West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, yogiandbubu said:

I have seen the flyer and I have to be honest, I don’t understand which one ( or all) of the proposals you are against to. 
There are data collected on local traffic through the years (official data monitoring published by the council) and we had so many consultations about these changes when everybody had the chance to reply to.

Now that they have finally decided to do a trial to see what works best and, as they say, are ready to modify them if necessary, I really don’t understand what this complain is about.

the traffic is already displaced to side roads where cars speed knowing there is no control . We’ve had so many car accidents in the area and some very serious. Crossing the road has become impossible.

I can’t believe you think that the current situation is fine.

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

Unfortunately, I suspect the answer to your first question - which elements of which of the three proposals are being opposed, is: The detail is unimportant, it's just opposition to all and any change.

With regards the current situation - clearly there are no counter proposals, so, yes, that suggests they're fine with it.

The sad fact is, it's easy to support the status quo, no matter how bad it might be... not so easy to try and actually improve things.

Edited September 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[raptortruckman69]

This is stupid the council needs to decide if electric cars are good or bad and stick with it. It's turning into an Orwellian 4 wheels (if they are electric) good two wheels better.

[GOP]

 The arrogance of the West Dulwich Action Group is quite staggering. The irony of them using spurious data to challenge the council’s spurious data is not lost on me. They keep bandying around this figure of 68% of residents opposing the LTN. This is a complete fallacy. Only a minority of local residents actually completed the consultation and of those, 67.4% said they were not happy, so in truth, it is a minority of local residents who oppose the scheme. Furthermore, the other stats on the posters have no source or validity and are clearly designed to cause fear and anxiety. The action group went from querying the LTN to outright willing it to fail and the hysteria they have whipped up is beyond the pale.

I am no fan of Lambeth by the way and clearly the consultation was not ideal and everything is either delayed or half arsed but at least they’re doing something. The same residents who are now kicking up a stink are the same ones who have been complaining about traffic, parking, road rage and pollution for years. However, because the scheme that has been implemented does not entirely suit their privileged lifestyle they are furious. 

I have lived in the on the West Norwood side of the West Dulwich ward (formerly Thurlow Park ward) for 25 years. The profile of our road has changed significantly I would say in the last 10 years. We have several households who own 3 cars on our road despite the fact most properties are terraced and no one has a drive way. There are several huge 4 x 4 cars as well as a motorhome which never moves. You’d think it was Snowdonia or something! There is a palpable sense of entitlement in the area and it’s obscene how they have raised 10’s of thousands of pounds to serve their own agenda. This money could be much better spent improving infrastructure, waste management, social care or even just being donated to local charities. 

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, GOP said:

 The arrogance of the West Dulwich Action Group is quite staggering. The irony of them using spurious data to challenge the council’s spurious data is not lost on me. They keep bandying around this figure of 68% of residents opposing the LTN. This is a complete fallacy. Only a minority of local residents actually completed the consultation and of those, 67.4% said they were not happy, so in truth, it is a minority of local residents who oppose the scheme. Furthermore, the other stats on the posters have no source or validity and are clearly designed to cause fear and anxiety. The action group went from querying the LTN to outright willing it to fail and the hysteria they have whipped up is beyond the pale.

I always find it interesting when the argument used here is wheeled out.

A percentage of a small subset of residents objected based on those who responded. Therefore it doesn't represent everybody. 

It's actually using the same logic as recent highlighted surveys did which cited x% of people surveyed agreed or disagree with the results.

These surveys are based on a small subset of people, normally around 2,000 who bothered to answer the question.

Therefore before dismissing objections because you say only 68% of x residents who responded (for example) in an area objected, make sure that you also apply that same pinch of salt to official support of schemes that say things like. The majority of residents like LTNs (again based on a small survey subset) 

Statistics are fun ! 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

6 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Statistics are fun! 

It’s hard to be sure - you don’t cite any sources whatsoever for any of your data…

West Dulwich Action Group says “67.5% of residents object to the plans”. Source of the claim is here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWpc2bQWQAAQzwf?format=jpg&name=large Source of the data is unclear to me.

[Spartacus]

Billy 

I'm not supporting or citing stats 

I'm simply pointing out that dismissing a consultation result because only a small no of people bothered is akin to dismissing a (for example) tfl survey that supports or objects to something based on only a handful of londoners responding. 

You can't be high handed with one and not the other.

[malumbu]

GOP made some fair points and lives in the area.  You dismissed their post immediately.  Can you go back and consider/comment on the other things they said?

[Spartacus]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

GOP made some fair points and lives in the area.  You dismissed their post immediately.  Can you go back and consider/comment on the other things they said?

No 

That wasn't what I was highlighting 

I didn't dismiss the post, I simply pointed out that trying to dismiss a consultation with only a minority responded is contradictory compared to accepting a positive response where only a very tiny minority of people are surveyed.

One result is as important as the other!

[raptortruckman69]

Oh come on everyone knows the silent majority don't support LTNs. So if 67% or whatever replied saying they don't like them then an even higher number in reality must object.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

I didn't dismiss the post, I simply pointed out that trying to dismiss a consultation with only a minority responded is contradictory compared to accepting a positive response where only a very tiny minority of people are surveyed.

Dismissing results of a consultation on the basis of a "small subset of the actual number of residents" is a path walked by those who don't agree with the outcome. A bit like the "a consultation is not a referendum" claptrap - only ever used when the result you want isn't delivered and you need something to justify why you are ignoring the views of residents. 

 

Edited September 12 by Rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

 

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

One result is as important as the other!

The second "result" you're referring to is a hypothetical one invented by you for the sake of argument. 

[GOP]

Just to clarify, I am no way dismissing the consultation. I was just highlighting the fact that the WDAG's poster was misleading in stating that 67.5% of residents opposed when only a minority had actually opposed the scheme via the consultation. Clearly lots of people are against it, hence why they have raised over £20k for the judicial review but I do not believe, nor is there any evidence that the majority of local residents oppose the LTN.

[Spartacus]

36 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

 

The second "result" you're referring to is a hypothetical one invented by you for the sake of argument. 

The second result ? 

I didn't give an actual example but I was pointing out that official surveys where they say thing like "94% of londoners or people" are normally based on surveys of say 2,000 and extrapolated up to then represent the population. 

The same method should therefore be used on consultations where only a small number of eligible residents responded 🤔

Therefore to respond to GOPs last post, there is no evidence but statistically speaking if we extrapolate the small no of responders to represent the consultation area then the conclusion is that the 68% is representative of the whole. 

It's how surveys and consultations have to be used 

But 8 out of 10 EDF posters agree with me, based on a survey of 5 people 😉 

[Penguin68]

57 minutes ago, GOP said:

Just to clarify, I am no way dismissing the consultation. I was just highlighting the fact that the WDAG's poster was misleading in stating that 67.5% of residents opposed when only a minority had actually opposed the scheme via the consultation. Clearly lots of people are against it, hence why they have raised over £20k for the judicial review but I do not believe, nor is there any evidence that the majority of local residents oppose the LTN.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work this way. The majority of residents who have expressed an opinion have opposed the scheme. That is the only thing that you can say about this poll. It may be that those who didn't participate had no feelings about the matter, but then what you can say is that 'the majority of those who had and expressed an opinion' were opposed. Being indifferent is not the same as supporting the scheme.

In practice, and from my own position, the way that Southwark plays fast and loose with 'consultation' results, I can well imagine that those not very very opposed to the scheme may well feel that whatever they say 'against' it won't really matter. By saying 'but I do not believe, nor is there any evidence that the majority of local residents oppose the LTN.' you are clearly trying to imply that the majority of residents secretly support the scheme - but there is no evidence or logic to support this. Only if it had been properly conducted market research, with proper sampling and statistical analysis, could you draw or imply any position at all about those who did not participate. 

However common logic does suggest that if a majority of those who did choose to participate had one view, then it would be difficult to suggest that 'really' the opposite view prevailed, unless of course you were a Southwark councillor- based on my experience of Southwark Council  (or probably, and in the case of West Dulwich, a Lambeth councillor).

Edited September 12 by Penguin68

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

The second result ? 

I didn't give an actual example

No, exactly. For all this stuff about being so concerned about accuracy, you're complaining about a hypothetical scenario that you yourself invented. There is nil data or sourced facts in your posts.

[yogiandbubu]

I remember seeing and respond to at least 3 consultations from Lambeth in the last three years( the results are published in their website) but I’ve never received/ seen any other type of consultation from local residents and I wonder why. Is it maybe because I live in one of the roads badly( really badly) affected by the traffic and, therefore, the survey was intentionally not presented in our street?

I’d like to know:

- when and where(in which roads) was the survey conducted

-what were the questions and the type of responses expected(e.g: binary yes or no or there was a space for comments)

- who analysed the results and how

- were the results published and where

- were the issues(CPZ, LTN and health route) clearly explained and distinguishable 

The LTN is a TRIAL to find a solution for some of the roads that have been seriously affected by the traffic and speed of cars. The council has stated so many times that they will modify the streets closure during the trial based on live results and traffic movements.

I don’t know why the word ‘community’ is even used in these posts. 
There is no willingness to understand your neighbour's issues and try to resolve them  if that means observe the effect of a trial to understand what works best  for everyone. Everybody has the right to live in a safe road. These flyers and local associations seem to work against this right by preventing to find a solution and blocking every proposal.

Misleading ways of presenting the facts have created confusion and anger in the area. 

The best thing the council could come up with was the LTN Trial trying to keep into consideration the whole area and the potential effect that it could cause by assessing real changes of the traffic and drivers habits. But no, that was not good enough. Better say no to everything and who cares about our neighbours!

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work this way. The majority of residents who have expressed an opinion have opposed the scheme. That is the only thing that you can say about this poll. It may be that those who didn't participate had no feelings about the matter, but then what you can say is that 'the majority of those who had and expressed an opinion' were opposed. Being indifferent is not the same as supporting the scheme.

GOP didn't say that those who had not responded to the consultation supported the scheme.

You are correct that one can only state that the majority of those who did respond expressed opposition. This is NOT what is being stated by the 'action group'. They claim that 67% of residents oppose the changes, which is simply not true. They also make a number of other, completely false or unevidenced claims in their literature. most egregiously imo, claiming that there will be an increase in collisions of over 1000%+.

It's been stated many times before, but a consultation is not a referendum. It is not the council's job simply to take instruction from a minority of people who feel very strongly on a topic, especially when that instruction is to change nothing. 

There are clearly issues around these streets that the council does need to fix.

Edited September 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

53 minutes ago, yogiandbubu said:

The best thing the council could come up with was the LTN Trial trying to keep into consideration the whole area and the potential effect that it could cause by assessing real changes of the traffic and drivers habits.

Unfortunately this is not the way council's work. They only ever present data that supports their agenda to get what they want. Representing the views of the community is a hollow soundbite and actually, in many areas, not part of their agenda from the outset.

 

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's been stated many times before, but a consultation is not a referendum. It is not the council's job simply to take instruction from a minority of people who feel very strongly on a topic. 

Ha ha...there we go again....everyone knows the "not a referendum" argument is just a weak smokescreen to try and spin away from the fact that residents have rejected their proposals - it's the pre-cursor for ignoring residents.

And it is not a minority  - it was the majority of people who responded to the mechanism the council initiated to gauge, and then listen to (which they are obliged to do), the thoughts of those most directly impacted by the plans they are proposing. How many times have we seen it where the council mailshots residents they, in the majority, respond saying "no thanks" and the council and their supporters then say "yeah, but, yeah, but, no...that's not a referendum". It's called moving the goalposts. 

And as the Local Government Association https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/communications-and-community-engagement/resident-communications/understanding-views-2 describes consultations as this - something a long way from anything these councils have been doing:

What is consultation?

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

5 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

The majority of residents who have expressed an opinion have opposed the scheme. That is the only thing that you can say about this poll.

I think that's entirely reasonable. West Dulwich Action Group's claim (mentioned/cited above) is materially different from that.

Meanwhile - has anyone been able to identify what actions West Dulwich Action Group wants to take? Do any of them relate to reducing pollution/ congestion/ injuries/ accessibility/ whatever, or is all the action just to oppose an LTN?

I could only see a Twitter account and a Facebook page which didnt tell me much. To be fair, I had trouble accessing due to my own ineptitude on Facebook and the lack of a Twitter login - others might find it easier to access info there.

[Rockets]

Has anyone asked who runs it yet....;-)

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

No, exactly. For all this stuff about being so concerned about accuracy, you're complaining about a hypothetical scenario that you yourself invented. There is nil data or sourced facts in your posts.

Think this clearly shows my point 

72% of londoners want more LTNs 

Extrapolated fron a survey of 1,035 people out of 8.9 million. Hardy enough to say 72% of Londoners !

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/09/11/70-of-londoners-want-more-low-traffic-neighborhoods-finds-new-survey/

Cyclomedia’s survey was carried out by independent research agency Multiscope in June across 32 European cities with 12,000 respondents.

 

Edited September 12 by Spartacus

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Think this clearly shows my point 

I think it clearly shows your confusion about the fundamental difference between opinion polls and consultations.

[Spartacus]

8 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

I think it clearly shows your confusion about the fundamental difference between opinion polls and consultations.

Lol 

Both ask a small subset of people a question and both can be used to extrapolate a % of the wider population think xyz 

No difference at all apart from the methodology of collecting the data!

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

QED.

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

 

Both ask a small subset of people a question and both can be used to extrapolate a % of the wider population think xyz 

No difference at all apart from the methodology of collecting the data

No, I'm sorry, a poll (market or social research) will be conducted to ensure that the relevant population is properly sampled, so that results (within confidence limits) can be determined statistically. A consultation as undertaken by a council will be self selecting within a population and where the response numbers are low analysis may be limited, even where full demographics are collected. 

Additionally the questions used in a 'consultation' will not be constructed so as to avoid confusion or bias, indeed may well effectively be rigged. Southwark asked questions on a CPZ proposal, for instance, which did not allow respondents to indicate no CPZ, just a choice of different days and times for a CPZ. 

I write as a (now retired) former member of the Market Research Society.