LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

It's about poor air quality, pollution, idling traffic, impact on health and public transport disruption, not 'inconvenience' - that narrative is the one that Southwark Councillors throw out on Twitter and in public meetings, when washing their so called 'green' policies for all to see. There is nothing green about creating pollution ghettos.

[first mate]

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...

[Rockets]

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).

[DulwichCentral]

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 :)

[DuncanW]

Rockets - what is meant by deposition in this context?

You use it quite a lot and I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by it.

I Googled it and could mainly find definitions of the legal term - I think that's something different, or to depose a monarch, and there is a geological meaning...

Is it just the same as 'disagree with my point of view - and I'm uncomfortable with that'?

[first mate]

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

[first mate]

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 :)

[Rockets]

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.

[DulwichCentral]

@DuncanW I can't find Rockets' definition of deposition either.

- There were a maxiumum of 14 people pictured at the Age Speaks demo - Rockets are you seriously suggesting that if there were more than that they wouldn't have done a nice big group shot? Or maybe someone depositioned the photographer LOL

People on this forum are free to point out that in some instances people complain about the LTNs as inconvenient. How is that creating a distraction or a falsehood - other than because it's against Rockets' 'depositioning' rule?

Equally, someone is free to point out it was dangerous to exit Dulwich Village, a main road, especially cycling with children, when the exit wasn't clear due to the previous Age Speaks demo.

The exit was shown to be blocked in plenty of photos posted at the demo - so (see above) - why on earth would Age Speaks not photograph absolutely everyone in a group shot at Tooley Street? Have they suddenly become less boasty?

Rockets please explain 'depositioning' more clearly so that we can follow your rules more accurately :)

BTW Not heard much about One Dulwich lately - have they morphed into this smaller group of 14 people?

[Rockets]

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!!!!

[DulwichCentral]

Ohhh! So by 'depositioning' you mean anyone that doesn't agree with you as Self Appointed Adjudicator?

Yes in that case very happy to be Depositioner in Chief :)

[first mate]

Or DIC.

[Metallic]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @DuncanW I can't find Rockets' definition of

> deposition either.

>

> - There were a maxiumum of 14 people pictured at

> the Age Speaks demo - Rockets are you seriously

> suggesting that if there were more than that they

> wouldn't have done a nice big group shot? Or maybe

> someone depositioned the photographer LOL

>

> People on this forum are free to point out that in

> some instances people complain about the LTNs as

> inconvenient. How is that creating a distraction

> or a falsehood - other than because it's against

> Rockets' 'depositioning' rule?

>

> Equally, someone is free to point out it was

> dangerous to exit Dulwich Village, a main road,

> especially cycling with children, when the exit

> wasn't clear due to the previous Age Speaks demo.

>

>

> The exit was shown to be blocked in plenty of

> photos posted at the demo - so (see above) - why

> on earth would Age Speaks not photograph

> absolutely everyone in a group shot at Tooley

> Street? Have they suddenly become less boasty?

>

> Rockets please explain 'depositioning' more

> clearly so that we can follow your rules more

> accurately :)

>

> BTW Not heard much about One Dulwich lately - have

> they morphed into this smaller group of 14 people?

I thought a few of them went in on the deputation? Anyway even if only one person turned up - and sorry for my absence - it would go to prove the point of all the elderly and disabled people worrying about getting around and having their life needs limited by sheer problems with LTNs and traffic hold ups. . A long way to walk from London Bridge, or I'm not sure how many buses would be involved, or an expensive cab being as how there are no parking places up there if you had used your car.

[DuncanW]

I think they run a train service from East Dulwich to London Bridge nowadays....

[Metallic]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think they run a train service from East Dulwich

> to London Bridge nowadays....

I was clearly talking about London Bridge to the Council offices. And who knows the effort required to get to the station at the Dulwich end? This is the problem, older people find no empathy, even when they try hard to save energy, fight against poor air quality, use public transport or even, gosh, caring about others worse off than themselves.

[malumbu]

Cheers Rocks, I think I'll get a t-shirt made up. In fact I'd happily receive one from you for Xmas. Happy to meet in the Court Lane area once lunchtime.

[ab29]

like

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Or DIC.

[ab29]

Agree. Precious space completely wasted on niche activity. Priority should be given to buses and walking.

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just to throw into the arena

>

> BBC News - London congestion: Cycle lanes blamed

> as city named most congested

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559

> 863

[redpost]

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

[tiddles]

Bottom line - ltns are creating massive congestion, stationary traffic and increased pollution. As a cyclist that is not good for me, and I imagine not good for the people who live or walk along these congested roads.

[Rockets]

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.

[northernmonkey]

The comments just aren?t true though. Here is a better analysed article that has Indix actual data included

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/transport-politics/2021/12/cycle-lanes-dont-cause-congestion-but-theres-money-to-be-made-in-pretending-they-do

[Earl Aelfheah]

Are the anti LTN folks, now moaning about bike lanes too? It's weird how they deeply 'support active travel', but oppose any measures that increase active travel isn't it?

[Rockets]

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

[goldilocks]

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.