first mate

Why do you feel so strongly that the issue should not be aired and pursued on this forum? Again, you are not obliged to read or contribute?

Earlier in this thread Cllr Mc Ash was adamant that no figures had been adjusted. Hmmm. I wonder if he can tell us more? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legal I believe the EDG Central data from Jan 19 > was from a different location (has the council > clarified where it was?) and then was "adjusted" > to create Sept 19 numbers. That adjustment seems > to have been adding MG numbers to EDG numbers to > create a much bigger number of cars to deliver a > "reduction" in numbers compared to new Sept 21 > data from the new site on EDG Central that had not > been previously monitored. > > But it looks like this is based on modelling > rather than actual data as the council charts > clearly show no data was collected at the EDG > Central point in Sept 19 and there is a disclaimer > to that effect on the EDG Central slide. > > If you use the Jan 19 figures alone from the old > monitoring point then there has been no > reduction. > > The creation of the EDG Central monitoring point > seems to have only been done to create the > narrative for the U-turn as it seems odd adding it > in so late into the process and going to such an > effort to create the Sept 19 figures. > > I don?t think the council has done this anywhere > else have they? > > Perhaps Cllr McAsh or one of the council's > spokespeople from Melbourne Grove would like to > clarify as it is beyond confusing...;-)

Legal, agree. We need to keep this thread open for now. I find it really odd that some posters declare they want it lounged. If they view it as so unimportant why continue to read and contribute?

I think I may detect a very deliberate attempt to get this thread lounged. So to get back on track perhaps we can return to one of Heartblock's informed posts and who I hope soon returns: Heartblock wrote "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" and "apparently this shows 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" How does traffic in the middle of a road with closed roads all around go down 20% when it is up 26% at both ends with nowhere to go - this 20% also being calculated by dubious pre-lockdown figure. It would be good if this could be explained.

Pots and kettles.

Gaming consultations is a council specialty. At the CPZ Cllr McAsh repeated over and over how vital it was each street was consulted separately. However, when MG did not deliver the necessary majority in favour of CPZ, loand behold, the council decided to divide the street in two! That's the way they roll.

You are not forced to read this thread, not even at Christmas, but understand you may want it lounged and out of the way for political reasons. Council consultations are meant to inform decision making otherwise they become pointless window dressing, as is evident with LTNs. If, as seems to be the case, the council does not listen to all residents in an equitable fashion and simultaneously relies on dodgy data to prop up the decision it does take, that is an assault on democracy.

Well Rah I believe they have eroded the democratic process and so do many others. As I said, LTNs are a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'. We'll just have to agree to disagree as neither will seemingly convince the other. I suspect many will now focus on getting the current incumbents voted out in May...not so far off.

I think one of the questions in regard to Rah was why he/she chose to cycle, with children, right into and through the area where protestors were gathered. Don't go on about dangers to children when you have made a choice to take them through a group of protestors. That route cannot have been the only route? However, thought we had done this and gone into it all in detail ages ago? To get back on thread, having seen the way the council have, wittingly or unwittingly, eroded the democratic process, both with LTNs and with CPZ, I have honestly lost all respect for them. I also feel councillors have been partial and fixated on their own agendas and have not listened as they promised they would. I am also tired of the council and its supporters trying, by whatever means, to persuade us black is white. The whole LTN fiasco is a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

Sorry Rx3 but dodgy data should not satisfy anyone.

Deeply cynical and self-serving move by the Council, what a bunch. In terms of shady data manipulation, they pulled a similar stunt with Melbourne Grove re CPZ. Roll on the elections.

Surely data should always be scoured, especially if the methodology is suspect? No true scientist should ever object to data being scoured nor robust questioning of the methodology, especially if that data is used to support apparently unpopular policy measures. The charge is that those who object are 'sheeple' and of 'confirmation bias' a case of pots and kettles it would seem.

To quote Heartblock "Quite a few Goose Green and Village residents are experts in or use statistical analysis and data science, they are very well aware of the holes in this piece of work. Consequences from improperly collected data include the inability to answer research questions accurately, the inability to repeat and validate a study, distorted findings resulting in wasted resources, misleading other researchers to pursue fruitless avenues of investigation and importantly for this report - compromising decisions for public policy."

Notice e-scooters seem to have replaced biked outside ED station.

Or DIC.

And yet Raab felt it necessary to point out that he was not present... at an event that never happened. Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Number 10 are sticking with/ doubling down on > > ?It never happened?

I remember this differently. Someone got very, very upset about alleged dangers to them and their children why cycling across the junction, because of the protest. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets wrote: > > 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! winking smiley) 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). > > ------------------------------------ > > > There you go again Rockets - making things up :)) > > > nobody 'screamed blue murder' about not being able > to ride their bike through the square. They said > they were turning off the main road with children > cycling and could not get off the main road > because people were blocking access to the square. > It was dangerous. > > Anyway glad to see you're finally calling it the > Square :)

I don't read it that way. I think it is more like reposition- as in a brand. No doubt Rocks will clarify but I for one have no problem trying to understand what he is saying

I would also contend Malumbu is wrong in his much repeated 'inconvenience' line which is, of course, so 'convenient' in supporting his/her line on posters daring to question the efficacy of local LTNs but, like you Rockets, glad he sleeps soundly at night...

CQC report indicates issues https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-565650623 In detail https://api.cqc.org.uk/public/v1/reports/7adfb214-b04e-4d6d-93d7-4506eee98aaf?20211028070142

Otto2 Agreed.

I guess I am as interested in the 46% percent who do not cite walking and buses as their dominant form of transport and knowing more about why they don't, and what impact the current measures have on them, and whether those impacts are positive or not? Of course you are correct, access to transport is not just about physical disability.

Legal, thanks for the link. At 1:40:26 Catherine Rose asserts that 52% of disabled people cite walking and bus use as their dominant form of transport. It would have been more helpful to indicate the percentage of physically disabled (as in serious mobility issues) who cite walking and buses as their dominant form of transport. As we know disability is an umbrella term for a whole variety of issues that affect individuals but do not necessarily impact mobility. It is a small point but just one example of how this council operates.