Rockets

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.

But, unfortunately for you, not the study from which you cited and then somehow tried to correlate to the impact of interventions like LTNs. Which simply was not true and had no bearing on reality. Anyone who had bothered to look at the report would have known that. You clearly didn't so I will let everyone else interpret that how they see fit. It's a good job some of us are on here policing these misleading narratives! 😉

@Earl Aelfheah please, please, please read the actual report you are citing from....you are wrong on 20mph roads - they were not included in the stats you quoted for your headline. In fact the report says, very clearly (did you not actually read it before you took the headline stat and repeated it?): 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. You're wrong. 20mph roads are not included as part of the "free-flow" analysis that they did, which was on free flow 30mph roads, national speed limit roads and motorways. I do laugh when you try to accuse me of minimising the impact of cars when you use cars to try to minimise the impact of cyclists...after all this thread is about red-light cyclists yet you, as usual, have tried to drag cars into it.

Errr, clearly not on sections of free-flowing 30mph roads, national speed limit roads and motorways that have been used by the government for that annual comparative analysis... Honestly @Earl Aelfheah I implore you to actually check the data and methodology before you start throwing stats around...

Come on Earl.....yes or no...it's not a difficult question to answer....

Yup. It's pretty simple. Just stop at red lights and this is no longer an issue. @Earl Aelfheah do you agree with that too - cyclists should just stop at red lights?

But you probably need to practise what you preach then because it seems every time anyone has a debate about cyclists you have to try and bring it back to cars....which is exactly what you have done, not only in your first post that I flagged but your response above as well. So maybe you're the one guilty of a healthy does of "footballification". But we aren't tolerating it are we....people are trying to do something about it and whatever they are doing seems to be working as the numbers are going down year on year. Meanwhile....when it comes to discussing the plague of red-light jumping cyclists making crossing the road difficult for pedestrians.....you suggest... Why is it that so many in the cycle lobby are convinced that instead of respecting the rules of the road the rules of the road need to be changed to accommodate them.....it's a very weird perspective and one that hints at blinkeredness...how many time have we heard cycling leaders say: "we can't do that because it might slow the growth of cycling"? I think the problem is for the cycle lobby is that they spend most of their time saying "it's not our fault" and will ultimately face more draconian measures bring brought because they cannot get on top of it. This is the same model for other road users - laws and regulations are designed to police the worst offenders - and it really does not help when many in the cycle lobby pile on and say "well they aren't really cyclists they are e-bike, Lime-bike, illegal e-bike users". .

There is a big caveat here...and this is why trying to use stat to says "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" is such a risky strategy....especially if you haven't looked at the caveat.......you kind of missed the point of that government report which measured speeds on "free-flowing roads". Which they define as The report stats: Only sites where the road conditions are free flowing, for example where there are no junctions, hills, sharp bends, speed enforcement cameras or other traffic calming measures. So what you are actually comparing are stats for speeding drivers on long straight roads with no impediments versus cyclists who are being ordered to stop to give way to other road users. P.S. the speeding driver issue has been declining year on year and saw another 8% drop in that report. I do agree with you that cyclists who do this are ultimately endangering themselves and it is interesting that, despite the millions invested in cycle infrastructure TFL's own measure of risk (KSIs per million journeys) has shown little improvement for cyclists between 2015 and 2024 and I do wonder whether much of that is being driven by red-light stupidity amongst that growing number of cyclists that do it.

Ha ha @malumbu the cycle lobby loves to claim cycling is on the increase (often propped up by increasss in the very groups of cyclists you say should not be treated as cyclists). You can't have it both ways..... I am sorry but as far as the public are concerned if you are on a pedal bike, an assisted pedal bike, an electric bike, a cargo bike or some form of legal/illegal e-bike then you are on a bike and are a cyclist. Each of the aforementioned bikes are different in their design but if you ride one you are cyclist in the minds of the public - and seemingly those who count cyclists....

@malumbu all this "it's the e-bikes that are the problem" is nothing more than a distraction attempt. Yes there are problems with souped up illegal e-bikes but the vast majority of problems are being caused by what everyone categorises as a bike - pedal bikes, Lime bikes, pedal assist legal bikes. What is in play here is a weak attempt by the cycle lobby to point the finger of blame at a group to try and absolve itself of responsibility for addressing the challenge - it's another "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS". Trust me, TFL is not embarking on a cyclist education poster campaign because of illegal e-bikes!

Ha ha @malumbu they are bikes...they are called e-bikes for a reason. I love how some of you try to blame the problem as e-bikes and then try to claim e-bikes are actually motorbikes. Is a Lime bike a motorbike then?

@malumbu you are clearly becoming Brendan Carr and we are Jimmy Kimmel…..I posted an article, left no comment but you interpret that as being an anti-cycling thread….. You have set up enough threads on cycling to “share the joys” this one is about red light jumping cyclists…so if you have nothing constructive to add on topic then please don’t. This is long overdue….so glad to see they are doing this. A new Transport for London poster campaign tells cyclists they must always stop for people at red lights. TfL say the new campaign aims to raise awareness of the Highway Code, with a particular focus on highlighting five key rules “designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling” after a recent survey conducted by TfL shows that there is low awareness and understanding of the rules, which were updated in 2022. # The five rules are: Cyclists must always stop at red lights You must stop for people on zebra crossings Always stop for people at zebra crossings on cycle tracks Always let people cross before you turn Always let cyclists pass before you turn

BBC News - City of London to examine tougher cycling fines https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvrrdpge39o

But @Earl Aelfheah by the same measure you must support the conclusion of said report - surely? Come on, you can't have it both ways. And if it is proved that this report was buried due to the conclusions it came to then will you accept that it then calls into question anything else published by TFL to defend the LTNs? One suspects it was only not fully completed (I mean there was 112 pages of the report and one person said they were a month away from publishing) because it didn't come to the conclusions they wanted/needed. Unfortunately, this is how activist research works - people tend to pick and chose what they decide to share. This could be a huge smoking gun - you know, we know it and the person who warned others about the fact that everything was FoI'able clearly knew it as well. It is starting to unravel one piece at a time....