Rockets

Didn't they try to do this when they were going LTN mad after lockdown? Is this the rehashed version of that (which Phase was it) which I think was dropped when someone worked out it was going to be a displacement disaster <removed>

Did you not say this in relation to your misleading stats.....?

March46 doesn't like the truth to get in the way of a good story!!!!

Malumbu...????

Only when I pointed out the misleading data you had provided....sigh....

....misleading data.....for one third of your second set of data England was in the midst of three national lockdowns. At no point during lockdown did traffic reach the average level for the preceding three years (in fact at one point recorded road traffic was down 63% on the preceding 3 year average). Interesting chart I found as well plotting the increase in cycle traffic, casualties and fatalities comparing 2020 to the previous three years.

Well, every time local residents have been polled by the council the majority have made their feelings very clear (and the council ignores them)....do you have anything that contradicts that...if so do please share it with us as you've presented nothing to suggest otherwise?

Because it really does not concern me in the slightest, you are the one who is utterly obsessed with trying to paint them as some sort of transport wing of the 1922 Committee. I am more concerned with what they are doing to represent the voice of those who do not agree with the way the council is forcing changes onto local residents that the majority do not want. And this is why I think you are trying to tar them as Tories - because you think that will help turn public opinion against them. Meanwhile rumours abound that local Labour councillors and leading active travel lobbyists infiltrated the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee leading to the Dulwich Society to have to state that the transport sub-committee did not speak for DS and that DS was impartial when it came to the DV junction....are you as concerned about that...I suspect not because that move was to support an agenda you agree with?

No I rubbish it because you are presenting (deliberately?) misleading data.

Looks pretty unsafe to me - what do you think Malumbu?

No I am keen to know if you know the source and scope of the data you share. You clearly don't. You make claims like this without understanding the source of the info and whether it is a truly accurate reflection of what is happening. You've done the same on the other thread; shared a stat that you think backs your claims but you haven't done any due diligence on the data before pressing post.

It's a simple question: is the data you have shared (to back your claims) comparing apples with apples? I do not think it is.

Earl, are the numbers you shared adjusted for lockdowns? Are you not comparing the data from one three year period that did not have an extended period of lockdown against a three year period that did include an extended period of lockdown? If so, the data you have shared is misleading and needs to come with a huge caveat, does it not?

I think what DKHB meant to say was: "How dare Southwark News report on something that I want everyone to forget about". Bravo to One Dulwich (and Richard Aldwinckle if he is the person behind it - I am sure DulvilleRes is checking to see if they are a Tory) for keeping this in the minds of Dulwich residents and supporting the wider fight against the imposition of these measures against the will of local residents.

Are those figures pro-rated/adjusted due to the impact of the lockdowns because your second set of figures includes a huge tranche of lockdown time when our roads were pretty much deserted? Also, my question was about the displacement routes and you have quoted figures for the whole of Southwark - and my point was it's great to say oh look accidents have reduced on closed roads - but this is only good if accidents have not increased on the displacement routes. Do you have the granularity to back up that claim or are you just basing your assertions on the whole of Southwark stats you have quoted?

Exactly. That's why there urgently needs to be a more balanced and pragmatic approach.

But it's not the only part...and many in the pro-cycle lobby (especially those in a position to set policy) often forget this.

They appear to be a serious "nuisance" to a some of their riders. Who was calling for them to be banned? Ah, employing the Snowy form of discussion I see. What "from your understanding" is the story then - a reminder we're still waiting for Snowy's exposure on the death of Hilda Griffiths.

The article doesn't compare the injuries to those similar to motorcycles but says: More Londoners have approached London Centric with stories of their legs being severely broken after Lime’s heavy e-bikes fell on top of them, with the victims suggesting the design of the ubiquitous vehicles needs reappraising. One London hospital is automatically assessing patients coming to A&E after Lime bike accidents as potential trauma incidents due to the prevalence of severe “motorcycle-esque” injuries. One Lime user whose leg was almost severed in an accident alleged the company is leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bill for injuries caused by poor maintenance, branding Lime’s business model a “wealth transfer from British people funding the NHS to venture capital guys in California”. London Centric has seen Lime’s rider insurance policy, which requires users to be permanently disabled in a severe manner such as the “complete loss of one kidney” before it will pay out. What they are saying is that: 1) hospitals are seeing Lime-bike trauma injuries that are at the same seriousness as motorcycle injuries caused by bikes falling onto their riders - so much so that if they hear someone is coming to hospital after a Lime bike crash they categorise it (and prepare for) more severe injuries 2) If you do fall off and the bike badly breaks part of you the Lime insurance doesn't look like it will cover you 3) Some are accusing poor maintenance of Lime bikes as a reason for some of the accidents Time and time again the pro-cycle lobby doesn't want to acknowledge many of the issues being created by these new forms of cycling. They will deny it's happening but then find that there is increased legislation because others (most notably and powerfully the medical lobby) will say, hang on something needs to be done. Throw Lime bikes into the same "it's not happening" bucket as the problems caused by red-light jumping, pavement cyclists and the dangers of floating bus stops and mixing pedestrian and cycling usage. One wonders which one will be the trigger for changes that the cycle-lobby then refers to as "draconian, unnecessary and pandering to a small vocal minority". That video really shows what the problems are now and I dare any pro-cycle lobbyist to come up with some excuse for what's going on there - actually probably best to post that in the bad cycling thread as the majority of these aren't Lime bikes. What's happening there is cyclists aren't stopping and giving way to pedestrians as they are required to do - just watch as some of them try to force their way through - how dare these pedestrians slow us down! This is one very specific example of problem location (caused by cyclists not wanting to/abating their speed as they come off the bridge) but this is happening all over London - even in Dulwich Square - the path of cyclists is being prioritised over pedestrians.

Ultimately once hospitals start saying there is a problem then governments will be forced to act. It happened with e-scooters after hospitals saw a rise in e-scooter related injuries. But remember folks, bikes weigh much less than cars and do far less damage so those trauma injuries caused by Lime bikes (often to their own rider) aren't important and should not be considered for fear any remedial measures thwart the growth of cycling....sigh....

It seems hospitals are seeing lots of "severe motorcycle-esque" injuries caused by the weight of Lime bikes. https://www.londoncentric.media/p/lime-ebike-london-switch-cheaper-chinese-tyres

The fight back started in Dulwich! https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/dulwich-residents-lead-national-charge-against-unwanted-ltns/

Creating parking pressure to then be able to charhe residents for the privilege will be part of this council's tarnished legacy. How very socialist of them...

I don't think it is. One of the criticisms from a man whose wife was killed by a cyclist that the reporting of such incidents was insufficient. I would be interested to know how Earl's shared data is collected - is it from police sources, ambulance, hospital data. There seems to be a lack of reliable data on cyclist vs pedestrian accidents. I saw one journalist say that injuries had increased significantly since Covid (I think they said doubled) but they did not cite a source for that but suggested it came from the NHS. Maybe it is time for data to be robustly collected.

Of course you don't.