about the data? 19 Dec So here we are, the week before Christmas, puzzling over the latest data reports on the Dulwich Streetspace project. For some reason, Southwark decided to release Monitoring Report 3 (September 2021) on 13 December, just two days before the 15 December deadline for public responses to the statutory consultation report. After many of us emailed to point out the absurdity of giving people just 48 hours to assimilate all their latest claims, Southwark extended the final deadline to 22 December. The first big question, of course, is why they weren?t able to release this report on September data in October. Or even November. Why halfway through December? Is it just that ? because the Dulwich decision must be taken by 29 December 2021, 18 months after the first of the experimental traffic orders went in ? they didn?t want anyone raising difficult questions at the last minute? The second big question is why the raw data and methodology have still not been published, despite the Leader of the Council?s promise to do so in July 2021. The latest September 2021 report includes a document called ?Monitoring Study FAQs and Methodology Step-by-Step? but this describes the general approach rather than giving any specifics. For example, we still have no information about which baseline data sets are being used for each monitoring site. Baseline data is crucial. You can make current figures look like huge increases or huge decreases ? whatever suits your purpose ? depending on which baseline you choose. As we showed in our September report (?Can we trust Southwark Council?s July 2021 Interim Monitoring Report on the Dulwich Streetspace measures??) Southwark?s claim that cycling had increased on Calton Avenue by a startling 231% reduced to just 8% when the appropriate baseline count was used. So what does the September 2021 data show? With no transparency about what has been compared with what, it?s not easy to analyse the figures. But we can make a few key observations: 1) As we pointed out in our November 2021 report, ?Why the data doesn?t add up? (hardly any of the questions we raised there have been answered), no attempt has been made to think through the impact on the data of local or national events (apart from Covid-19), from new year groups joining Charter School East Dulwich, to the petrol crisis in September 2021. 2) If ? as the Council says ? traffic across Southwark is still down by 7%, it seems that traffic on external roads (reported as down by 3% in the Dulwich Village area, down by 1% in the East Dulwich area, and down by 5% in the Champion Hill area) has actually gone up. 3) Pedestrian numbers are presented independently of any pre-LTN baseline data at all. Without this, how can anyone know whether more or fewer people are walking through key locations since the road closures went in? 4) Data from Dulwich Common, the Dulwich section of the South Circular, has not been included. Southwark gives a number of reasons for this (it?s a TfL road, there?s a section missing, etc). However, Dulwich Common is a key external road used by displacement traffic. By excluding this data, Southwark is not providing the full picture. 5) Finally, data is still not being presented clearly or transparently. To demonstrate this, we focus on East Dulwich Grove, described in the report as ?a key external road?, which has around 4,000 children being educated and cared for at the numerous schools (and pre-school nursery) along its length. Two points to note: Substantial increases in traffic on this road (26% from September 2019 to September 2021) are outlined in a table in the report, but are missing from the associated infographic. Why? Because the increases don?t support the story of LTN success that Southwark is trying to tell? Against the background of these substantial increases, it turns out that a third ATC (Automatic Traffic Count) monitoring site was introduced a few months ago in September 2021 (see page 29 of the overall report). This new ATC is located in the middle of East Dulwich Grove, by the Tessa Jowell Health Centre. Because it?s a new site, there?s no baseline data. However, the September 2021 figures have been set against 2019 figures from ?a comparable location? (it?s not stated where this is), and seem to have had an enormous influence on Southwark?s thinking. In September, Southwark was convinced that a timed closure was best at this location, in order to relieve pressure on East Dulwich Grove. (As it said in its original FAQs, ?The timed nature of the restriction ensures that traffic is distributed more evenly across the area whilst protecting active travel times to schools.?) It has now had a complete change of heart, apparently entirely due to data from the new ATC monitoring site and its unnamed ?comparable location?. This shows ? amazingly ? that traffic in the middle of the road went down between 2019 and 2021, even though traffic at either end (the Dulwich Village end and the Goose Green end) went up. This strange and inconsistent result couldn?t be clarified by looking at figures for Melbourne Grove south itself (see page 87 of the ?Traffic Flow analysis? report) because the data ? for some unexplained reason ? was ?too poor to analyse?. The Council appears to have been unwilling or unable to investigate further, preferring instead to revert to the original 24/7 closure (see point 14 in the report on the statutory objections). Does this level of muddled thinking inspire confidence? Is the data leading the decision-making ? or is it, perhaps, the other way round? All the way through the Streetspace process, Southwark has made it very clear that it prioritises its interpretation of the data over the views of the majority living and working in the Dulwich area. So when the data is odd, or missing, or misrepresented, it begins to feel as if rational, fair and proportionate decision-making has completely disappeared. Next Last chance to object

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets is Rockets...ha ha not sure quite how > to > > take that.... > > > > Anyway, what many people struggle with in > respect > > to Rachel Aldred is that she led policy for the > > London Cycling Campaign, which has been > > instrumental to lobbying councils for LTNs, and > > now writes research reports, many of which are > > funded by TFL or organisations set up by TFL, > > that tell everyone how good LTNs are. > > > > That is a glaring and obvious conflict of > > interest. > > So if TFL commissions independent academic > research it?s automatically compromised? What are > you talking about? You don?t want them to fund > research into transport in London? > > In truth, you are questioning her probity and > effectively accusing her of research misconduct. > Make a proper complaint if you believe it and > present the evidence that she has acted improperly > so that it can be investigated, instead of the > online smears and innuendo. > > Heartblock has denied that she is an academic with > over 25 peer reviewed papers, (in response to a > general thread questioning her credentials). As > someone who claims to be an academic of some > standing and who has implored others not to attack > the person, but to look at the data, it?s actually > outrageous. > > I invited him to simply acknowledge that he has > made a misleading statement about another?s > academic output. But he insists first on doubling > down and repeating it, then trying to reframe his > accusation in a way tagt is quite disingenuous, > and lastly has tried to deflect and ?move on?. > > It?s not good enough. But it's not independent research is it....it's written by someone who has managed policy for the LCC who helped shape their LTN policy? That is not independent and there is no way you can argue against that it isn't a conflict of interest. And that is why so many people dismiss her research as she has a vested interest and her relationship with the LCC completely undermines her independence. To be honest, I can't work out why you keep digging this up and going back to it - it's so fruitless.

Rockets is Rockets...ha ha not sure quite how to take that.... Anyway, what many people struggle with in respect to Rachel Aldred is that she led policy for the London Cycling Campaign, which has been instrumental to lobbying councils for LTNs, and now writes research reports, many of which are funded by TFL or organisations set up by TFL, that tell everyone how good LTNs are. That is a glaring and obvious conflict of interest.

EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ashbourne Grove has become the driveway to > Melbourne Grove South, we have had an increase in > traffic, speeding and pollution - all the multiple > cars, vans and delivery trucks. > > The residents of Ashbourne Grove were promised our > views and concerns would be considered when the > proposals were reviewed, this seemed fair as we > were the ones adversely affected. > > What happened? When Councillor Rose visited > Melbourne Grove South she was taken into a > pro-barrier house and other residents were stopped > from approaching her ? how is this is fair and > transparent? > > Low traffic neighbourhoods do work but not the way > they are being implemented in East Dulwich. > > If Melbourne Grove South want their barrier and > the council are serious about climate change and > active travel, they need to remove all the parking > between Tell and Ashbourne Grove. That section of > road should be reclaimed and made into a bike shed > and a community garden with a bike track through > it. Strangely that option has been soundly > rejected by the ?local? residents every time it > has been raised. It seems a few are trying to protect their gains at the cost of everyone else. It's shameful that this is allowed to happen under Labour's watch.

No Rahx3 we are questioning why the council's plan to move the closure on Melbourne Grove has been changed and what /who influenced that decision and why the council seems happy to make u-turns (no pun intended) to appease some on Melbourne Grove yet won't hear or consider anyone else's concerns. Look at the bigger picture, you can see how the council works from the statement from the report on how they are justifying the u-turn on the Melbourne Grove relocation of the closure, which I have pasted below again (although this is a reference to the initial consultation before you accuse me of talking about the removal of the measures completely). That the turkeys didn't vote for Christmas comes as no surprise but the bigger concern is that the views of everyone else were ignored to keep the turkeys happy in the very first consultation.... For the few, Not the many...... Overall the response from the consultation regarding the measures on Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent showed a preference for the measures to be removed. However, the measures were popular with those who were residents of the filtered streets.

This bit of that order speaks volumes: Overall the response from the consultation regarding the measures on Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent showed a preference for the measures to be removed. However, the measures were popular with those who were residents of the filtered streets. I wonder how much pressure was exerted by those same residents on the filtered streets to not move forward with the revised measures? Is the Melbourne Grove Resident's Association now rivalling Southwark Cyclists for airtime and influence with the council? How much longer can they use the cover of Covid for the experimental/temporary TOs - it seems ludicrous they can still invoke them two years on - will this ability to avoid talking to residents continue forever - is this not a classic example of a council abusing the powers given to them in a time of emergency?

Heartblock - agree with all of the above and I would do more to incentivise people to move to electric vehicles - if they have to drive far better they go electric. I would go further and say road pricing on all roads. I would also look to focus on providing cycle and walking infrastructure that is not in isolation and forms part of a joined-up London-wide approach to helping facilitate modal shift (but also being cognisant of the challenges of trying to turn London into an Amsterdam)

SE22_2020er....just dream of what could have been!! ;-) And congrats to Rahx3 for shattering the Christmas Truce with the shots fired in the wee hours of this morning! ;-)

Southwark News reports from the scene.... There was an initial awkward stand-off. Approaching along Dulwich Village the anti-LTN lobby arrived in a fleet of diesel belching monster trucks all sporting wood burning stoves and announced their arrival by driving over the planters. The occupants, bloated on freshly shot game, emerged taking huge intakes of breath from freshly filled petrol cannisters. The pro-LTN group unicycled down Calton avenue and dismounted outside Au Ciel. Dressed entirely in Southwark Cyclist lycra the unhealthily emaciated riders dismounted with a resounding click of pedal clips on concrete. They walked towards the anti-LTN groups with an odd gait as if they had recently accidentally sat on something quite sharp. Cllrs Newens, Leeming, McAsh and Rose stood uncomfortably in no man's land between the two groups, shifting nervously from side to side and lamenting the days when the council could implement projects without anyone caring.... The tension was broken when the LTN Peace Quartet (featuring Rahx3, Malumbu, Heartblock and Rockets) struck up the LTN Peace song on a flute, harpsichord, tuba and Hawaiian ukulele...

In all seriousness if I was the council I would be getting both sides together and walking/cycling around the area to get the views of both sides of the arguments so everyone can hear the opposing sides' view on what is happening at certain key hotspots in the area. The council could also share their rationale for doing certain things. Perhaps we could organise it and call it the Dulwich Resident LTN Peace Walk ;-). The big problem both sides have, I think, is that the council is hiding from the residents on the issue - we have no forum to discuss with them and air our grievances so it looks like the council is operating within its own insular bubble where only the likes of Southwark Cyclists or LCC get invited in to the inner sanctum where the policy decisions are made that are affecting everyone in the area.

But they are not disingenuous are they - you are suggesting cars are the problem but the data shows private car ownership and usage is declining in London and that the biggest problem in London is the growth of LGVs and PHVs driven by the online "mobility as a service" economy? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not correct. On your cycle ride during rush hour you may see more cars but that doesn't mean they are the sole problem and until you start trying to manage the problem in it's entirety you will never solve the problem. You are highlighting why we are in this mess because the council got seduced by the bike lobby idea that the private car was the root of all evil (fossil fuel or electric) and they implemented the cycle-lobby's grand plan as part of the war on cars and it was downhill from there. How do LTNs deal with the growth in LGVs and PHVs?

How many pages of hyperbolic drivel will it take > until people actually understand that the root > cause of the problem is the number of journeys > that are being made by car and the number of cars > that we've allowed to take over our streets and > absolutely not the LTNs. This just shows the blinkered view of the problem that so many have that is utterly paralysing the opportunity for rational debate and analysis - vehicle miles is not just about the car (private car ownership and use has been declining, albeit slowly, across London for years) but the huge rise in LGVs and PHVs has been driving the vehicle miles up - and LTNs don't do anything to deter that problem. When you start understanding the problem you can try and fix it but if you focus solely on the private car you are missing the bigger picture.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those who are interested in what's actually > happening, rather than desperately looking for > anything that might be spun to support a prior > belief. Here is a summary of what's been > achieved: > > Assumes advert voice over voice.... *a liberal dose of council spin may have been applied to the numbers therein and users are advised to treat the numbers with caution. Other analysis may also be valid and you should seek advice from a professional without a vested interest....

Absolutely agree that the effect of bad drivers has much worse consequences than bad cyclists and this story (that someone posted elsewhere) highlights the absolute worst of some drivers. But it also demonstrates there are bad eggs on both sides and you can see that there were moments that both could have behaved better and de-escalated the situation. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/14/motorist-jailed-for-running-over-cyclist-who-spat-on-his-car?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2kdScweEgMq3rQIIPlOYqvs9ImMM3NiU_rmhRln4WEcSA7T4LQ6hqg27k#Echobox=1639485222 Cyclist hits car and cycles off Car driver goes to remonstrate with cyclist about the damage caused to his car Cyclist spits on man's car Car driver loses it and uses his car as a weapon and, deservedly, goes to prison.

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on now you are saying that two thirds of East > Dulwich Grove has had an increase in traffic! > > Are you sure this a "good thing" ?? CPR - it's always a case of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" with the pro-LTN lobby! Time and time again their claims are torn apart by people looking at the detail for themselves and it's often a case that the more the pro-LTN lobby talk the deeper the hole they dig (I refer you to Rahx3s 20% reduction along EDG statement which three messages later they have to admit is not true as the two other parts of EDG have increased traffic numbers). This is the worst situation for the council, and why they are so nervous as they know people will look at what they are putting out there (on this and everything moving forward), because the trust in them has been so eroded by this process. They can't get away with pushing things through without their constituents looking at it in minutia. They have made a huge rod for their own backs.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would rather that cars didn't cut pass the > entrance to East Dulwich Charter on Melbourne > Grove. It's instructive that you were arguing > against the LTN on the grounds that it supposedly > increased traffic outside the school, but now > argue that cars should be encouraged to pass the > school rather than drive an extra couple of > minutes to avoid it. It's clearly better to have > less traffic and more people walking and cycling. > It's clearly better to have cars avoid driving > passed the entrance to a school and yes, if that > means a 2 or 3 minute diversion further along the > road in order to avoid it, I do think that's > preferable. > > You didn't answer my question about whether the > number of kids walking and cycling to school would > increase or decrease if the LTN was removed, but > up to you. Rahx3 but I am not arguing that am I? Really you do seem to be tying yourself in knots trying desperately to make a point that doesn't exist. What I want is less traffic for everyone - not less for some and more for others. I want people to be able to walk and cycle safely and to answer your question I am not convinced the LTNs have had any positive impact on modal shift - I think the pandemic was responsible for that and I think the council needs to remove the LTNs but then put measures in that protect modal shift (especially walking that they seem to have neglected).

Rah - EDG South is up, EDG East is up , EDG Central (miraculously) is down. So to say traffic is down on EDG is complete nonsense - the council alleges it is down on one section. Again, do you think it is fair that some are getting less traffic and some are getting more along the same stretch of road? I answered your question. Stop pontificating (but we have seen more than enough times that the pro-lobby aren't good under cross-examination!) ;-)

Rahx3 - you're avoiding my question.....again.... They have reduced traffic on the closed roads and increased them on the displacement routes (that is clear from the data). Active travel was at 68% in Dulwich already and was probably even higher due to the pandemic before the LTNs went in - the active travel gains solely because of the LTNs will be negligible (maybe a low single-figure %) and I am afraid more children cycling to JAGs/JAPS and Alleyns who used to walk is not enough to justify the chaos and misery being inflicted on others. Now, in case you missed it here is my question to you again: And to that end let me ask you a question - do you really think the measures are working and fair if Goldilocks can herald the "success" of the EDG Central "reduction" numbers whilst Heartblock sees them as a failure because 100 yards up the same road in either direction traffic has increased by over 25%?

Unfortunately there are bad eggs on both sides who give all of the good ones a bad name!

Rahx3 - removing LTNs would increase traffic on the roads that have been closed to traffic but would reduce traffic on roads that have been a displacement route for the closed roads. Would it increase overall traffic numbers - I very much doubt it - it would just redistribute the traffic to the levels it was at before? Remember, private car ownership is declining in London, what is increasing is PHV and delivery vehicles so LTNs don't magic that away with LTNs - so you need measures to tackle that or measures to reduce the environmental impact of that if you can't get it to go away. If the council puts in proper strategic area-wide measures to reduce the reliance on the car and to promote walking and cycling then I do believe it would decrease traffic and increase walking and cycling (but remember walking is already the most popular form of transport for people making local journeys in the area). But I also think we have to be realistic - something the council seems incapable of doing. What you forget is that these measures are designed to, ostensibly, reduce pollution but have been skewed by lobby groups to be about reducing vehicle use - all vehicle use whether they pollute a lot or not. LTNs are not the solution in isolation - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that. The problem is the council got seduced by the pro-LTN lobby groups (namely the cycle groups like the LCC and Southwark cyclists) into closing roads and using Covid and the need for social distancing as the underhand air-cover to roll them out without any engagement with the community as they had failed to get a consensus that these were the right measures during their OHS consultations. It was clear to many of us from those OHS days that all LTNs do is move the problem elsewhere and increases pollution - many have been consistent in that position since the outset. And to that end let me ask you a question - do you really think the measures are working and fair if Goldilocks can herald the "success" of the EDG Central "reduction" numbers whilst Heartblock sees them as a failure because 100 yards up the same road in either direction traffic has increased by over 25%?

Don't...I just got off the train at North Dulwich and there was one lady in our carriage who was not wearing a mask - annoying enough I am sure you'll agree. She then proceeded to unchain her bike from outside the station and then cycled off with no helmet and no lights on Red Post Hill to the traffic lights and the on to Dulwich Village. A car trying to turn left at the lights nearly took her out as they had no way to see her as she had no lights. Some cyclists are an accident waiting to happen.

I had the same but, like you, I registered to receive the updates. I wonder how the council are going to inform the thousands of people who received the mail shot but have not registered for email updates. Maybe they are relying on ESP. Honestly, this council is beyond reproach. Yet still, people will come on here and defend them and claim this is a genuine oversight. At what point do we have to question Cllr Williams' leadership and whether he is fit for the role?

But Rahx3 I am not saying that am I? What I am saying is that there is increasing evidence that, following pressure from Melbourne Grove residents, the council has created a new set of figures to help justify not making their proposed changes to Melbourne Grove thus continuing to inflict continued increased congestion and pollution on other streets in the area whilst appeasing the residents of Melbourne Grove who have been central to the support of LTNs. The fact the council removed the Jan 19 data from their website certainly suggests they were trying to hide it. The fact it then reappeared with their new Sep 19 figures magically added also suggests they were trying to bury something and deliver a very different message. Do you have anything, beyond the usual pro-LTN blah blah blah, that you can counter that accusation?