Also, I thought, foolishly, that PG's rambling and rank amateurism and distortions and bee-in-his-bonnetry would put sane people off. Wrong again!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5559 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
" Also, I thought, foolishly, that PG's rambling and rank amateurism and distortions and bee-in-his-bonnetry would put sane people off. Wrong again!"
It's the Donald Trump syndrome; say anything you want and the gullible will think "great, he's anti-establishment and non-PC."
The wheels are finally coming off the Trump bandwagon though, and I think that the councillors will finally see through PG's dilettante meddling.
One of the most sensible comments last night, and I've never knowingly said this of a Tory, was Cllr Balfour's explanation of the political process and the only way that the "vision" could be considered, was if the Councillors requested it. I believe they will not be minded to ask for it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Incidentally, speaking of dilettante meddling, I took another look round Roseburn late this afternoon, and I rather like the idea of giving Russell Road priority over Roseburn Street. Nothing to do with cycling, but in my dilettante view it makes sense from a traffic management angle.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ih - Speaking as a grass roots Roseburn Street and Russell Road user, I agree. Russell Road banks up horribly and the intersection is a nightmare. I get the impression that the traffic is less dense in Roseburn Street.
Posted 8 years ago # -
So much nonsense spouted last night that it is difficult to cover it all, but bits keep coming back to me.
The business owner's presentation said that they have surveyed "every commuting cyclist passing through Roseburn, and every one said they wouldn't use the path".
As a commuting cyclist who passes through Roseburn, I wasn't surveyed and I would use the path.
He followed up by saying "we've done proper surveys unlike the council, our numbers are correct."
Back to Rosie's point about rank amateurs in a cafe.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
One of the most sensible comments last night, and I've never knowingly said this of a Tory, was Cllr Balfour's explanation of the political process and the only way that the "vision" could be considered, was if the Councillors requested it. I believe they will not be minded to ask for it.
"
You were there, I wasn't, so I hope you're right.
I suppose it depends a) on what councillors think is 'best option' and b) whether any of them think it's in their interest to be 'seen to be doing something'.
Posted 8 years ago # -
" I suppose it depends [...on...] whether any of them think it's in their interest to be 'seen to be doing something'.
Aye, there's the rub. I expect the Concillors will play for time, including the TRO process, and leave it to the next administration to decide, or drop it altogether.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The business owner's presentation said that they have surveyed "every commuting cyclist passing through Roseburn, and every one said they wouldn't use the path"
I wasn't asked either...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Soooo, here are my two cents after attending the meeting last night (long post alert). I found the meeting intolerable, and when I got home couldn't get to sleep for being so wound up about the whole thing. After a day to reflect here are my takeaways from the meeting:
1) Lots of condescending statements about vulnerable cyclists, slanted particularly towards women... "Well my wife uses the quiet roads and I use the main roads and so we should cater for the women cyclists and leave the main roads well alone." Needless to say, my head was in my hands.
2) A complete lack of understanding about who this infrastructure is actually for. Long diatribes from people about how current cyclists are fast and won't use it so what's the point. Absolutely no understanding that the idea of this infrastructure is to attract new riders, normalise cycling and remove the activity from the preserve of the fast and the fit. Also a lack of understanding about general street improvements for people walking and the idea of a large, solid financial investment in the Roseburn area.
3) Some real nastiness and lack of respect. Lots of sneering laughter. The guffaws that stick in mind are when Phil Noble noted the rejection on NCN1 for being significantly less direct a route. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour from attendees shouting at Hankchief as soon as he stood up, demanding to know his address. And PG rattling the collection bucket? Awful.
4) Retired lawyers and doctors and whoever else with an education and well heeled accent berating trained, qualified council officials. Insinuating they are useless, liars and twist data.
5) I am still shuddering at the literal distressed and angry outcry from the room when the American chap noted that interventions like this "change a community". Of course, he was meaning for the better.
6) Lots of short term thinking. Loads of elderly people in the room. Don't they think about the future world they want their grandchildren to grow up in? Makes me feel so sad.
I came away from this meeting completely convinced that we now live in a "post fact" world. People are really not interested in those with knowledge, experience and skills. The best illustration of this what when Phil Noble reassured the room that the council has tested the junctions for HGVs' turning circles etc. To which PG completely ignored and dismissed, only to put up his own slide with comedy illustration of a stuck lorry wedged at the Russell Road junction.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've not got much to add, although I wonder if anyone caught the comment from the gentleman who said he worked for Scotrail just after PG repeated his curious thoughts about needing to ensure the road is designed for trains.
Bigsmoke showed me his video of the car which hit him at the hairpins. The driver clearly showing a complete disregard for anybodies safety. I didn't think your comments were out of place given how long the bloke was rambling on about filling potholes and offering education to drivers.
On a lighter note, Stickman this one's for you (I wasn't going to post it due to the quality issues but as you asked):
Posted 8 years ago # -
"What gets me about these doctors, lawyers etc is that they would never allow amateur meddling in their own professions. Imagine if on some point of law someone said, I've put my own case together from Google, or to the respiratory professor, I'm an expert on my own lungs. They'd tell such a person to get lost, you ignorant serf. However they are quite happy to support road design concocted by a bunch of amateurs in a cafe."
Ah, Rosie! How you made me laugh! I just had to repeat this paragraph in full.
EXACTLY the problem with these self-important indignant types.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@claire: brilliant post. Hope you don't mind, but it's too good to just be here so I've shared elsewhere. Like you, I couldn't sleep either (HankChief & I exchanging tweets at 2am).
@acsimpson: superb, can just about make out the huge grin on my face. That's now my Twitter profile pic.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Thanks for sharing you views Claire & others.
It's helpful to know we are not alone with similar thoughts. It should also motivate all of us to do what we can to stop such prejudices & negativity from derailing an essential debate about what is the right future for our city and its residents.
Please do keep sharing.
@ac - we were too quick for your camera ;-)
Posted 8 years ago # -
Nothing like labelling people to negate their opinions...
"There were 175 people and 9 Cllrs at the meeting. There were only seats for 120, so we had 55 standing. (80 from Roseburn, 40 from Wester Coates, 30 from Hmkt, 20 from Spokes, 5 of the cllrs from further afield.)"
His post doesn't really say a lot so to save you from linking through here are the salient points.
"To move things along, this public meeting was held. A very passionate and interesting evening with both sides for and against having a say.
Our hope is that a political group proposes an amendment to the Transport Committee meeting calling on the officers to cost the Roseburn Vision, rather than the choice that will be on offer of option A and option B. We hope more consultation is carried out- with residents and those likely to be affected or use the scheme. Kids not Suits will be asking our Councillors how they might ensure that."
Posted 8 years ago # -
Sorry to keep ranting about this meeting, but I just remembered the other truly disgusting thing PG said. He said that a man had been seriously injured after being hit on his bike outside the Roseburn Bar. PG said "this cycle lane wouldn't have helped him so we shouldn't build it."
Didn't tweet that one as I think my jaw actually hit the floor when he said it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I don't think I've ever heard a speech with quite so many "I think"s in it as PGs. I suppose he knows how much nonsense he spouts so put's I think before it so that no one can question it. As he's not willing to change what he thinks he is basically a lost cause and we are left trying to mitigate the damage he causes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"left trying to mitigate the damage he causes"
Might be worth talking to councillors who were at meeting - especially any who were experiencing PG for the first time.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"80 from Roseburn, 40 from Wester Coates, 30 from Hmkt, 20 from Spokes, 5 of the cllrs from further afield."
I know he's made these figures up but with Roseburn being the area between WOL, Railway and Russell Road even the meeting wasn't in Roseburn. Strange that he hasn't mentioned those from Murrayfield who I would hazard a guess actually make up the largest part of those present.
Was anyone actually there "from spokes"? I'm a member of Historic Scotland but that doesn't mean I was there from HS.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Even if by "Spokes" he meant 'cyclists', how could he tell?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"His post doesn't really say a lot so to save you from linking through here are the salient points."
Having had a read, the sheer pomposity of the man's conceit is causing me much amusement. For example:
"I was hoping the officer might have considered our suggestions- the ones we gave to the Transport & Environment Committee on the 7th June. That day, the Vice- convener, Cllr McVey, assured us that our scheme, “The Roseburn Vision” would be considered as an alternative and would come to the next Committee meeting alongside the cycling officers plans. Yet the Council cycling officer admitted he had not looked at our 25 recommendations and had no plans to include them in his report to Committee.
Regarding “The Roseburn Vision” there is in his plans just a dismissive 5- line appraisal of all our hard work – this from a man who admits he has not even studied the detail of what we propose. We expect that our scheme be evaluated and costed properly.
We are appealing to Cllr McVey to intervene. This is not what we have fought so long and hard for."
Aw, diddums. Poor PG didn't get his way.
The shrieking and increasingly hysterical tone is certainly a spectacle, if nothing else of import is produced.
Posted 8 years ago # -
chdot, I also wonder what pigeon hole he put Cllr Bagshaw in as he had his folding bike and cycling jacket with him.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Though it does seem slightly odd to go along to a meeting and admit you hadn't read any of what the people hosting the meeting had produced (even if it's garbage that can be dismissed in 5 lines).
This meeting seems to have been a microcosm of Question Time (which I simply can't watch because it annoys me too much).
Posted 8 years ago # -
Phil was in a very awkward situation* and his rather nuanced answers got lost in the brouhaha. PG doesn't do 'nuance' or 'diplomacy'.
* he'd be well within his rights to complain and object to being expected to work under such conditions
Posted 8 years ago # -
I agree that Phil Noble was put in an impossible situation. I don't know how it was arranged that he should be there but in retrospect, and considering the uncivilised treatment meted out to him, it was inappropriate for him to take all the flak. Given that the meeting was called by an individual, and was completely outwith the consultation process, I think the Council (Councillors and officers) should either, not have attended, or, if the Councillors considered it was an unavoidable political situation, they should have been up at the front themselves explaining the process to the baying rabble. The Councillors abdicated their political responsibility and left Noble to take the hit.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Video doesn't look real -
"
Sustrans London (@SustransLondon)
04/08/2016, 09:44
Cycling now major transport mode in LDN: 645,000 journeys a day, 10% up from 2013. Morning rush trebled since 2000http://pic.twitter.com/3gZPIwp0EE
"
But is!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Posted 8 years ago #
-
@ih: spot on.
There is a certain irony that someone campaigning for a whistleblower helpline, explicitly mentioning workplace bullying, should whip up such anger and fury directed against a council employee.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"... 20 from Spokes ..."
Presumably he's counting himself in this number.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Pete the park keeper is way beyond spokes or whistleblowing on bullies. He is the messiah who will deliver roseburn from the segregated bike track (by any nefarious means)
Posted 8 years ago # -
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/07/london-cycle-superhighways-heaven-or-hell
... “a lot of councils are really cowardly” and that while majorities usually support cycling schemes, local politicians are easily impressed by vocal minorities...
It can take on aspects of class conflict, in which drivers sometimes cast themselves, counterintuitively, as underdog victims of a two-wheeled elite. It obliges choices as to what kind of city its citizens and politicians want, with what balance of public benefits and private freedoms and for whom"
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
