Rockets

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....

Hmmm, are you sure according to some of the items uncovered by the FOI it seems a report was one month away from being published and there was a discussion about extending the research (or taking a one year hiatus) to see if more LTNs would have a more positive impact on the results but there were no more LTNs planned. @Earl Aelfheah by your own measure then if we will dismiss the content of the report then you will surely embrace it and agree that there is no link between the LTNs and lower car use? And this one seems to pour scorn on one of the key strategic objectives of LTNs does it not? Commissioned, written and allegedly buried by the very people who were claiming the exact opposite. What's interesting is that if this does prove to be the smoking gun some are claiming it is then it massively undermines the argument that everything has been fair, balanced and transparent. I also see that someone called Will or Will N is mentioned in the FOI communications as being involved in the review and the decision........ To some of us what is being suggested is of no surprise. As we have been saying the truth always comes out eventually.

@Earl Aelfheah are you sure as this article says funding was withdrawn two years into the three year project….seemingly when they realised the results weren’t what they wanted. Funded by taxpayers money too…ouch….if true a massive smoking gun. FoI’able is a fascinating concept and clearly shows the mindset of those rolling these things out. As more of the report gets leaked it will be fascinating to see how this develops. If the accusations are true then it’s yet more proof of what many of us have been saying for years, that they don’t deliver - the irony is of course that a lot of you accuse us of trying to manipulate narratives…. It will be fascinating to read the exchanges between the university and TFL because surely “independent” researchers would insist on publishing the paper no matter what the results? Emails between Transport for London (TfL) and the university show that officials were concerned about the report’s results coming out, the newspaper reported. The correspondence discussed how they might present the findings in the most positive light before a decision was made not to publish, the Times said. An official is said to reminded others in one email that “all of this stuff is FoI-able” (available under freedom of information laws) before reassuring them that no one outside TfL yet knew about the study. Funding to finish the three year, £82,095 project, was withdrawn in June last year after the study had been underway for two years. It does indeed, good find. And here appears to be the offending text from the report…. While there is evidence that respondents living in areas with more LTN roads do use a car less frequently, there is only weak evidence that this could be driven by the LTN itself. Once other area- level and infrastructural characteristics are accounted for, there is not a significant effect associated with car use. This suggests that the lower car use in areas with more LTN roads is the result of the other area-level and infrastructural characteristics rather than the LTN.

Ah that started to happen in Dulwich Square too way back when but the fun police soon put a stop to it....apparently the space was opened for the exclusive use of bikes only - skateboards were seen as a potential hazard and the kids doing it were told to go somewhere else!!!

Only in your, and some of the other usual suspects', mind. Not sure you can accuse someone of being "massively dishonest" when all they have done is shared lots of data from many sources to back up their view of what is happening and I don't know why you seem to always have to revert to name-calling and demonising anytime anyone presents a view you disagree with - it's seems to be that aggression and name-calling is where a lot of people go to in some sort of Pavlovian response mechanism anytime they see something they do not agree with. Let's also remember PCSOs told me (I was going to say "told people" but didn't want to trigger the usual ultra defensive/aggressive response) that they thought there was a correlation about the increases in crime in the area whilst door knocking on properties within the LTN....but that was dismissed as me telling porkies....perhaps PCSOs were being massively dishonest too or perhaps it did really happen and they do think there is a correlation! Like so many things time will tell how this plays out and it would be impossible to make a 100% positive link but the data and crime type correlations are very interesting and there is more than a lingering question about whether there is a link between quieter streets and massively increasing crime types.

The data is the data - not sure any of the data has been "comprehensively debunked" at all. It is there for all to see. Only the usual deniers are trying to argue against it but they'll always come up with some sort of argument/excuse! I didn't say political parties will try to link crime to LTNs but they're certainly likely to run on the increasing crime rate in Dulwich Village - the data speaks volumes and any politcal party that doesn't go after Labour on that would be foolish - it wouldn't surprise me if one party didn't try to link it to LTNs if they think there is a case. The Lib Dems are on it already (in terms of the growing crime problem in the Village) and it is one of their key pledges in election leaflets dropping through Dulwich Village doors...perhaps someone will try to suggest I am lying about that as well after the PCSO issue some of you took issue with!

@Earl Aelfheah I would suggest it appears you only seem to have concerns about crime if your beloved LTNs are not involved......if they are involved in any discussion you will then go out of your way to argue with anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "everything is awesome" narrative you project. ANd you have the gall to accuse me of being dishonest and shameful. You and I often, and probably always will, disagree but the evidence presented is more than compelling and with local elections approaching I suspect you'll have a hard time trying to drown out the noise about crime in Dulwich Village and the causes therein. It's a local discussion point amongst local residents whether you like it or not - and no-one has weaponised it - it's the local reality and the debate is stimulated by worried local residents. I would expect weaponisation in the lead-up to the local elections but that is to be expected - that is, after all, politics and every party in opposition will zero in on it as the data is there for all to see.

Whatever @Earl Aelfheah we have seen these tactics 100 times before. We see what you do....! 😉 You'll probably be really upset to hear local residents are discussing whether crime is increasing based on the Met Police data...and you cant try to get to them....that must be really frustrating for you. You can argue with me all you like but ultimately no one can hear you scream in space! 😉

@Earl Aelfheah ha ha, you've clipped the graphic to suit your agenda...my goodness me. How nakedly dishonest. I have explained the rational for this, that some crime benefits from quieter streets...but I know you know that and I know you have seen me say this before...so one wonders why you ignore it and keep asking the same question. I know why.

@ianr on the SctreetScan website you can break the information down to the individual street/postcode level so the trend charts are for Calton Avenue. The police share data for ward by ward crime levels so those figures for Dulwich Village are from their latest 3 month comparison report. London City is, I am presuming, the all London average but I have never been able to find the breakdown of what that measures.

Should we change the title to Is Starmer toast? The real infighting is just starting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgy79yr74do

@malumbu no one is suggesting there needs to be a referendum but the council documents online certainly suggest there needs to be/will be a statutory consultation which, as far as I am aware has not been executed yet. The Record of Decision is very clear in that regard. I mean, let's be honest, the council regularly chooses to ignore the results of stat consultations anyway but if they go ahead without it then that's a significant point of attack for campaigners against the measures - although weren't there stories of the government wanting to give councils more power to roll these out without the need for consultations etc?