Good work Hankchief. Another few days and it would be 1000.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5559 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Two new comments from PG on @HankChief's petition. Hmm.
The petition against the cycle track closed at 12 noon on 3rd Feb. The totals:
Paper signatures: 1,900 (postal addresses clearly indicate residents directly affected by proposed track)
- (including 91 cyclists)
Online signatures: 695
- (including 133 cyclists)
Grand Total 2,595 signatures
-of which 224 are cyclistsThis Spokes counter-petition, on-line only, at same time, has 817, but with no evidence of provenance- signers could be from US- it is unclear if ANY signatories here will be directly affected by proposed track. If this petition continues to collect signatures, they will no longer count against the petition calling for the scheme to be scrapped. CEC and the media have been informed of the current petition totals.
So please, signers of this petition, relax and enjoy your lattes. The battle is out of your hands. It now rests upon our politicians and CEC's two beleaguered cycling officers to come up with a solutionPosted 8 years ago # -
Oh dear, looks like I must have forgotten and signed it twice :(
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've used exactly the same website as he has so the evidence I have provided is exactly the same as his online signatures.
I love his use of categorising some signatures as cyclists. How is that verified?
Our is closed and has been sent.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"@adamrmcvey: London Cyclists set to outnumber cars. This doesn't just happen, it takes bold policy to change travel habits."
Will Cllr McVey practice what he preaches? And any chance of him convincing his SNP colleagues?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Sounds like PG is a bad loser.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Cllrs Balfour and Ross are accompanying K***N**S*** to hand in his petition. No attempt to consider that other constituents may be in support of the plan.
Clearly they have no time for cycling, or indeed facts, so I won't be engaging with either of them again. I'll also make clear to any Holyrood canvassers why their local councillors are losing them votes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
How can we enjoy our lattes if we can't cycle to the cafes?
Which "battle" is he talking about? I thought it's about constructively working towards a better city.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've no doubt that all of PG's online signatures are also duplicated on paper. Probably many duplicates on paper copy itself too.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'd really like to find out how/why PG got involved in this. He's lied/half-truthed and manipulated throughout the process, even going so far as joining Spokes to make it seem more convincing.
It all seems a bit extreme for someone who claims to be just a concerned resident.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've just sent this to Balfour and Ross:
Dear Councillor
We have previously exchanged emails over the Roseburn/Leith cycle plans. I respected your position against the plans and I hope that you also respected my support for them.
I am exceptionally disappointed that you have chosen to publicly show support for the “KidsNotSuits” campaign by attending the public presentation of the petition at the City Chambers this afternoon (as noted on the “KidsNotSuits” website).
The organiser of this campaign has been extremely divisive and has not helped the consultation process. His repeated misleading claims about, for example, the design of the path (for example his letter to the Edinburgh Evening News on the interaction with bus stops), the current cycle usage of Roseburn Terrace (“6 cyclists an hour”) and promotion of an inconvenient, unsafe and unsuitable alternative along Balbirnie Place have done nothing to help people understand the scheme. As such I believe that it is highly likely that many signing his petition have done so without having taken the time to study the plans.
As a councillor I would expect you to look at all the facts and issues before forming a viewpoint. I understand and accept that this will mean that on occasions you will take views contrary to some or indeed all of your constituents. As such I can understand your opposition to the cycle scheme. However your support for such a hostile, misleading and divisive campaign as that run by “KidsNotSuits” is unhelpful and leaves me doubting your judgement.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@edd1e_h Absolutely. I'd hope that the council officers and councillors understand uncertainties in these numbers. The only directly comparable numbers are the online numbers (created using the same system).
As @HankChief didn't collect any paper signatures, you can't compare the offline numbers against anything, and there is no way to check how many are duplicates or fakes.
Generally it's not clear what people exactly signed against, some may oppose "spending 9 million that we don't have" and others may just want to "generally support our shops", some will be against the idea of bike lanes in general and others specifically about the location of the loading bays.
Of course, strictly speaking, similar arguments apply to the support petition too.
In any case it's not a referendum, it's not about who has more signatures.
I'm more worried about the media reporting as they won't really put all this in perspective, and of course the Living Streets submission is really misguided and damaging.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"In any case it's not a referendum, it's not about who has more signatures."
And nothing is going to be built (or not) any time soon.
The
SpokesHC petition was a highly valuable initiative - and highly successful.LOTS of 'unknown' people added some great comments.
Whatever the locals 'fear' - however much they get the media attention - things have moved on.
The anti 20mph campaign got plenty of coverage...
Posted 8 years ago # -
It'll be very interesting to see how many of those signatures turned into objectors on the consultation itself.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"...how many of those signatures turned into objectors on the consultation itself"
...and also how many of these chivvied objectors did some thinking/consideration first and cited a valid reason for their objection, rather than borrowing Chief Objector Gr3950n's numerologically-doubtful ALL SHALL PERISH...
Posted 8 years ago # -
In any case it's not a referendum, it's not about who has more signatures.
Aye, this.
CEC has a pretty good history of being entirely ambivalent to strength (or otherwise) of popular (or otherwise) petitioning. It's the consultation that counts, not kneejerk responses from local busybodies (present company excepted - Hankchief's busybodying is to be applauded.)
Posted 8 years ago # -
His grand publicity stunt at the City Chambers is likely to be overshadowed by the far larger trade union protest currently on outside Holyrood.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Those on twitter might want to get involved in trying to convince @FrankRoss06 that he's backed the wrong horse and shouldn't be backing a hostile & divisive petition.
Take a look at @hank_chief's Tweet: https://twitter.com/hank_chief/status/694879232292446208?s=09
Posted 8 years ago # -
Perhaps Mr Gregson is motivated by the fact that the changes proposed at the Roseburn Park access would remove "his" parking spaces on the road from directly outside his house? Of course I could be wrong, as a "cylist and Spokes member [himself]" perhaps he doesn't use or own a car...
(Above details are easily publicly revealed and available for any curious member of the public to confirm by a simple google, I'm not therefore putting personal information in the public domain that isn't already there).
My parents, who like to pootle the NEPN in the nicer months, I'm sure would make positive noises about cycle paths until you told them they couldn't park their car directly outside their front gate.
Posted 8 years ago # -
He has offstreet parking so shouldn't be that!
Where can you see the plan for the west side of Roseburn Park? I can't see anything in the consultation.
* EDIT: of course, he may have moved since the thing I'm looking at was published
Posted 8 years ago # -
Is "enjoy your lattés" beekeeper-hat vague-threat-speak for "I read your forum and know about PYJan16"?
According to the webcam there are no large crowds outside the council chambers at the moment.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Photo on Twitter shows about 30 protesters, including one with a bike. No sign as yet of either a Disco Lorry or an embarassed looking dog.
One protester is holding a poster saying "No To The Cycle Track, No to Congestion, No to Pollution".
I can agree with two out of three of those. Maybe he should look at what is actually causing them at the moment.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Don't know who's controlling the webcam but they seem interested in pointing it in the right direction.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Sorry, I saw the same photo as SRD. I'll remain unspotted for a bit longer.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Just spotted this on twitter and it seemed appropriate.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaTF7sQWEAAclKI.jpg
Posted 8 years ago # -
I love how "No to pollution" seems to be an afterthought (smaller writing and taped on the bottom).
Posted 8 years ago # -
Why the old City Chambers building? No actual city business gets done there anymore does it? A case of being more photogenic?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Quite a remarkable petition count on the NIMBY side.
7,246 residents of whom 2,595 have signed. That's better than some constituency turnouts at the elections.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I like the typo on the big sign... "Stop the West Coates Cycle Trak".
As an aside, anyone else shudder at the term "cycle track". I guess maybe subconsciously helps their cause as a track sounds meaningless and inconsequential whereas a path is essential?
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
