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.

Rockets Wrote: > It is interesting that some of the shopkeepers are saying that they have lost a lot of the destination shoppers. I have spoken to friends who live outside the local area, Clapham, Sydenham, New Cross, and they all say they avoid central Dulwich as much as possible nowadays, even at weekends, because of the risk of being fined. I would expect footfall in the afternoons to be drastically down so not surprising local businesses are suffering.

march46 Wrote: > Interesting piece in the Times on Lambeth?s low traffic neighbourhoods today That is an opinion piece by Lambeth Council's equivalent of Councillor Rose. I wonder whether those cycling increase figures he quotes are as fraudulent as the ones published by Southwark?

This is so funny. Rahrahrah makes a disparaging comment insulting and belittling the demonstration by a significant number of older residents. Then is forced into endless posts twisting him\herself in knots trying to justify this with specious arguments about them and their children being unable to dismount and walk through the closed junction. But at the same time is desperately avoiding making similar comments about those pathetic and poorly attended propaganda comcerts that we council tax payers funded. Dulwich Central then chips in with their normal apparently authoritative "Facts" that are as reliable as Southwark claims of cycling increases along Calton Avenue Meanwhile, as usual, Legalalien calmly highlights areas of ambiguity, sloppiness and failure to follow procedures by Southwark Council. Classic :-)

@Dulwich Central You said "When the events were on in the square there were clear warning signs that an event was taking place and marshals in high viz jackets asking people to walk bikes through the square but not making them dismount whilst still on dulwich village. Fact. Have a look at this FB page from one of the council taxpayer funded progaganda events as the closed junction. 360 degree view. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157517348291724&set=pcb.1234948850183829 - Can you point out the marshalls in high-viz jackets? - Can you tell me where the "clear warning signs" were placed. I can't see any in the photos - Can you see people standing in the road ? If so do you condemn that? So much for your "facts".

@DulwqichCentral You do realise that, as far as the council is concerned, the junction is closed to traffic?

rarah, You said this in response to a posting about an anti LTN protest at the Calton Avenue Road closure ?a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards.? Would you have said the same about the sparsely attended propaganda events organsied by the "friends of Dulwich Square" and funded by council tax payers?

northernmonkey Wrote: > I don't think any of us think that cycling has gone up over 300% on Calton. Well, both you and I know that the claimed increase in cycling of of 301% (or 231% to Apr 21)published in Southwarks's interim report is a massive, gross overstatement, based on an innacurate and biased baseline. However, those figures have been published by Southwark Highways department in a report that will be used by the Council Cabinet (or maybe C'llor Rose?) to decide whether to keep the road closures and other measures. Do they know it is grossly misleading? Do they know that it casts doubt on many of the other claimed cycle increases in the report? Our councillors don't seem very good at analysing and interpreting data and presumably will rely on what their council officers have provided, even though it is totally unreliable. Still, if they do make a flawed decision based on this error prone and mistaken assumption of a huge increase in cycling it will make any legal challenge that much easier.

northernmonkey Wrote: > Calton Avenue Average daily cycle flow. > > Sept 18 768 >Sept 20 1039 > 35% increase. Figures from One Dulwich report. Isn't it good that One Dulwich are so open about their data, shame we can't say the same about Southwark council. And as I wrote previously, One Dulwich have actually chosen the lowest Sep 18 baseline in their report. They could instead have used the Dept for Transport's raw data for Sep 18 (901) or the estiamte for Sep 19both of which would have reduced that increase. But, in comparison lets look at Southwark's report shall we? Nov 18 ( or maybe Dec 18) 259 Sep 20 1,039 Increase of 301%!!!!!! Of course that innacurate and fraudulent "301% increase" is the sort of figure that minorty activists like to tweet to claim LTN's are working. But do you could consider that 301% figure in Soutwarks report reasonable? Or the previous 47% increase in traffic through the junction claim ? Or do you think that Southwark deceiving the public is just " a bit iffy" and fine if it supports your cause? Open your eyes.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A > segregated cycle lane down Ed Grove would be very beneficial and no doubt reduce the number of > drivers on the school run. There may be some practical difficulties but if they could be overcome that sounds reasonable. And a segragated cycle lane down Calton Avenue could also benefit cycling without the Calton Avenue closure that is causing so much congestion and pollution on the boundary roads. That is the sort of reasonable conmpromise that the Council should be considering arther than trying to force though draconaian measure based on dodgy data.

@Northernmonkey All the data is in the OneDulwich report or the links they provide; as I said they are very open so people like you and me can comment on it. How unlike Southwark council. And I repeat my question that you have not answered; How would you describe a public body and its officers (who I would assume should be objective) that is consistently and repeatedly publishing biased deceitful and misleading information in support of their policies?