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

[Rockets]

Come on Earl, like the council you're now manipulating the results.

There are three very distinct response categories  (Support, Support with changes, Do not Support) to which people are asked to respond to a plan of action published by the council. You cannot combine Support and Support with Changes and say that shows there is Support because by default someone who is saying I Support with changes is not supporting the plans as they were published. 

So whilst you are combining two seperate result groups together to get the result you want you can't do that because each has to be treated distinctly as each result needs a different path of action to be taken by the council. If you treat them in the spirit that consultations are supposed to be conducted (and strip out the non local borough residents) the result is:

 

Support: 23

Support with changes: 24

Do not support: 26

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, that's right, of those living on Sydenham Hill, or the surrounding roads and who responded to the consultation: 23 supported with no change and 24 supported but suggested some changes (and changes were made to the scheme based on the feedback, for example the location of crossings, parking etc). Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all.

Across the rest of the responses (from 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'), there was overwhelming support for the scheme.

You yourself supported the scheme at the time.

The changes were designed to address speeding in what was an accident hotspot, and have since proved successful in that aim. 

So again why, 5 years on, how have you decided you’re angry about it?

Edited March 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Why do you keep saying Rockets is angry? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

OK. perhaps it's fairer to simply ask why he is exercised about a change made 5 years ago, and which he previously supported, at this time. 

I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the  ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct, as immediately pointed out by other posters on that thread. The changes to Sydenham Hill were to address a problem with speeding, narrowing the road, to slow traffic. The space that was to be created by this, opened up the option of including a bike lane, but this was a design choice. This is clear in the TMO – a fact was pointed out more than once. An alternative would have been to narrow the road and not create a bike lane. The public consultation showed strong support for including a bike lane in the design.

For some reason, this was ignored, and Rockets took the (back to front and readily disproven) notion that ‘a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds’ as confirmation of a conspiracy.

He then declared that he would rapidly create a thread to discuss this conspiracy, and set about looking for ‘evidence’ to support the conclusion already reached. From what I can tell, the ‘evidence’ uncovered comes in two forms:

1. An organisation that represents some London cyclists were consulted on designs which included a cycle lane
2. A mis-interpretation of a table, which split results into residents of Sydenham Hill (and immediate roads off of it), categorised by which side of the road the responses come from (the Southwark side or the Lewisham side), and other responses from further afield / the wider area. The objection appears to be that support was stronger in the second group, which have been taken as proving widespread interference in a public consultation by lobby groups / activists / malign actors.
   1. Linked to this, is the fact that LCC encouraged any London cyclists with an interest in the creation of a bike lane as part of the design, respond to a public consultation.

In all of this, there are two key points that both of you seem blind to: support for the scheme existed across both groups, and 5 years later we can actually assess the success of the scheme in slowing vehicles and reducing collisions; it has worked.

Edited March 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Do you mean exercised or exorcised? Are you trying to say that Rockets is overly agitated or something like that? I don't think we should ascribe emotional states to others simply on the basis they disagree with us? 
 
I think given a number of current consultations, Rockets is possibly examining potential flaws in how data is gathered and analysed. This seems a reasonable thing to and there is nothing in his posts that indicates anger or agitation that I can see.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all.

"Only" but that was more than those who "supported (23)" and more than those who "supported with changes (24)" - when you strip out the non-local submissions - so by that measure that was the most popular response.

There is no misrepresentation of the table.

I am not angry just questioning whether there was manipulation of the consultation data by cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed.

43 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

For some reason, this was ignored, and Rockets took the (back to front and readily disproven) notion that ‘a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds’ as confirmation of a conspiracy.

@Earl Aelfheah please correct this as I have not said this. I said the central pedestrian refuge was being removed to accommodate a cycle lane/cycle advance stop - which was specifically called out in the original consultation documents (which of course no-one has been able to locate either despite telling me how wrong I am). 

The 5 year narrative is just a predictable diversion: time does not, and should, right a wrong if a wrong has taken place - just ask the victims of the Post Office scandal - there were many who were keen for time to make it go away (and before anyone tries to go there, let me save you the time, because I am not trying to compare the two in terms of gravity or importance! ;-))

23 minutes ago, first mate said:

I don't think we should ascribe emotional states to others simply on the basis they disagree with us? 

No because that could constitute a personal jibe and lead to a suspension.....;-) Everyone just needs to be nicer to each other and respect the forum rules - admin will be proud of me!!! 😉

Edited March 20 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Again, of those living on Sydenham Hill, or the surrounding roads and who responded to the consultation: 23 supported with no change and 24 supported but suggested some changes (and changes were made to the scheme based on the feedback, for example the location of crossings, parking etc). Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all.

Across the rest of the responses (from 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'), there was overwhelming support for the scheme (31 for, just 3 against)

For you to suggest that 26 people are the majority opinion expressed and then claim that there is spin going on is wild.

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am not angry just questioning whether there was manipulation of the consultation data by cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed.

Maybe not, but when you say that every Mayor of London, the Heads of GLC, London County Council "hate all drivers" it doesn't sounds a calm and rationale view to hold.

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

For some reason, this was ignored, and Rockets took the (back to front and readily disproven) notion that ‘a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds’ as confirmation of a conspiracy.

@Earl Aelfheah please correct this as I have not said this. I said the central pedestrian refuge was being removed to accommodate a cycle lane/cycle advance stop

In response to this:

On 17/03/2025 at 13:42, first mate said:

As for conspiracy theories, well Malumbu has just pointed out that a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds. Is this a new thing?

You said:

On 17/03/2025 at 14:26, Rockets said:

I don't think anyone has admitted this before but good to know that this is how tax payers money is being wasted. I wonder how much the works on Sydenham Hill cost

....and

On 17/03/2025 at 16:26, Rockets said:

Sydenham Hill works  has been dressed up as slowing traffic but back in 2020 when the 20mph consultation took place it was clear from the results of the survey that pro-cycle supporters threw their oar in to influence the results - a large percentage of local residents did not support the plans but were over-ridden by people not living locally who responded to the consultation.

You then started this thread. So I think it's entirely fair to say that you accepted first mates statement that the cycles lane was installed to control driving speeds. And it is very clear that you think there has been a conspiracy, when you talk about manipulation of  consultation data by 'cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed'. You've provided zero evidence of this.

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The 5 year narrative is just a predictable diversion: time does not, and should, right a wrong if a wrong has taken place - just ask the victims of the Post Office scandal

This is nonsense. I'm questioning why a scheme you supported at the time, you suddenly now object to 5 years later. That is quite odd. I have laid out exactly why I think you've done this - it's based on a misunderstanding of the objectives of the scheme, leading to a belief you have uncovered a conspiracy and then your misinterpreting a table to fit the narrative. To liken a well supported and successful road safety scheme to the Post Office scandal is beyond bizarre. 

Edited March 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So I think it's entirely fair to say that you accepted first mates statement that the cycles lane was installed to control driving speeds. And it is very clear that you think there has been a conspiracy, when you talk about manipulation of  consultation data by 'cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed'.

Thanks for confirming I never actually said what you accused me of saying - I will accept your apology.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I never quoted you as saying it. I quoted first mate and said that you had taken his notion as proof of a conspiracy. This is demonstrably true. You seem to forget that your words are recorded and can be referred back to. 🤣

There was no conspiracy. There was support at the time for the scheme (including from you) and it was successful in reducing speeds and collisions. The rest is just tin foil hat and the usual noise.

[first mate]

Hang on, to be accurate you quoted me quoting Malumbu on the cycle lanes controlling speed and then Rockets commented. 

Malumbu said: "Ah, good reminder to post about that cycle lane.  It's as much as narrowing the road to deter speeding, to pretty good effect.  Rather than criticise I'd congratulate Southwark for some joined up thinking."

and Earl said:"It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yup. Read it all back. 🙄

Honestly, this whole thread is just beyond parody. You’ve ‘uncovered’ nothing. A scheme to reduce speeding was bought in half a decade ago with broad support and has proven itself a success. And you’re suddenly scrabbling around looking for a reason to moan about cyclists??

…as always

Edited March 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

You implied that I had come up with a conspiracy theory about cycle lanes being used to control speed, when, as your own words and Malumbu's words indicate, controlling speed was indeed an intended consequence of installing a cycle lane. Or are you now disagreeing with that? Also, it was Malumbu that first raised this idea at all, not me.

 

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the  ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct,

Above is a reminder of what you said.

But the whole cycle lane - is it or isn't it meant to control speed- was also, according to Rockets, erroneously ascribed to him by you and he replied:

"please correct this as I have not said this. I said the central pedestrian refuge was being removed to accommodate a cycle lane/cycle advance stop - which was specifically called out in the original consultation documents (which of course no-one has been able to locate either despite telling me how wrong I am)." 

Edited March 20 by first mate

[Rockets]

In summary:

Apparently being on a thread and passing comment on what someone else said means that you actually said it as well and it can be used a stick to hit you with even when you never actually said it.

Confused? Yup, not surprised.

As I said, glad to see nothing has changed in the month I was away. No wonder admin is despairing of this part of the forum. It's probably beholden on everyone to try and up their game a bit and not descend into the cycle of nonsense that many of these threads descend into. I have been taking a new approach post suspension and suggest others do too - or perhaps admin needs to issue a few other suspensions to freshen the approach of others a little too! 😉 

I stand by everything I have said on this thread....except the things I am accused of saying but never actually did of course! 😉 

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I stand by everything I have said on this thread....except the things I am accused of saying but never actually did of course! 😉 

You've done what you always do. Cherry pick a statistic, a single point of data, the position of a single traffic count tube. Weave some wild-eyed conspiracy theory around it as "proof" of how something has been subverted or "got through". Lose any sight of the bigger picture and repeatedly double down on the nonsense.

Your hypothesis is that a public consultation was "hijacked" or infiltrated or swayed by the involvement of some unnamed pro-cycling organisation. Yes?

Let's assume for the moment that it was Southwark Cyclists, they're the independent borough branch of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC). There are over 800 members of LCC living within Southwark so if Southwark Cyclists emailed them all and said "here's a consultation, get in there quick and we'll rig it", to get a grand total of 26 "non-resident" supporters is pretty poor. In fact it actually blows your theory out of the water - if SC / LCC had emailed 800 people and said "respond favourably to this" there'd almost certainly have been a minimum of 100 responses, probably more. So the options are:
1) SC / LCC emailed all their 800+ members in Southwark (or their 12,000 members across London) and a total of 26 out of 800 (or 26 out of 12,000) of these hardcore campaigners, the All-Powerful Cycle Cabal that you keep going on about actually bothered to click a link, click a few answers and submit. Hmm. So much for the All-Powerful Cycle Lobby that has apparently infiltrated all layers of Government.
2) Your hypothesis is wrong.

You know what it's likely to be? Sydenham Hill is right on the Lewisham / Southwark border. But the ridge, just over the top is Bromley. And a bit further along, you can drop off the ridge north into Lambeth or south into Croydon. Plenty of people along the ridge will walk, cycle, get the bus or drive across borough. Maybe work in Forest Hill, live on the ridge? Maybe live in Crystal Palace,  in Forest Hill. You only have to be a few hundred metres along from it to count as "out of borough".

There's a further part that blows your ridiculous conspiracy as well. The text at the bottom says:

The majority of those who responded are residents of the Southwark side of Sydenham Hill with the next highest proportion being resident of surrounding areas. The majority of those who responded from Southwark and Lewisham support the proposals or support the proposals with changes.

I'm going to highlight this part:

the majority of those who responded from Southwark and Lewisham support the proposals or support the proposals with changes.

To me, that implies that they did what I suggested in my previous post, namely that they've applied some sort of weighting to prioritise the from Southwark and Lewisham responses and downweight the rest. Either way, whether you take those out of borough responses or not, the scheme still had majority support, either as it stood or with changes. 

Doesn't look like the All-Powerful Cycle Lobby had a lot to do with that really does it? In fact, the total number of responses suggests that very few people really cared one way or the other.

If you really want to find attempts to manipulate consultations, try looking at the anti-LTN lot, they're quite blatant about it all:

https://brixtonblog.com/2022/01/concerted-attempts-to-manipulate-brixton-ltn-consultation/
https://lastnotlost.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/consultationfakes/

 

[Rockets]

Ex- here’s where your summary falls foul; the council put 900 flyers through the doors of residents living in the immediate area and they got around 75 responses - the distribution of which was consistently even between the three response categories.

Now look at the responses from people we presume did not get a flyer (if they lived on the Bromley side of the hill) - it’s a much higher distribution towards support and supposedly happened organically without a call to action (a flyer) - that’s a statistical anomaly.

 

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

The majority of those who responded from Southwark and Lewisham support the proposals or support the proposals with changes.

 

Again this actually goes to show how the council manipulates the narrative. As I pointed out to Earl, you cannot combine support and support with changes to declare a majority. As easy as it is to say people who “support with changes”  is positive validation of the council’s plans (which you, Earl and the council are doing) you could also equally say those people are not supportive until the changes they want are presented. Just saying oh we made changes doesn’t necessarily satiate that. To be honest the “support with changes” is a free-pass for the anyone running a consultation.

 

Your illustration of the Railton LTN highlights exactly what I am saying - these consultations can be manipulated and people are trying to do so on many fronts. Clearly with Railton there were some odd submissions but if you speak to people who live there who were against the measures there is a feeling that by loosely culling nearly 35% (1,600 responses) of them they ensured they “won” the consultation - they managed to get a couple of the categories to 53% that then gave them the mandate they needed to roll it out. In any other business companies would mitigate against manipulation but councils seem loathed to do it because sometimes they like benefiting from it.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

15 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

For some reason, this was ignored, and Rockets took the (back to front and readily disproven) notion that ‘a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds’ as confirmation of a conspiracy.

@Earl Aelfheah please correct this as I have not said this.

To be clear that quote 'a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds' is a quote from first mate. I pointed out that you took that notion as confirmation of a conspiracy. You did. You said in response:

On 17/03/2025 at 14:26, Rockets said:

I don't think anyone has admitted this before but good to know that this is how tax payers money is being wasted. I wonder how much the works on Sydenham Hill cost

And then:

On 17/03/2025 at 16:26, Rockets said:

Sydenham Hill works  has been dressed up as slowing traffic but back in 2020 when the 20mph consultation took place it was clear from the results of the survey that pro-cycle supporters threw their oar in to influence the results - a large percentage of local residents did not support the plans but were over-ridden by people not living locally who responded to the consultation.

You then started this thread and started spouting nonsense about an imagined conspiracy based on several misunderstandings / misinterpretations. The main misunderstanding (which was actually pointed out to you before you started this thread, but which you chose to ignore), is laid bare in the TMO - the scheme was not about installing a cycle lane to control driving speeds. It wasn't 'dressed up as slowing traffic'.  

So don't pretend that I owe you an apology. You're words are recorded. The deflection, the attempts at misdirection, don't work. You’ve ‘uncovered’ nothing. A scheme to reduce speeding was bought in half a decade ago with broad support and has proven itself a success. The rest is just tin foil hat nonsense.

Edited March 21 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah

Once more, I responded to a comment made by  Malumbu, followed up by you. 

Malumbu said: "Ah, good reminder to post about that cycle lane.  It's as much as narrowing the road to deter speeding, to pretty good effect.  Rather than criticise I'd congratulate Southwark for some joined up thinking."

and Earl said:"It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. 
 

Confusingly, you then not only attributed the observation about that cycle lane to me rather than Malumbu but you also to contradicted yourself by saying:

Earl said "I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the  ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct"

Earlier, you had said " It's meant to slow traffic".

 

[exdulwicher]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

Clearly with Railton there were some odd submissions but if you speak to people who live there who were against the measures there is a feeling that by loosely culling nearly 35% (1,600 responses) of them they ensured they “won” the consultation - they managed to get a couple of the categories to 53% that then gave them the mandate they needed to roll it out. In any other business companies would mitigate against manipulation but councils seem loathed to do it because sometimes they like benefiting from it.

You CANNOT have this both ways!

On the one had, you've created an imaginary scenario whereby some pro-cycling organisation infiltrated a consultation (with a whopping 26 people, not exactly mass protest level...) to apparently "sway" a decision that had already been shown to be positive and this is outrageous.

On the other hand you've just airily dismissed the data-led removal of over a thousand fake submissions to another consultation on the grounds that "people felt really strongly about it". The report talks through the process used to eliminate the dodgy submissions (which I would class as "mitigating manipulation" which you seem to be in favour of) - same IP addresses, same copy/pasted responses etc, it wasn't the council going "ooh, we don't like what Mrs Miggins has written, let's bin that one off..."

You can't create a conspiracy over here <----- while ignoring the actual proven example of what you're claiming over there ------>

A more appropriate thread might have been a general "isn't it a concern about possible manipulation both for and against...?" and some ideas about what could be done about that - better engagement, more communication about what a scheme is designed to achieve, Citizen's Assembly type arrangements maybe. Although nothing will ever please some people; I'm sure in some cases you could run consultation in a person's living room and they'd probably still find a way of claiming they were out getting a pot of tea at the point that vote was made and therefore it's all a con.

[Penguin68]

Before we all get to irated about all this, it does seem likely, based on my own observation (I quite regularly have to use that road to access, eg. Croydon and places south) that it isn't being used by cyclists, at least not noticeably. I can quite honestly say that I have not seen a cyclist in the dedicated space for - well, I can't remember seeing one at all (although I do avoid rush hour when I can). 

It clearly does slow traffic down, it clearly doesn''t actually benefit many real cyclists (and indeed its topography would militate against regular both-way use, save by the very fittest).

So it was either a trojan horse to get speeds reduced on that road or (and?) it was a complete waste of money as regards meeting cycling needs - it certainly wouldn't have brought new and inexperienced cyclists out. All those encouraged to vote 'for' who weren't local wouldn't have know that, of course.  

Because it remains broadly unused its actual effect is to annoy other road users, because it is visibly pointless, and, I believe, gets the cycling lobby a bad name. It seems a greedy take of road space which isn't actually being used by its dedicated users. It turns out that when quite steep hills are in question - 'build the road and they will come' isn't actually true.

[Moovart]

In my view the worst part about it is the parking spaces placed on each side of the S shaped bend just before (or after) the pedestrian crossing by the Dulwich wood house.  I have seen a few near misses there when a car is parked.  I guess it's another strategy to slow down traffic but I think it's a risky way to do it.  Luckily the bays aren't used very often.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

On the one had, you've created an imaginary scenario whereby some pro-cycling organisation infiltrated a consultation (with a whopping 26 people, not exactly mass protest level...) to apparently "sway" a decision that had already been shown to be positive and this is outrageous.

Seemingly not so outrageous when you present evidence of wholesale manipulation of the Railton Road consultation.

 

So can we just agree that the council consultation process is incredibly vulnerable to manipulation from anyone with a vested interest and that there needs to be wholesale reviews of the process? Within that I also think there needs to be a grown-up discussion about whether councils need to treat them more like local referendum and honour the feedback within them.

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

So it was either a trojan horse to get speeds reduced on that road or (and?) it was a complete waste of money as regards meeting cycling needs - it certainly wouldn't have brought new and inexperienced cyclists out. All those encouraged to vote 'for' who weren't local wouldn't have know that, of course.  

It is the very best example of utterly pointless, ill-thought out and painfully under utilised cycle infrastructure - and really makes a point that even if you build it they may not come.

51 minutes ago, Moovart said:

In my view the worst part about it is the parking spaces placed on each side of the S shaped bend just before (or after) the pedestrian crossing by the Dulwich wood house.  I have seen a few near misses there when a car is parked.  I guess it's another strategy to slow down traffic but I think it's a risky way to do it.  Luckily the bays aren't used very often.

I agree. The road actually feels more dangerous now than it ever did as it it forcing vehicles into the path of on-coming vehicles. If you get a large van or lorry parked on that road (a lot of building work going on there now too) it becomes blocked very easily. 

Like much of the council's new road infrastructure it's incredibly badly designed.

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Before we all get to irated about all this, it does seem likely, based on my own observation (I quite regularly have to use that road to access, eg. Croydon and places south) that it isn't being used by cyclists, at least not noticeably. I can quite honestly say that I have not seen a cyclist in the dedicated space for - well, I can't remember seeing one at all (although I do avoid rush hour when I can). 

Nice to see that we've moved on from the usual anti-LTN demands of "We want to see more data, we want the raw data, we want to know this period and that location, it needs to be transparent" to a simple

"well I've never seen anyone using it therefore it's a waste of money".

Even the most basic look on Strava, the fitness tracking app, shows tens of thousands of rides along there and that's just the people using Strava (which certainly won't be everyone) and the people who've done that full segment from one end to the other (again, won't be everyone, plenty of folk will turn off somewhere along it so won't show in the full segment details).

Quick question. Two actually.

1) What, to you, is the number of cyclists who have to be using the infrastructure for you to deem it worthwhile? Would it be worth it for 1001 but not for 999? Also, how long are you giving people to realise there's a cycle lane there and to start using it, is there some kind of Penguin-approved cut-off time. Well it's been a week since it was put in, not seen anyone, time to rip it all out again! 

2) Do you do this with any other type of infrastructure? I mean, if the council put a wheelchair / pushchair ramp up the side of a set of steps, would you say "I've never seen any wheelchair user on that, it gives the disabled access lobby a bad name". Would you suggest that it was a waste of money? Would you suggest that a certain minimum number of wheelchair users have to use it to justify it's existence? Cos I'm willing to bet you wouldn't, it'd come across as really quite a stupid thing to say...

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

 

I agree. The road actually feels more dangerous now than it ever did as it it forcing vehicles into the path of on-coming vehicles. If you get a large van or lorry parked on that road (a lot of building work going on there now too) it becomes blocked very easily. 

 

A tedious thread that adds nothing to life.  But on a separate matter perhaps some refresher driving lessons seem appropriate.  I've driven and cycled on Sydenham Hill in recent times and have had no problems.  

[Rockets]

Be nice @Malumbu the forum rules require it.

 

[first mate]

Ex Dulwicher said: Even the most basic look on Strava, the fitness tracking app, shows tens of thousands of rides along there

Does Strava differentiate between use of road and of cycle lane?