Rockets

@Earl Aelfheah I agree but not just nonsense reporting - is anyone not concerned that the Mayor's office has then repeated this claim as part of their press release - is no-one in the Mayor's office doing any fact checking? This is utterly, utterly misleading and the Mayor has put his name to it and has been amplifying it. https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted

@malumbu the 200 years comment from Carlton's article seems to be about the combined Nox and No2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) Carlton wrote: London does not meet legal limits for noxious gases and sooty particles and, at the current rate of improvement, the city won’t achieve international “clean air” standards for another 193 years. Then when I looked at the report and I cannot find where is calls out 193 years for No2 specifically - there is a line but it is not clear in what context it is being used. Interestingly, and as an aside, the research points to the proliferation of motorbikes and mopeds as one of the reasons London air quality was not falling as quickly as in Paris. All I found was this within the report and it is not clear whether the 193 year comment is in relation to NO2 alone or the combined NO2 and PM: Trends in NOX, NO2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) for 2005–2016 in background and roadside locations; and trends in traffic increments were calculated in both cities to address their impact. Trends in traffic counts and the distribution in Euro standards for diesel vehicles were also evaluated. Linear-mixed effect models were built to determine the main determinants of traffic concentrations. There was an overall increase in roadside NO2 in 2005–2009 in both cities followed by a decrease of ∼5% year−1 from 2010. Downward trends were associated with the introduction of Euro V heavy vehicles. Despite NO2 decreasing, at current rates, roads will need 20 (Paris) and 193 years (London) to achieve the European Limit Value (40 μg m−3 annual mean). Am I missing something?

Ha ha @malumbu these sentences are just brilliantly Alan Patridge! 😉 Bravo!

Yeah the usual suspects are trying their usual tricks....the numbers are there to see and are taken from STATS19 so good that there is finally some data sources showing the scale of the problem and now the bar has been set for further comparisons on whether the problem is getting better or worse.

And he's done this 200 years early...wow he is a miracle worker! Anyone got the figures for how PM2 is doing in comparison because surely that must have seen similar progress....or was this not just of the mayor's doing....;-)

Clearly cycles do not pose the biggest threat to pedestrians - no-one is arguing that but you have to agree that cycles do pose the biggest growing threat to pedestrians would you not? Is there another category of road user that saw a 20% year-on-year jump on causing injuries to pedestrians? After all, this is a thread about red light jumping cyclists yet you have, once again, tried to make it all about cars...... Maybe put your obsession with cars to one side for a minute, take a step back and ask whether a 20% year on year increase is acceptable or whether the cycle lobby is actually acknowledging the problem exists. When I read some posts on this thread I cannot help but believe what the person who lost his wife to a cyclist said is true: "These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads” It is so enlightening when you read the long term threads on this forum that for a long time many accuse anyone who says that cyclists are beginning to pose a real problem as imagining it or, seemingly not visiting regularly enough to be able to say if there are regular incidents (I suspect some of us visit those cycle danger hotspots a lot more than some of your folks posting from further afield) and when stats do turn up showing there is an increasing problem the conversation gets diverted to those issues relative to the issues posed by cars. Why are so many of you afraid to actually acknowledge there is a problem - the longer you turn a blind-eye to it the worse the problem gets and more draconian the controls put in place to control it are likely to be.

Only if those cyclists are not hitting pedestrians which, increasingly, they are - 20% year on year increase..... It was two lines actually and you missed out probably the most important one in context of the 24 times stat... However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. So what do you conclude from that - most people will conclude that drivers are posing a decreasing risk to pedestrians whilst cyclists are posing an increasing risk. And don't suggest I am trying to minimise anything: let me make this very clear that no injury to anyone should be accepted by there are two clear paths here: one is getting better whilst one is getting worse. Ahem......meanwhile (well a couple of years ago) in the Guardian.... Cyclists, welcome, you have just become the latest target in the culture wars by Peter Walker..... .https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/17/cyclists-grant-shapps-culture-wars

Oh I am very much looking forward to the next Peter Walker or Carlton Reid article that many of you can direct your newly found impartiality/bias/culture war radar to.....are the Telegraph being any more biased than they are in their coverage? 😉 Are the Telegraph wrong to say billions have been invested in cycling? Why does that so upset you? Didn't the Tories pledge 2bn around Covid for cycling investment? Given the millions spent on Dulwich Square you can see how it would soon tot up! Regardless of all of the deflection and distraction tactics being employed by the usual suspect this quote from a man whose wife was killed by a cyclist will no doubt strike a cord with many: He said: “A near 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of pedestrians injured underscores the importance of the new Road Safety Laws which are now thankfully making their way through Parliament. “These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads” My how so much of that rings true....

What about the rest of the article @malumbu....sigh....

These paragraphs show how bad the problem is getting and help steer the "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" brigade. I also think bad cycling is also a contributing factor to the fact that cyclist KSI per millions of miles cycled is on the increase again after years of decrease. Some cyclists are riding like they are entering the Darwen Awards. Exerpt from Telegraph piece: Cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists. However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. In 2024, there were 14,727 injuries to pedestrians after collisions with cars. Matt Briggs has campaigned for cycling laws to be updated since his wife, Kim, died after being hit by a cyclist riding a “fixie” bike with only one working brake. He said: “A near 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of pedestrians injured underscores the importance of the new Road Safety Laws which are now thankfully making their way through Parliament. “These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads”

Displacement is very much at the centre of the council's CPZ strategy - I suspect they might have an internal motto of "One street at a time, to reap the gold mine"

A reminder @Earl Aelfheah I was not the one who brought illegal ebikes into the discussion about cyclists jumping red lights...I think you'll find it was brought in as a "it's not actually cyclists jumping red lights" deflection tactic! ;-)

Or say they arent cars that are jumping the red lights but a subset of cars that should not be considered cars....

Alternative interpretations are available. "Showing yourself up further"....that made be chuckle out loud! 😉 BTW at what point do you think a bicycle magically morphs itself into an electric motorcycle or moped? Absolutely. If we can get passed the arguments over the vows...Tickets will be sold for seats to the divorce proceedings though! 😉

Ha ha….is it not the cycle lobby who makes the bold headlines about the increases in cycling figures? In my defence do you see me making the same proclamations about cars…..no didn’t think so….. Do you mean an illegal e-bike? And are you trying to claim that somehow all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes because they are very few and far between….and are actually normally the choice of those partaking in illegal activities. To many of those who travel around London the vast majority of problems are caused by those either on normal pedal cycles, delivery rider bikes or Lime bikes…..(in other words….cyclists ) or are Lime bikes now to be classified as less speedy electric motorbikes……🤣

@Earl Aelfheah thanks...making the point for me. I am not disputing cycling is on the increase. What I am saying is, and as both you and @malumbu have both wonderfully demonstrated (thank you both for that) is that on the one hand the cycle lobby celebrates the increase in cycling but in the same breath then says that everyone needs to differentiate between types of cyclists and that it is "daft lumping all cyclists together" when you claim a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping. Folks, you cannot have it both ways - but please keep going as between the two of you you're doing a great job validating our points! 😉

The news that this has dropped is good news indeed but very interested to understand why they have excluded the only 3 sites that failed to reach the threshold. they seem to mention the siting of the monitors. Also the headline in the press release is ludicrous - 200 years earlier than predicted just dilutes the impact of the story and I am sure makes people question whether the Mayor is just doing a bit of showboating. Of course, will the same high bar be reached for other pollutants (PM2.5 etc) that were also said to be addressed by Ulez etc? The Defra report does cover those other pollutants but the Mayor's press release makes no reference to them.

As I said, I rest my case. If you think it has holes in that's utterly predictable and your prerogative but anyone paying any attention (I doubt they will be to be fair) will know the truth!

But not in the context of the reduction in the speed of free-flowing 30mph, national speed limit or motorways.....and that was my point...clearly. I rest my case! Ha ha...you've got the @Earl Aelfheah bug, accusing me of trying to minimise things....when I have done nothing of the sort? Hilarious. In the interests of balance @exdulwicher you should probably chastise Earl too as I am not sure they can be accused of trying to step in to correct things....be fair now, they don't come across as the peacemaker in the midst of a fist fight. 😉 Ha ha...low blow Ex - I just wish sometimes admin would police some of the things posted by others on here with the same vigour that I went to forum jail for (I did the crime, I did the time and I am a changed person!!! ;-))- some do push the boundaries way beyond what is acceptable and there are very real examples of that within the recent posts on this thread. I would love to debate the red light issue but some want to try and detract from any narrative they don't agree with. Happens all the time.

Which is why they were not part of the report that @Earl Aelfheah used the headline from and then tried to convince us that the year on year reduction in said report was due to 20mph zones....... Goodness me..... Yes and I didn't take us down this track.....it was someone who wanted to make a "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!" point...;-) It's probably timely for me to remind you of exactly the same thing.....

The headline from the report you quoted had (very deliberately on the part of the government) nothing to do with 20mph roads yet you tried to link the year-on-year decreases to them and interventions likely on them. Let me explain...the government did their report...they focused on 30mph, national speed limit and motorway "free-flowing" sections of road. They very deliberately left 20mph roads out of the headline dataset...why...well they explain it in the report.... So it is not me who is all over the place. Vehicle speeds on 20 mph roads The department also has data for a number of ‘free-flow’ sites with 20 mph speed limits, however the data from these sites need to be interpreted with additional caution for the following reasons. By their nature, roads with 20 mph speed limits are particularly likely to have traffic calming measures in place, or not be ‘free flow’ for other reasons (for example being narrow or having many corners and bends). Department for Transport (DfT) guidance suggests that 20 mph speed limits are most effective when they have traffic calming measures or when average vehicle speeds are already below 24 mph. The 20 mph ‘free flow’ sites, by contrast, tend to be on ‘through routes’ rather than smaller residential streets – reflecting the constraints both of finding ‘free flow’ traffic conditions and locations suitable for the installation of automatic traffic monitoring equipment. Quieter residential streets, which make up a large proportion of 20 mph roads, will be under-represented in the data. Therefore the ‘free flow’ 20 mph sites in this data set will tend to be unrepresentative of 20 mph roads in general, and this effect will be much greater than for other speed limits considered above. These factors need to be considered when looking at the results for 20 mph sites available in this data set. 20 mph roads should not be compared year-on-year due to the small number of sites in the sample and the relatively high turnover in sites from year to year. All of the ‘free flow’ ATC sites on 20 mph roads available for 2023 were in England, so the results for 20 mph roads in this publication should be regarded as relating to England, rather than to Great Britain.

No. I corrected you because you then tried to suggest that interventions like LTNs and 20mph zones were one of the reasons that there had been year-on-year decreases in the number of those speeding within that very report. Which clearly was nonsense as any 20mph roads were not included and the survey was, very deliberately, on free-flowing sections of roads 30mph and above. So, once again, you are leaving out part of the story. I agree but would Lime ever do this? Or would TFL be brave enough to force it on them? Lime bikes are clearly a large contributor to the problem but I do wonder how much control they have over rider behaviour.

But the headline you quoted did not contain any 20mph roads.....goodness me....the headline stat you used was from 30 mph, national speed limit and motorway free-flowing roads. Come on @Earl Aelfheah just admit you're wrong. Well, was the thread not on the problem of red light jumping cyclists...come on @Earl Aelfheah try to keep it on track and not dive into your usual "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!" hole....that seems to be the most prevalent knee-jerk reaction on here when anyone ever dares suggest there might be problems being caused by cyclists....and you are aptly demonstrating that now - so thanks! 😉 Again...absolute nonsense. Where have I ever said we do not need to be overly concerned...you may have created that imagined narrative in your mind but I have not actually ever said that have I? You're doing what you always do - embellishing what was said to suit your agenda.

Well, to be fair @malumbu it is a thread on red light jumping cyclists......#justsayin I haven't seen you starting many threads on dangerous cyclist behaviour either @malumbu so not exactly sure what point you are trying to make.... Come on @Earl Aelfheah people are not daft. You quoted a headline from a report that did not include 20mph roads and I then noted that speeding was decreasing year on year and you said that was down to, amongst other things, 20mph limits I corrected you. You clearly take um-bridge at being corrected. And I am the one being told to grow up...it's laughable... I am not sure you can accuse me of minimising collison data or the causes of collisions. What I am doing, which is plain for most to see who want to see it, is challenging the likes of Dulwich Roads and their almost morbid obsession with maximising collision incidents when they have zero clue to what ACTUALLY happened.

You really should get into it as the information is all in there. Have a read: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2023/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2023 Maybe do that next time before you start throwing stats around. I am not defending dangerous road behaviour I am challenging your, repeated, use of misleading headlines to suit your own narrative that have absolutely no basis in fact. To suggest I am defending dangerous road behaviour is, yet another, utterly (perhaps deliberately) misleading narrative you are trying to land. It's all so transparent and tiresome. It seems once someone shows that what you say is not correct (clearly in the context here of the report you used the headline from and then created your own narrative from) you double-down on the name-calling/false accusations.