People are trying to “skew” responses to public consultations, according to concerns raised on social media platforms.
Brighton and Hove City Council is currently consulting about proposed “red routes” along the A23 and Lewes Road to ban vehicles stopping, loading and dropping passengers off – no matter how briefly.
Now, concerns have been raised by the Brighton and Hove cycling campaign group Bricycles in a post on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, encouraging people to complete the surveys.
The Bricycles post said: “Lewes Road and the A23 could become red routes. Less illegal parking would make cycling safer on these routes so complete the surveys which are linked from this page.”
But it was described as an attempt to “skew” the responses by an anonymous member of a Facebook group called Stop the Gridlock – Save Our City.
And an anonymous follow-up post said that they had filled out a false response to the consultation, adding: “Ha! Just filled in the survey with a false name / email as proof of concept. Look forward to the cycling lobby trying to fix the results.”
Bricycles said: “We are surprised that a group called ‘Stop the Gridlock’ would encourage people to cheat a consultation and oppose a scheme that will stop the gridlock created by illegal parking on these routes.”
Campaign group Brighton Active Travel also expressed concerns that people would fill in the consultation with false information.
The group said: “This blatant attempt to corrupt a community consultation about road safety costs taxpayers because the council has to spend resources deleting the false signatures. And worse, the tactic is truly undemocratic.”
The proposed red route would cover a stretch of the A23 that includes London Road and Preston Road between Cheapside and South Road, in Preston village.
It would also cover the A270 Lewes Road between Elm Grove and the southern end of the Vogue Gyratory.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, said that the consultation was open to anyone with an interest in the area.
Those responding to the council survey are asked to give their name and address to be checked against official records to establish where people are from and discount duplicated responses.
Councillor Muten said: “We check for patterns such as repeated wording or phrases or submissions that all occur in the space of a short timeframe.
“We can also check browser type if we suspect responses may have come from the same source. Consultation provides valued opportunity for feedback. We encourage residents to engage positively with this process.”
In April last year, the council said that it was changing its e-petitions service after claims of “sabotage” and bogus signatories.
The claims surfaced when several false names appeared on two petitions – for and against a new cycle lane in Old Shoreham Road, Hove.
Bogus names included Donald Duck and Adolf Hitler. Councillors’ names also appeared on petitions which were the opposite of their publicised opinions.
Since then, those signing have been asked to enter a verified email address as well as their home address.
Ironic really when, as noted above, Bricycles did their level best to skew the consultation regarding the unwanted and unused Old Shoreham Road cycle path.
The pot calling the kettle black?
Really? How did they do that? That’s never been reported?
Yes it was reported on this website. Bricycles tweeted out everyone accross twitter to fill in the OSR survey and consultation.
That’s a false equivalence. Using false names and addresses to “fix the results” is dishonest and deceitful.
Exactly, hopefully Bricycles will have learnt their lesson after the last misguided attempt!
Both as bad as each other Max Glaskin, especially as bricycles were encouraging as far a field as York and even Sweden. Skewing a consultation by yse of social media followers or dishonest representation is not on. Keep it local keep it honest.
I expect our friend Adam from Shoreham is also encouraging pro-cycling activists from all over the UK (and beyond) to support the red routes as well. If only he could concentrate his meddling on West Sussex County Council roads.
For the London Road side, it’s all rather pointless for both drivers and cyclists: given that there is no separate cycle lane on London Road from Cheapside all the way to the start of Preston Park, there’s nothing for cyclists to argue for or against. Which means that the primary driver (sic) of this change on London Road is for the buses.
Red Routes for buses will make the journey faster and encourage more people out of their cars, reducing congestion and pollution. Hopefully more pedestrians / potential bus users are encouraged to complete the consultation.
for l read n
That’s not correct, John. Both pedestrians and cyclists would be safer when there’s a Red Route on the London Road. It would ban drivers from driving up the kerb to park on the pavement, which endangers pedestrians. It would also ban illegal kerbside parking, which forces people riding bicycles into the stream of motor traffic to get around the obstruction.
Oh, I agree – my “pointless” comment was more directed at the fact that there are currently no cycle lanes on London Road itself, which indicates that it’s the bus companies driving the proposed change. And if it’s the bus companies driving the change, then any consultation is already in the bin and the decision is already made.
The main Problem with London Road is the Southbound Traffic around MacDonald’s.
The problem being all the Dilveroo bikes that bloke the lane for buses to make progress as they currently get held up by vehicles queuing to turn right up cheapside.
That area’s a mess for pedestrians as well. The pathway is very narrow there, paving stones are wonky, there’s usually a moped or three parked halfway on the pavement, and there’s always people just milling about getting in the way. Buggies and wheelchair users have no chance.
Best way to speed up that route would be to properly time the godawful traffic lights at the Oxford Street junction which are unnecessarily slow and seem to spend too much time letting traffic from Oxford Street pass vs the much busier London Road traffic, presumably to help build the case for congestion charging/other pollution reduction measures. If they had not widened the pavements there and moved bus stops out into the roads the flow of traffic would be a lot better, plus there would’ve been space for cycle lanes too, unfortunately the Greens just wanted to make things worse for drivers and imposed these measures. Good to see Rottingdean finally got rid of the stupid planters blocking their road, lets hope this council starts to make some sensible decisions too.
presumably to help build the case for congestion charging/other pollution reduction measures
These paranoid leaps really undermine what could be a very valid observation
You could say the Council started the dirty tricks campaign by having sham consultations in the first place, skewed towards the predetermined results they want. Bricycles then jump on the bandwagon with their followers to manipulate the consultations even further in the council-desired direction. Unsurprisingly appalled citizens have latched onto the corruption and do their best to fight back against impossible odds. There are no fair consultations in this city.
Or the old ‘green’ trick of having a ‘consultation’ where the locals don’t give the ‘right’ answer ie more bike lanes. So the ‘consultation’ happens again about six months later and fewer people answer but it’s still a no to the ‘green’ villany. They keep repeating the ‘consultation’ until the only respondents are the foaming zealots, whereupon the positive for the cycle routes is approved and the council pat themselves on the back. I believe this kind of twisting of democracy is called phelimandering.
Phelimandering. I love they one, very good!
So Bricycles and Adam from Shoreham got caught sharing the the survey on twitter, and now they are crying foul, I think most people outside of their echo chambers can see through their faux outrage.
You do realise there is a difference between sharing a survey and filling it in on purpose under a false name repeatedly?
You do realise that sharing a local survey about local matters, nationally is – how can I put it? I know – I’ll use your words – manipulating public opinion. You are such a screaming hypocrite, I’ve not seen bigger.
I don’t think you know how social media works.
And I don’t seem you having a problem with the Anti-Brighton lot sharing local petitions, surveys etc nationally. Or actually using false names and deliberately manipulating public opinion.
Oh here we go with the superior, self righteous attitude so well known on Twitter. I know exactly how social media works. And I know the Highway Code and I don’t need to hand my license back, before you ask. I also have an issue with false survey respondents. But this isn’t going away now, the genie is out of the bottle and it was those who shared the OSR consultation/petition nationally that did it, but of course you will disagree. So here’s a question for you Adam – you have posted previously, that words wind people up – you have just today accused someone of being a dangerous driver just because of their Tweets. So with that in mind, and road safety campaigner that you are – do you think you advance the cause of road safety for vulnerable users or hamper it?
So you admit that you have been encouraging those outside the city to respond to the consultation, but you don’t even live in the city.
It would be interesting to know the relative number of responses made using false names, versus the number from outside the city who feel they are entitled to express their views because they might, one day, potentially use these routes.
I’d imagine the latter would be significantly more, and I wonder how many residents, businesses, tradesmen and other road users have been made aware of the plans?
Have you responded even though you live in Shoreham?
Pot Kettle comes to mind
Speaking of false names, would you like to share who you are?
You obviously are a little obsessed with me and know a lot about what I do and don’t do, so let’s have an honest conversation.
Who are you?
Obsessed? No, not obsessed, maybe slightly intrigued. Your name crops up, quite frequently on various platforms, so I did some research. As a result, no, I am not interested in having a conversation with you, as nor are you, with me. You have only responded as I have called you out, outside of your echo chamber. Were we on Twitter, you would disregard me with your usual contempt and shutdowns for having a differing opinion. Back to my question – no need to answer, just have a think.
Tell me your real name and we can talk. Unless you’re happy to “call people out” while hiding behind an anonymous account.
Hmmmm. Talk as in if it suits you, or talk?
What a surprise. No real name has been forthcoming.
1. I stated yesterday, that I had no interest in engaging with you.
2. I don’t think you know how social media works.
No interest in engaging, yet repeatedly commenting here.
Also without the conviction to comment under your real name or say who you are.
And this isn’t twitter or Facebook so it’s not social media.