Sydenham Hill Consultation: a manipulative trend or a one-off?

[Rockets]

It's good to be back after my one-month forum suspension - still pleading my innocence on that one but I have served my time and am free again! 😉

Anyway, glad to see that nothing has changed since I have been away and it is good to be back and going to be on my very best behaviour so as to not incur the wrath of admin as they have told me I am on my second strike and have one left (I am sure my forum foes will be rubbing their hands in glee excitedly awaiting the slightest indiscretion to press the report button again and go running to teacher! ;-)).

Per the other thread I thought it would be good to start a thread to throw some light on the way the council is conducting consultations and how there seems to be a concerted effort by cycle activist groups to influence local transport decisions - especially during Covid and how our council seem to be using the results from those consultations as justification for spending huge amounts of tax payers money on building cycle infrastructure. I was wondering whether the same tactic was being used for the Peckham works currently being considered because when that one was first mooted in 2020 the council prioritised the responses from the cycle lobby over that of the emergency services.

Anyway, a consultation on the biggest cycling infrastructure white elephant on Sydenham Hill was started back in 2020. The council put flyers through the doors of 900+ local residents and the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists alerted their members to the consultation. The council had 123 respondents and used the responses from those 123 respondents (55 supporting the measures, 29 supporting the measures with changes and 36 not supporting the measures) as justification for the decision to proceed.

 

The results are here and are taken from the attached report:

What is interesting is the large number of non Southwark or Lewisham residents who responded (bizarrely, or perhaps deliberately misleadingly, categorised as Not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road) and how the overwhelming majority of them supported the measures when the distribution of respondents from Southwark and Lewisham are far more evenly distributed across all options. Also when you look at the responses to some of the questions for a consultation on 20mph a lot of the most popular responses were about "Provide Cycle lanes" or "Provide Segregated Cycle Lanes".

Maybe it is a co-incidence but it does look like non Southwark or Lewisham residents have influenced the consultation and gave the council the "mandate" they needed to move forward - which they duly did and then spent a huge amount of money on adding cycle infrastructure at huge cost that hardly anyone ever uses - the cost per cycle journey must be extortionate. I do also wonder whether building a cycle lane may have helped the council circumvent consultation rules given the powers that were given to them around active travel during Covid.

The challenge is of course that it is hard to limit consultations to a certain number of streets (unless of course you are the council trying to shoehorn a single street CPZ in) but it does look as if the council, and those who support the council's ideological agenda, are tilting the playing field to create an unfair advantage to get their plans through and this, often, comes to the detriment of the very people they are supposed to be representing.

I wonder if this trend is repeated across other consultations where the council has been victorious (of course, when things don't go their way they tell us that consultations are not referendum's and then make an executive decision to proceed anyway as they know what's best for us) or whether this was just a statistical one-off.

 

Sydenham Hill summary report V3 (6).pdf Consultation-response-Southwark-Sydenham-Hill-20-mph-Mar-2020 (1).pdf

[first mate]

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure.

[exdulwicher]

6 hours ago, first mate said:

I see that Southwark cyclists website says cycling in the borough is lower than average, which is an interesting admission, given the amounts being spent on infrastructure.

That's WHY infrastructure is being provided (albeit fairly limited and piecemeal).

You don't wait until there are 1000 people a day swimming across the river before you build a bridge. You - not unreasonably - point out that no-one is able to easily cross the river, let's build a bridge. 

You don't ask why a housing estate is being built in a field because no-one lives in that field at the moment - it's understood that no-one is living there BECAUSE there are no houses. 

Build it and they will come. Saying "I can't see any cyclists, why are you building a cycle lane?" is a bit like pointing at a field and saying "I can't see any cars driving through it, why are you building a road?"

[Spartacus]

Guess its like a Dutch squirel bridge 

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2017/07/why-did-the-squirrel-cross-the-road-it-didnt/

[alice]

But what happens when you build it and they don’t come?

[first mate]

Precisely, and they have already built and still we have below average interest in cycling in the borough. Having listened to a Southwark Scrutiny session looking at the cycling issue, it seems there are significant barriers to uptake which building more and more infrastructure will not address or shift.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That road was an accident hotspot and one of the ten roads in the borough identified as having a particular problem with speeding.

So 5 years ago, they introduced measures designed to slow speeding motorists, narrowing the road. This had the side benefit of also freeing up space for a segregated cycle lane. The cycle lane was not the point, but was an additional benefit.

If you actually read the TMO, you would realise that your objection (half a decade on) to a successful intervention to reduce speeds and collisions in an accident hotspot, is based on your not understanding the purpose of the scheme.

It worked in reducing speeds and accidents by the way. But I'm sure that's not important. 

[Spartacus]

Earl, your knowledge of random things including old TMOs  makes me wonder if you work for a council 🤔 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, alice said:

But what happens when you build it and they don’t come?

I think we are seeing this all over London and the response from pro-cycle lobby is so predictable - build more infrastructure. Meanwhile bikes sales are plummeting and cycling still only accounts for a tiny proportion of all London daily journeys and isn't growing any faster than it has for the last 20 years (despite the Covid bump and the millions spent on infrastrucutre) and the vast majority of those cycle journeys are actually cycle delivery drivers and Lime bike cyclists doing journeys under a mile which they could easily walk.

43 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So 5 years ago, they introduced measures designed to slow speeding motorists, narrowing the road. This had the side benefit of also freeing up space for a segregated cycle lane. The cycle lane was not the point, but was an additional benefit

But Earl, did the council get their cycle lobby mates to influence the consultation - that's the discussion of this thread. It does seem likely to me that without the intervention of Southwark Cyclists and the London Cycle Campaign that the council would not have got a mandate to make the changes and I wonder how many other consultations have been influenced in the council's favour by council friendly activist groups - how else do you explain the high number of non Southwark and Lewisham residents showing an interest in a scheme so far from where they live?

Perhaps Malumbu can tell us how they found out about the consultation as I think they said they responded to it. They do not live in Southwark so I am sure they did not get a flyer through the door about it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But Earl, did the council get their cycle lobby mates to influence the consultation

If you mean to ask whether they consulted with different stakeholder groups. Yes they did. Maybe after you read the TMO you could look up the word ‘consultation’.

 

Edited March 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

5 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Earl, your knowledge of random things including old TMOs  makes me wonder if you work for a council 🤔 

Works for the council or has the ability to do a basic google search?

I mean its all there - summarised in the 2015 scoping report and then the 2020 plan. Just search for sydenham hill 20mph.

the works were going ahead irrespective of the small cycle lane. The borough has a 20mph limit and this road was identified as one where the average speed was way in excess of that. The road narrowing and pedestrian crossing are there to reduce speeds to the speed limit and to improve pedestrian safety.

Nothing to do with the usual conspiratorial unsubstantiated bobbins from Rockets. Southwark Cyclists became a consultee, because you know, they represent some cyclists.

The rest of Rockets post just repeats a post made elsewhere and just seems to be more ill informed guff. Remarkably similar to what the nee One Dulwich partners have been posting on twitter too. Strange coincidence. 

 

[exdulwicher]

53 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But Earl, did the council get their cycle lobby mates to influence the consultation - that's the discussion of this thread.

You know how consultations work, yes?

By and large, anyone can respond. That can include, but is not limited to, residents and any users of that bit of road (or park, concert venue, gallery, school, whatever else it is you're consulting on...).

Done correctly, there is sometimes a weighting profile where the views of someone who for example lives outside the borough but visits twice a week is given less priority than a resident on the road itself - although that can open up all manner of attempted rigging where respondents claim to be something they're not which often requires data analysis, cross reference with electoral registers etc; it's how the multiple fraudulent attempts by anti-LTN campaigners were found in both Southwark and Lambeth consultations although mysteriously you don't seem to have started a thread on that...

So the various campaign groups (which again can include London Cycling Campaign, Southwark Cyclists, Make Cyclists Pay Road Tax.org, Roads For Cars Not Bikes.com) can distribute the consultation to their members and suggest they make their views known.

One Dulwich routinely do this with anti-LTN stuff, London Cycling Campaign routinely do it with pro-cycling stuff, hell even the local schools will routinely send stuff out to former pupils urging them to get behind some campaign or other.

Can I also remind you that back in 2022 you were broadly in favour of the scheme on Sydenham Hill, in fact you pointed out that reducing speed down there should be a priority:
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/311568-new-traffic-calming-and-cycle-lane-on-sydenham-hill/

Third post down. 

Edit: Also, welcome back. 😉

Edited March 18 by exdulwicher

[Rockets]

11 minutes ago, snowy said:

Nothing to do with the usual conspiratorial unsubstantiated bobbins from Rockets.

"Unsubstantiated bobbins"..."ill-informed guff" .allegedly....the actual data seems to tell a different story.....and why did Southwark categorise those 34 responses as "Not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road" - surely it should have been "not Southwark or Lewisham resident"?

 

17 minutes ago, snowy said:

Works for the council or has the ability to do a basic google search?

You're not answering the question Snowy  - perhaps we all should declare whether we are a member of LCC/Southwark Cyclists/Council employee/council consultant/any affiliation to the council/member of the Labour/Tory/Lib Dem party/have any involvement in any of the local pro- or anti-LTN lobby groups/OneDulwich/DulwichRoads etc etc etc....

I can say no to all of those. How about anyone else? Come on all, declare your interests.....

Ex- it's good to be back....;-) It's clear some have really missed me and it is so good to have such warm embraces from so many...;-)

Yes I do know how consultations work and they can clearly be manipulated so does there need to be a rethink on how they are run - consultations are supposed to be a way for local residents to have a voice on activities that directly impact them every day yet how can it be that people who don't live in the borough or neighbouring borough can sway the consultation one way or another - because this is what has happened on Sydenham Hill - and the voting distribution is oddly skewed towards support. Now, of course, even if the consultation had not gone in the council's favour they would probably have said "tough we're doing it anyway" but this process seems to have been manipulated by the lobbying efforts of activist lobby groups.

And yes I did support the initial consultation plans but my issue is whether the consultation process was manipulated (which the results certainly suggest they were) and whether this is a trend seen across other consultations too - slowing traffic is very important but the monstrosity Southwark have created on Sydenham Hill is a poor reflection on transport planners everywhere only matched by the non-council abomination that is Hunts Lip Road which reminds me of the DMZ between North and South Korea!

Remember when Southwark tried a system of having codes printed on consultation flyers that you had to enter to respond - they dropped that pretty quickly, I do wonder why they did not continue with that and conclude that they knew that without manipulation they would never get a mandate for these things from local residents. Covid Emergency TMOs gave them the initial out they needed to by-pass rigorous consultation and once those expired they had to find a way to gerrymander support for their proposals.

 

[first mate]

I can confirm I am not involved with or affiliated to any of those groups mentioned.

Edited March 18 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Earl, your knowledge of random things including old TMOs  makes me wonder if you work for a council 🤔 

No, I did a quick google search to check the facts before posting an opinion...unlike the person who started a thread to express their outrage without making any effort to understand even the basic details first.

Rockets view on the changes at the time....

On 22/07/2022 at 10:09, Rockets said:

Looks like a sensible suggestion - speed is a big issue on Sydenham Hill.

Apparently half a decade on the fact that speeding has significantly reduced is now a concern.

Edited March 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Apparently half a decade on the fact that speeding has significantly reduced is now a concern.

No, it's the manipulation of the consultation process which is the concern - that is pretty clear from the title of the thread is it not?

 

I am glad to see First Mate and I have no vested interest clouding our decision-making process when it comes to posts on this forum. Anyone else happy to play their hand....come of folks it's only fair......;-) 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

No, it's the manipulation of the consultation process which is the concern

You've not provided any evidence of 'manipulation'?

And just to be clear, are you then saying that you agree with the changes, but not with the consultation about the changes which took place half a decade ago? 

[Rockets]

Well I think I have Earl - the fact that the highest number of supportive responses in the consultation (by a country mile) came from people who lived in neither Southwark or Lewisham does indeed suggest that something unusual was going on.

If it is not the lobbying efforts of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to their membership perhaps you can share your conclusion as to how that happened?

I mean it is a little odd is it not - I mean it's sitting there in black and white?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Are you a 'resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'? Did you have a view on the proposed changes? I wonder how many people in ED might have had an opinion. Or those in Forest Hill, or Crystal Palace? 

Again - are you then saying that you agree with the changes, but not with the consultation?

[Rockets]

Sorry Earl, what's your point? Surely anyone from East Dulwich or Forest Hill, and parts of Crystal Palace, would be categorised as Southwark and Lewisham residents when responding?

 

I am saying there's a significant weight of evidence that the consultation was manipulated by people who were neither a Southwark or Lewisham resident - and the data supports that suggestion. The weight of non Southwark or Lewisham residents responding to the consultation swung it to "supports" the changes and thus gave the mandate to the council to roll them out. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't know what you're getting at. This was half a decade ago. The scheme had majority support from locals, including yourself. Are you suggesting that the views of local residents should have been ignored? That you are now no longer supportive of the changes that you once described as sensible? I don't understand what you think the issue is?

[Rockets]

Of course you don't.....I am glad to see that in the month I was away nothing has changed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you did support the changes? And presumably still do? And you accept that of those living locally who responded to the consultation, the majority expressed support?

But 5 years on you’ve decided you’re angry about it?

Edited March 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

No because if you eliminate the responses from the non-Southwark or Lewisham residents then Don't Support is the biggest response. Those 26 Support responses from people who live in neither Southwark or Lewisham swing it to Support and give the council the mandate they needed to proceed.

Whether I am supportive of the changes or not is an utter diversionary irrelevance because the discussion and thread is whether people from outside Southwark or Lewisham unfairly influenced (on the basis of lobbying by cycle lobby groups) a local consultation and the evidence is overwhelmingly that they did.

I still haven't heard any credible thoughts on what those 26 are other than non Southwark or Lewisham residents.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Southwark = 32 supported (or supported with changes), 23 did not support.

Lewisham = 15 supported, 3 did not

In total 47 supported, 26 did not. 

So again, of those living locally who responded to the consultation, the majority expressed support. You also expressed support at the time. But five years later you're angry about it. How have you got there?

Also, I read the breakdown differently to you. I assumed that the Southwark and Lewisham numbers refer to those who are a resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road (as the road has residents who fall on both sides of the borough line). The others 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road', are people who have responded from (for example) East Dulwich, Forest Hill, Crystal Palace etc. - which was the point I was making above. But it's kind of irrelevant, because any way you cut it, there was majority support.