slarti b2

ab29 Wrote: Slarti B2 is a statistician. Andrew C Actually I am a mathematician not a statistician but I do a lot of work with data and am very used to looking at numbers and comparing changes on a "like for like" basis. But to be frank, you don't have to be a numerical expert to understand that any claims of a big increase in cycling based on comparing cycle volumes from a warm, light week in June against a cold, dark, possibly wet week in December, are completely invalid.

@Peckhamside The poorly thought through Dulwich LTN's are diverting and traffic onto the boundary roads, increasing and concentrating pollution, not reducing it.

andrewc Wrote: I would prefer that someone skilled in data and statistics could advise on the available data and while showing their method and reason make a judgement which I can assess for myself. Andrew, I explained to you why some of the Soutwark figures for cycling increases you quoted are a)misleading\fraudulent (Calton Avenue)and b)Almost certainly wrong (Dulwich Village) Did you understand the reasons and, if so, do you accept that the Southwark report is biased and cannot be relied upon?

@DulvilleRes Pure whataboutery. Repsondents had the opportunity to say they would like to "retain the measure but modify\enhance it with other features" which would cover what the council is proposing to do. But only 10% wanted that option. Based on the previous behavious of Soutwark council, selecting any option other than removing the current closure of the junction would have been claimed as support for the measures. What OneDulwich couldn't anticipate was that, following the many promises of the senior council menbers to listen to local voices, Southwark would ignore and bury the results when they turned out "wrong " from the council's viewpoint. A scandal for local democracy, abetted by our dreadful local councillors who don't care for their constituents.

I hear Councillor Rose was due to have an open air meeting yesterday eveneing to discuss the planters on Melbourne Grove South. However, she then got cold feet about meeting some of the many people who are angry about these schemes and went for a cozy chat with a few of the vocal minority who support all these closures. It is depressing when local democracy can be so trampled on by our Labour Councillors

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I can see there's a lot of ambition to discredit and take away from this planned, positive change, The residents of Croxted Road and EDG don't see the increased pollution and congestion arising from the displaced traffic as positive. Neither do the older and less mobile local residents see the road closure as positive. In fact, as we know from teh consultation (depsite SOuthwark's best efforts to coneal the results) a large majority of local residents oppose the measure and only a small minority wish to retain them.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It was a rally to show support for the council?s LTNs. Were there many people there? Well, they manged to block the westbound lane of the junction ( wonder if Rah Rah will be complaining?) but, even though fairly spread out didn't take up much more space that that. About 30-35 adults plus kids who they are manipulating to try and support their cause. I recognised a few of thes minority activists from the online postings they do, looks like Mums for Lungs and Clean Air for Dulwich Village and all their supporters were there. Not a very impressive turnout but explains reflects how little support there is for these measures in the local community.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this was never a ballot, says councillor rose Well, presumably Soutwark council carried out the consultation excercise so thery would fulfill the DfT guidance that "consultation should be undertaken wherever authorities propose to remove, mofiy or reduce existing scheme". HOwever, Southwark have completely ignored the results of the consultation, to the extent that they do not even mention the results of the key questions in the recommendations. It seems to me we should be asking Grant Shapps if, in this situation, teh council should retain the funding they have recieved?

Rockets Wrote: > Was the omission deliberate or another unfortunate "oversight"? Clearly this is deliberate. Yet another item to add to the long list of errors, bias and deliberately misleading information by Southwark Council. Are these grounds for calling the decision in to the Scrutiny Commitee? Presumably, even if that happens our one-party Labour councillors will rubber stamp it rather than having the guts to do their job. Looks like the only way forward is a legal challeng.

The results of Southwark's huge consultation excercise, 65% want the LTN's removed vs 15% want them to stay, is overwhelming and comes as no surprise. It reflects the surveys carried out by local residents associations and the feedback on the councils own Commonplace map. However, in the biased, manipulative and misleading report prepreared by the Highways department there is actually no mention of these results, they have been buried in an appendix and ignored. Disgraceful.

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I seem to recall that the One Dulwich advice recommendation at the time of the consultation to> people with any kind of objection to the LTN's was to tick the box on the consultation 'return to> original state'. But can you recall why they advised that? The problem was that if respondents ticked any other boxes, the council would use that to claim support for the measures. The advice was a direct result of the manipulation of previous consultations by Southwark council officers, supported by our mendacious ( or data ignorant) local councillors. And the results, although ignored and concealed by Southwark officers in their report, are very clear; local residents wish, by an overwhelming majority, for the measures to be removed. Sadly our local councillors Newens and Leeming, heavily in hoc to minority activists groups, have shown they cannot be trusted to represent the views of their constituents. But perhaps someone at the council is prepared to engage with local residents to see if there is some sort of compromise that can be reached. It would be nice if our local MP Helen Hayes could mediate in some way but it seems she is just a glove puppet for the local Labour party councillors.

Well, we now know the results of the Duwlich review consultation. Following the lengthy consultation excercise, trumpeted by the council as a wide ranging excercise in local democracy and despite the error prone and misleading propoganda presented by the council, only 17% of local respondents wanted to keep the DV\Calton Avenue Closure and 64% wanted it removed. Remember all those promises by Southwark councillors to listen to local residents? Presumably that means the closiure will be removed? Well, it might just be that they were lying to us. We will see.

@Legal Thanks for your link re decision making process it says : "Under council's constitution, all key decisions taken by individual cabinet members are listed on the forward plan. The council publishes key decisions on the website five working days before the individual Cabinet member can consider the decision (publishing period). This includes details of the decisions, their status and copies of any relevant reports." I find it a little confusing but I guess that they are using "decision" to mean a decision to be approved/made (although the cycnic in me might say the decision has already been made. So we need to keep an eye on teh web site to see when the report will be published. Hmmmm....

Bicknell Wrote: > ask cclr rose and Ochere if data in this report is what they heard at teh meeting were local cllrs there? if not why not? Our local c'llors seem to have disappeared. Or maybe they have just retreated into a tiny road-closure loving bubble with their handful of local activists rather than engaging with and representing their constituents?

@Malumbu re your point 3. The only comments I have received from my friends about the Dulwich\Calton road closures and lengthy timed restricions are totally negative. So I was not "selectively quoting" nor is it confirmation bias. And avoiding Central Dulwich does not mean they are not making journeys. It means they are travelling round the boundary roads or, for shops, going elsewhere. These badly planned road closures are not achieving their objectives, are damaging local businesses and and are making congestion and pollution worse on the boundary roads.