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

[Rockets]

32 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The reference to 'Southwark resident' and 'Lewisham resident' refers to those living (resident) on Sydenham hill or a surrounding road... Those on the Southwark side and those on the Lewisham side (the road divides the two boroughs). I've already pointed this out to you.

But by default East Dulwich residents are also Southwark residents are they not? So, let's take the case of @malumbu and their response to the consultation - they are a self-professed Lewisham resident, clearly don't live close enough to have got a flyer so where do you think their response went?

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no 'odd distribution'. The majority of those living on the road, as well as those from further afield, supported the change. Only 26 people living on the road objected.

It is an odd distribution because the other category responses are spread more evenly - the overwhelming support for the changes from that group is a statistical anomaly - it was exactly that, on a larger scale, that was the catalyst for the Lambeth cull of responses ion the Railton Road consultation - an odd grouping of responses..

You say "only" 26 people living on the road objected but "only" 23 supported it and "only" 24 supported it with changes. So, as I have said before, and for fear of having to repeat myself, the objections were the highest response of any of the 3 categories from those who lived closest to the road - that is undeniable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But by default East Dulwich residents are also Southwark residents are they not? So, let's take the case of @malumbu and their response to the consultation - they are a self-professed Lewisham resident, clearly don't live close enough to have got a flyer so where do you think their response went?

I understand how you've interpreted it, but you've interpreted it incorrectly.

They talk about consulting with residents of Sydenham Hill Road, both Southwark residents and Lewisham residents. Sydenham Hill is literally the border between the two - one side in Southwark, the other, Lewisham. It's why the categories are 'Southwark residents', 'Lewisham residents' and 'Not resident of Sydenham hill or surrounding road'.

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

You say "only" 26 people living on the road objected but "only" 23 supported it and "only" 24 supported it with changes. So, as I have said before, and for fear of having to repeat myself, the objections were the highest response of any of the 3 categories

Again, this is the result of your fundamental misunderstanding of the context, and refusal to read the TMO. There was a question about ones support for the scheme and then questions about design options. There was overwhelming support for narrowing the road and slowing vehicles which regularly drove along that road at speed. The fact that those living on the road had more interest in the detail of the design (parking, positions of crossings etc.), is not remotely surprising. But they still supported the scheme itself. Only 26 people were against narrowing the road.

Again, I would simply ask what it is you're railing against? 

Do you want to road widened again?

Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And if so, for what purpose?

35 minutes ago, snowy said:

Its the Just Asking Questions approach isn't it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions

https://thelogicofscience.com/2020/05/31/the-problem-with-just-asking-questions/

 

100%. 

Never knowingly answers a direct question.

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

13 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I understand how you've interpreted it, but you've interpreted it incorrectly.

I am not sure I have and even if I have the Malumbu question validates my position surely?

 

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There was overwhelming support for narrowing the road and slowing vehicles which regularly drove along that road at speed.

No there was not - you're combining two very separate categories - "support" but "support with changes" are two very distinct categories and, as I said before, a free pass for the council to say "well we made a change so that satiates that group of people so we must have their support now".

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, I would simply ask what it is you're actually railing against? 

As I have said a lot of times before - potential manipulation of council consultation processes where people who do not have to live with the impact of an intervention can influence the decision-making process based on nothing more than their own ideology or because a lobby group told them to. Surely that is something we all think needs to be eliminated?

[Earl Aelfheah]

56 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am not sure I have and even if I have the Malumbu question validates my position surely?

No. Malumbu said about the bike lane:

Quote

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.

Anyone who knows about that scheme understood what he meant. That the scheme was about narrowing the road to deter speed. Not that a bike lane was put in to slow traffic. But of course first mate thought he'd uncovered something:

On 17/03/2025 at 13:29, first mate said:

That's a good reminder that I do not think I have ever seen anyone ever cycle up  or down that hill. Obviously they must do but pretty infrequently, so yes, the cycle lane must have been put in for other reasons...It shows that use /misuse of road management powers to deter drivers cannot just be dismissed as conspiracy theory. Thanks Malumbu for helping to make that point.

...and then:

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, jumped on this, even though it was pointed out that the scheme was always explicitly about addressing speeding in what was an accident hotspot (for the love of God read the TMO!) and the inclusion of a bike lane a secondary benefit / design decision.

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.

....and that is how we got into this whole tedious conspiracy thread. With you immediately searching out information you could use to 'prove' your conclusion (that there was somehow a shadowy 'cycle elite' behind it all), landing on a misinterpretation of a single table in summary document. In other words, conspiracy theory, cherry picking, refusal to reflect, or correct mistakes when they're pointed out, the 'just asking questions' avoidance and deflection. It is very, very boring.

So, if this whole thread is really about an objection you have to:

56 minutes ago, Rockets said:

potential manipulation of council consultation processes where people who do not have to live with the impact of an intervention can influence the decision-making process based on nothing more than their own ideology or because a lobby group told them to.

and not the road layout, the cycle lane, or anything else, I would just say this: Local people overwhelmingly supported efforts to slow traffic. The scheme was successful. You've offered zero evidence of manipulation and to suggest that the scheme was about a bicycle lane is wrong (and apparently you don't want it removed anyway). Thanks for the good times. 🤣

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No. Malumbu said about the bike lane:

No I was talking about Malumbu's registering of his support of the works suggested in the consultation....

 

43 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Local people overwhelmingly supported efforts to slow traffic.

But they did not overwhelming support the council's consultation did they. In fact, the largest response of the three offered to local residents was "do not support". And that is an undeniable fact.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 18/03/2025 at 08:42, 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.

Where? Their website says that cycling in Southwark is fifth highest (with Hackney 1st), and higher than inner London average. Literally on the landing page as one of the highlighted news stories.

46 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But they did not overwhelming support the council's consultation did they. In fact, the largest response of the three offered to local residents was "do not support"

This absolute nonsense. 123 responses. 36 said they 'did not support'. But I wasn't talking about the consultation. I said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Local people overwhelmingly supported efforts to slow traffic

They did. And I find it remarkable that you would argue otherwise.

This conspiracy theory nonsense is beyond tedious. It was 5 years ago. You say you object to 'lobby groups' 'manipulating' the consultation that led to the scheme (no evidence btw). But you supported the scheme at the time and apparently you support it now? I mean, seriously? 

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

43 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Local people overwhelmingly supported efforts to slow traffic

I presume it depends how you categorise local doesn't it - and that is where the question about Malumbu's response is important because where do you think that is categorised - in the Lewisham responses or in the "Not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road"?

45 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It was 5 years ago.

Ok so does time heal all ills?

46 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This conspiracy theory nonsense is beyond tedious. It was 5 years ago. You say you object to 'lobby groups' 'manipulating' the consultation that led to the scheme (no evidence btw). But you supported the scheme at the time and apparently you support it now? I mean, seriously? 

But do you agree or not that consultations are open to manipulation? I mean do you agree or disagree that the Railton Road LTN consultation was manipulated?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't really care. I've said before, I don't think consultations are the best way to get useful feedback, or canvas opinion, but at least this scheme addressed a very clear problem that was a concern for many people locally.

The key point is that the changes which followed successfully reduced speeds and collisions in a former accident hotspot.

Apparently you don't object to the road being narrowed, or that the design includes a bike lane, but are exercised by a conspiracy theory, born of a 'revelation' that was nothing of the sort, and a misreading of a table?

By your own admittance this isn't about a successful traffic calming scheme. I don't believe it’s anything to do with a consultation that you're suddenly 'concerned' about 5 years after it closed either.

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

By your own admittance this isn't about a successful traffic calming scheme. I don't believe it’s anything to do with a consultation that you're suddenly 'concerned' about 5 years after it closed either.

I'm struggling to work it out too.

It started as a nonsense conspiracy theory that the consultation had somehow been infiltrated by a top secret pro-cycling cabal who successfully swung it to.... oh wait a minute, it was already positive even if you completely discount the "out of area" and "not answered" responses.

Then it became an equally nonsensical point that "I have never seen anyone using it" somehow equals "no-one ever uses it" in spite of my analogy of infrastructure that Rockets agreed WAS used in spite of the pictures at that moment showing no usage.

Apparently " I can't see anyone using it at this moment" when applied to literally any other bit of infrastructure means "people do use it, they're just not there at the moment" but when applied to cycle lanes it actually means that they're never used. Go figure. 

I mentioned Strava not because of the exact numbers (which I pointed out are not representative for a number of reasons) but because it's an easy and free way for anyone to have a quick check. Also, in relation to numbers.... What is the "right" number Rockets? How many cyclists need to use the cycle lane for you to consider it worthwhile? If 1000 people use it every week is that OK but if only 10 use it then it needs to ripped out and... what, converted back to roadspace for cars? Converted to pedestrian space? 

Do you apply this logic to any other infrastructure? Do you sit outside the library and count the number of people using the wheelchair / pushchair ramp to determine if that is also "worthwhile"? What about parking spaces? If one of those is empty, do you demand that some motorist parks there immediately because a valuable bit of land has been allocated to them and therefore it should be used 24/7?

[jazzer]

Just call the thread a no score draw and leave it at that maybe, please!!!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yeh, let’s call it ‘a draw’, as if there are ‘sides’ in every discussion about roads and transport and no facts. Because what we don’t want is genuine, good faith discussion.

Personally I’m a bit bored of this part of the forum being used to spread conspiracies and misinformation by a divisive, monomaniac, obsessed with ‘winning’ what they wrongly see as an ongoing battle of  ‘bike vs car’, regardless of what’s actually being discussed. It’s made any reasoned debate of issues around roads and transport unbelievably tedious.

So let’s paper over the fact that someone has got everything entirely wrong, wilfully ignoring basic facts. Nothing to see here.

Edited March 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

But each time you say this kind of thing about a thread (you are 'bored'; it is 'tedious') you always come back for more.

The title of the thread was about a flawed consultation process, so let's update that to what is going on now on the Melbourne Grove consultation and let this one go.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Because it’s culture war stuff. I don’t think people should be able to spread misinformation and nonsense, constantly doubling down and deflecting when corrected on matters of fact. I don’t want this section of the forum to just be a version of one persons monomaniacal ‘X’ feed. 

You must have felt the difference across this section recently. You know what has changed.

Edited March 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Be careful @Earl Aelfheah you're taking this into personal jibe territory - keep it nice - the forum rules demand it.

P.S. I don't have an X feed.