Rockets

I suggest everyone bombard streetspace@southwark and cc their local councillors and Cllr Williams with both their objections and their shock at the incompetence with the way this process has been handled. This is yet another diabolically badly organised part of the "consultation" and the council will keep doing it unless they think their is some form of recourse. Wilful manipulation of the process? With every turn it looks more and more like it. They are either totally incompetent or utterly devious and the fact remains that none of our local councillors care - they are just turning a blind eye.

A few friends of ours have said that the walk-in at Guys is very quick as there are so few people going to that one (although this was before the latest wave I hasten to add).

Definitely encourage the person this happened to pursue the leaving the scene of an accident. Myself and two friends were the victim of a deliberate hit and run whilst we were at university and whilst we thought it was assault etc the police told us the best we could get was dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident and the court took very dimly to leaving the scene as it was the only thing that could not be argued by the defendant (although he did try to argue he had no idea he had knocked three people into the air but watching him trying to argue that point when his rear window glass was missing and the three huge dents in the side of his car was hilarious).

One Dulwich update below. Helen Hayes is encouraged because there are fewer objections...well that's a sign of the times and a sorry reflection of how much contempt our elected representatives treat these processes....what she probably meant to say is "I am glad our manipulation of the democratic process is paying dividends, I believe if we continue to ignore the will of the majority we will prosper eventually. Comrade councillors keep up your fantastic work ignoring your constituents...the party is proud of you." One Dulwich Campaign Update | 12 Dec Dear all, Respond to Southwark AGAIN: deadline 15 December The full text of officers? responses to comments received during the 21 days of the statutory consultation on the permanent traffic orders can be found here. As you can see, 2,095 ?valid? representations were received (273 were discounted for various reasons). Overall, 435 were in support, and 1,660 objected. The result? Southwark continues with the scheme (although changing the timed closure of Melbourne Grove south to a 24/7 closure). We are, however, invited to make formal representations on the officers? report by emailing [email protected] by Wednesday 15 December 2021. Repeatedly asking people whose views are consistently ignored to comment yet again (for the fourth time? We?ve lost count) on proposals that do nothing to improve air quality but still discriminate against those who are elderly, frail and disabled; displace traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres; and damage the viability of shops and businesses is obviously just a cynical attempt to show that opposition is fading away. (As our MP Helen Hayes wrote to so many of us recently, after Southwark asked for our views on the minimal changes published in September, ?Although I have not seen the results, I understand that they show a significant decrease in the number of objections which is good to hear.?) Because this seems to be the game that Southwark is playing, please email [email protected] by Wednesday 15 December to put on record that the Council has not addressed your objections to the scheme, and is repeatedly ignoring the views of the majority. Southwark has given us no guidance on how to do this (perhaps in the hope that all emails can be discounted and declared invalid), so please feel free to forward your original objections with a covering note saying that Southwark has failed to provide adequate evidence that your comments have been properly considered. Age Speaks protest at Tooley Street Thanks to all who supported the Age Speaks protest and deputation to Southwark Council?s cabinet meeting on 7 December. There was good coverage in both Southwark News and the South London Press. With thanks and best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

Amazing isn't it how many of tbe council's notifications on all things Streetspace go missing.....we haven't had anything...

Not sure if you noticed but many (Will Norman, LCC, Peter Walker) were claiming a huge rise in cycling in 2020 on the back of the LTNs and other modal shift measures. Their grandstanding may have been premature as the figures nose-dived to below pre-pandemic levels which I am happy you are all finally acknowledging ;-). And your assumption that commuting is a fraction of what it was doesn't actually stand up to any scrutiny does it? It's hardly a fraction.....even the article you link to claims it is significantly more than a fraction....do you actually bother to read the whole article of things you post? Anyway, the bottom line is I think the measures have not had anywhere near the impact that people had hoped and a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver and the collateral damage that goes with it does not justify it (and this applies as much to Dulwich as other parts of London). Can you persuade me that the "gains" are worth the damage being done by the measures? Even the 10x gains heralded by the usual suspects but a few months ago have just gone in a matter of months (maybe you'll try to claim these were commuters who stopped commuting midway through the pandemic....). Yes there might be a few more kids cycling to JAGs and DPL every day and a few more cargo bikes around but it doesn't come close to the numbers needed for proper modal shift to be happening. P.S. You're not my mate.....just so we're clear about that I am quite discerning about my friendship group and your aggressive approach on here suggests you wouldn't qualify...;-)

This is horrendous. I am glad there are witnesses - the person concerned should push the police to get a crime number and make an insurance claim against the drivers' insurance.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much do you think has been spent on roads in > the same period? Are we questioning whether they > are a good investment? > > Again - if cycling is close to pre pandemic levels > in a pandemic when far fewer people have been > needing to travel throughout the period, then how > is this a decline in the round? No we are questioning whether the negative fallout associated with the installation of such measures is worth for seemingly no gain (or even a loss). Surely if you don't actually deliver more cyclists then the measures have been a failure - that's common-sense isn't it? Also I am questioning whether the pro-LTN protagonists were wise to herald the "10x" increase in cycling during the pandemic as proof that the interventions were working and were a success - as it seems to have been very short-lived and not anything to do with the interventions at all. On your second point, again, read the tweet - look at the second set of TFL slides he posted. Other modes of travel are increasing significantly - there is also a thought that increases in cycling during the pandemic could have been from people who use public transport who were not confident to travel on it and now their confidence is returning so they are abandoning bike travel. Bottom-line is, according to TFL's own data, cycling has declined to below pre-pandemic levels across London - despite all of the modal shift interventions within the city. Something clearly is not working.

Goldilocks - this is the point many people are making but I am glad you acknowledge that cycling is struggling to reach pre-pandemic levels. If you spend two years closing roads, installing new cycle lanes and building infrastructure to support modal shift yet the numbers of people cycling is lower than it was in 2019 then people will, understandably, question whether it has all been worth it, especially given the negative impact on other road users (especially other forms of public transport like buses). Will Norman et al touted a 10x increase in cycling in 2020..where has it gone? Did it ever really exist or has it all evaporated when lockdown ended? I suspect very soon there will have to be a pragmatic discussion on what's going wrong with these grand plans as it's clear it hasn't delivered what was intended.

I would probably look and read the tweet properly.....

Goldilocks, the DfT has published stats showing cycling has returned to pre-pandemic levels across the country. TFL has also been publishing numbers (quietly) about the downturn in cycling numbers. As I said before the problem is that Will Norman, TFL and councils got so excited by lockdown cycling numbers that they used it to herald the arrival of modal shift and used it to "validate" the LTN and cycle lane policies. Unfortunately it is increasingly clear that the rise in cycling was being propped up by people using bikes to exercise during lockdown and when lockdown ended so did the growth in cycling as life returned to normality. It was particularly pronounced in London as so much of the weekday commuting cycling stopped as people did not return to offices (especially the MAMIL types who invariably were in jobs that afforded them the ability to work from home more and had made up a large proportion of weekday cyclists pre-lockdown). Of course all of this is completely understandable but much of the new cycling infrastructure was built to facilitate weekday commuting and so was not being used a much as it should and could have been and led to massive increase in congestion for other vehicle types. This Labour councillor from Hackney is well worth a follow - one of the only Labour councillors on the planet not drinking the LTN is great Kool-Aid and he has been one the key voices challenging TFL on their cycling numbers. Here he tweets data from TFL statisticians that was presented to a TFL board meeting this week that shows the trends I have been discussing above (and remember, the chart is presenting % change and the majority of the overall cycling over the course of the year is well below 2019 levels). I have pasted the image from his tweet so you can see the TFL numbers.

But Malumbu, the point I am making is that if a huge investment is made is cycling infrastructure and cycling numbers are plummetting (I actually think it was a mistake for Will Norman to herald the increase in lockdown cycling quite so aggressively as it was likely to come back to haunt him) then it is only going to be a matter of time before the paymasters start asking questions about the value of the investment and whether it is worth it and whether anymore of it can be justified. The same can be applied locally, LTNs aren't delivering what was promised and people are asking why the council is continuing to pursue them.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually though, anti LTN posters above were using > that clickbait to complain about bike lanes. See > ab29 above. > > Thankfully, based on the actual data in the New > Statesman article it can be seen that the view > that London is the most congested city because of > bike lanes is absolute rubbish. The data that > Inrix produced doesn't show this - someone in the > organisation did a massive overreach. They have since clarified that it is a contributing factor - it's just not the biggest factor. Anyone who spends any time travelling around central London can see for themselves that there are congestion hotspots due to the provision of ever bigger and under-used cycle lanes. But isn't that part of the nudge approach so many of these schemes embrace - increase congestion to convince people to find another way of travelling? I think the reason the pro-cycle lobby has jumped on this story (and the usual suspects like Jeremy Vine and Peter Walker have been on it very quickly) is because they can see where it is leading with the rumours of a massive drop in cycling in 2021 to below pre-pandemic levels. They know that when the cycling figures for 2021 get published the narrative could change against them very quickly and there could be increased political pressure to justify any continued investment in such measures.

Legal - exactly that. The council "owns" the streets so if they want to sell space for private companies to offer e-scooter services (or any other services) then those companies have to pay for the privilege and, seemingly, for every journey made on an e-scooter thereafter. Consider it the privatisation of our street space! ;-) It goes, in part, to explain why the council are so keen to roll-out e-scooters (despite the clear issues with them) as it is a revenue generator for them and why medical staff are talking of their concerns (as they have to pick up the pieces). I would love to know how much the council makes from these companies - and others like electric charging point companies Chargemaster. I don't think the finer (financial) details of the tender results are ever released are they?

DKHB re-read my comment as that's not what I said is it? As part of the tender and procurement process for projects like e-scooter provision there will be a cost of access element i.e. the council selling its real estate (streets) for commercial companies to make money from. These tender processes are why councils across the country have had problems with bribery and corruption in the past (councillors being directors of companies winning tenders etc, people taking bribes to influence the decision) as there are huge sums, gains and commercial survival at stake.

No Rahx3 someone published research and it looks like they sold it to the media on the basis of "London is now the most congested city in the world because of cycle lanes".....which looks like it wasn't entirely accurate and which, of course, the media went with as their headline. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863

Oh my....this from a recent PACTs report...no wonder A&Es are worried by the increase in admissions. Experience from an emergency department In response to a rapid increase in incidences of e-scooter casualties, a service evaluation was conducted over a four-week period in May and June 2021 across Bristol.18 In that period 90 patients presented to all three Emergency Departments in the city with e-scooter related incidents. Of these 96% had been riding an e-scooter with 80% of those who declared how they were travelling riding hired devices. As in other studies, while the use of private e-scooters is illegal the fear of prosecution may deter riders from being honest about the device they use. The majority (71%) fell from their e-scooter, as opposed to being involved in a collision with another vehicle. Nearly 20% suffered head injuries with three patients sustaining severe traumatic brain injury, intracranial haemorrhage or a skull fracture. Only 7% of injured riders were helmeted. Over 80% suffered limbs injuries and over 40% suffered a fracture. Experience of an orthopaedic surgery team Since October 2020, an audit of e-scooter casualties has been underway at the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.17 To the end of July 2021, 92 people had presented to the Royal Liverpool and Aintree Hospital Emergency Departments and the Garston Urgent Care Centre and were referred to the orthopaedic team. Only one e-scooter rider had been hit by another vehicle. The rest were involved in single vehicle incidents having lost control of the device and then falling from it or colliding with a stationary object. Liverpool hosts Voi as their e-scooter operator and, of the people who declared which type of e-scooter they were riding, two thirds were using rental scheme devices. As the use of private e-scooters is illegal the fear of prosecution may have deterred riders from declaring the device they used. Of the 92 patients in the Liverpool cohort that sustained upper or lower limb fractures, 13 required surgery. Due to the nature of the audit, head injuries and casualties discharged home from the Emergency Departments with more minor injuries have not been recorded.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Congrats on taking the clickbait > > Evening Standard Journalist admits anti-cycle lane > angle on London being named world's most congested > city would ?get more readers? whereas economic > rebound was single biggest factor. > > https://road.cc/content/news/journalist-anti-cycle > -lane-angle-gets-more-readers-288449 I think it's clear that Peter Lees did say what became the headline. Read the note carefully. What he is saying is: "Yes I did say that but I didn't expect it to be the headline/actually appear in print". It explains why the BBC has not changed their story as they would have been one of the outlets briefed by Inrix, and, one presumes Peter Lees and no matter how much begging Inrix did they would not change the story if that was how it was briefed to them. The BBC does not take headlines from the Evening Standard and doesn't do/need to do clickbait. Interesting how the likes of Will Norman and pro-LTN publications have swung into damage limitation mode - with so much exposure they must be worried that this type of thing might stick.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tooley Street HQ is home for 2,000 staff and > is all open plan. Officers have been working from > home since March 2020. Staff were recently > informed that only 900 employees could be in the > premises at any one time. I would say that most of > the dissatisfaction with the council relates to > staff not being allowed to have face to face > contacts with local residents and not being able > to phone the council sections directly. > Councillors have only recently been allowed to > hold their surgeries. All local councils have > restricted finances as the Government have cut > back the amounts allocated to local authorities. Most other organisations have returned to the office in some shape or form (until today) - why is the council different?

Dan-the-man - thank you for your assessment - it is going to be fascinating to watch. I don't know about anyone else but I really wish Labour would stop fighting itself and try and unite to provide some proper opposition to the Tories. The far-left, left, centrist-left, Blairite nonsense has gone on for too long and has cost them hugely at the polls and ultimately cost this country dearly.

DKHB - in your response to 4 you know there was a tender and procurement process to select the 3 companies for the trials don't you - and that the 3 winning companies have about $1.5bn of VC money behind them globally to win the deployment goldrush? There's big money at stake here and TFL and the councils know this and use it for leverage.... Anyway, some reading on the issue for anyone that is interested: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/e-scooters-london Also BBC article is still up, unchanged, regarding the bike lane congestion....that suggests to me someone from Inrix did actually say that......https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863

This is going to be fascinating to watch - strap yourselves in there's likely to be one hell of a fight about to commence with local, regional and national implications.

DC - your timing was perfect....a fine example of depositioning if I ever saw one!!! ;-) Congratulations, maybe your co-depositioners can elevate you to Depositioner in Chief - a mantle I am sure you will cherish!!!!

Deposition is the act of trying to undermine an opponents position on a matter (usually by creating a distraction). - So Goldilocks was depositioning the Age Speaks group by suggesting there were not 30 people who protested at the town hall because they could only see 14 of them in the picture - Malumbu keeps depositioning anyone anti-LTN based on the "an objection based on convenience" narrative/falsehood - Rahx3 (I think it was them) tried to deposition Age Speaks on the basis of them creating a dangerous situation by blocking the road as they, and their children, tried to turn right on their bikes (which was clearing not true and a gross exaggeration) - the council tried to deposition anti-LTN folks by claiming they were a "small vocal minority". - Cllr Newens took to twitter to tell everyone that someone had put a no closures sign in her garden after the protest and how concerned she was that it alerted people to where she lived. But by using this to try to deposition on the public forum that is twitter it actually alerted a lot more people to where she lives and left many wondering why you would take to twitter to say this! - DC continually tries to deposition me by claiming I make things up.....;-) What links many depositioning attempts (in any situation not just this) is that they are often based on falsehoods and amplified with a heavy dose of moral indignation.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes - every time this group meets up or some other > variation on this group (essentially the same > people at everything) the numbers are hugely > inflated. At least doubled. Because there was > such a low turnout at this event it was genuinely > possible to count that there were 14 people there, > so shows just what has been going on. > > > > Hitmyhat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > 'around 30 people'... > > > > > > > > > One can only assume that the other 16 people > > were > > > camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time > > the > > > photo was taken. Either that or the usual > > 'report > > > double the number of attendees' approach is > > doing > > > some heavy lifting there. > > > > That is the only comment you have? This was > older > > and disabled people telling Southwark Council > how > > difficult their lives have become because of > the > > LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about > > numbers?? But Goldilocks - regardless of how many people actually were there (and during your forensic analysis of counting the number of people in the picture you have failed to do a spot the difference as between picture 1 and picture 2 you may notice different people can be seen in each photo which suggests not everyone was in the picture) is the point not that there were people actually protesting? You can try to deposition all you like on semantics but people went to the Town Hall to protest just like a lot more people from that Age Speaks group protested in Dulwich Square over the summer (so many in fact that someone on here couldn't ride their bike through the junction and screamed blue murder about it! ;-)) and then even more people protested at the Square this autumn (again which riled some people about the alleged blocking of the cycle lane which was never actually blocked). I know it riles you that people oppose these measures but good on them for doing something rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo and folding (as the council and most pro-LTN lobbyists would have hoped would have happened by now).