Earl Aelfheah

You don’t have to outsource your thinking to someone else. You seem to be disagreeing that, fundamentally congestion is the result of there being more vehicles (cars, vans, deliveries) than roads can handle; This is the very definition of congestion. If you want to reallocate space to speed up buses, you don’t go after a really small part of the overall allocation, dedicated to the form of private transport that is the least polluting, moves the highest number of people for the least amount of road space, and has significant public health / ROI benefits.

We agree on that. Fundamentally there are more vehicles (cars, vans, deliveries) than roads can handle, creating bottlenecks. Yes, some road space has been reallocated, but there are very few segregated bike lanes outside of Central, and it is very clear that bicycles are not the primary cause of congestion. If you are concerned to see improvements in bus services, would you support bus priority measures and 24/7 bus lanes (for example the one on Lordship Lane), or the removal of car parking on main roads?

Not in that one clip Rockets has picked. But the London Assembly has debated the issue and signed a motion, calling on Sadiq Khan to address it, as cars are ‘getting bigger with every passing year, creating congestion, taking up limited space on our streets and adding danger’. Rockets hasn’t linked to that particular discussion. This is the thing. There is no ‘balance’ when you start from a position where you are determined to prove a position you’ve already taken, and seek out ‘evidence’ according - in this case looking to undermine a growth in cycling you’ve repeatedly said couldn’t happen, but has. The fact that that this is now Rockets third attempt to find an angle, really is revealing. @firstmate If (as it appears) you’re suggesting the primary cause of congestion in London is bicycles, you are just wrong.

I feel for his family, but surely a contender for a Darwin Award.

@Rockets I was responding to first mate, when I agreed that a contributor does reference bike lanes. 🤣 Are you are not going to address any of the points made, answer any questions, or correct your false statements about a promise that was never made? Basically you're scratching around, jumping from argument to argument, determined to make out that the increase in cycling you said could never happen, is either overstated, or somehow a bad thing. Just admit you're wrong for once in your life.

Yes thanks. Are you going to address any of the points i've made, or questions I've asked before posing new ones? In the video you've dug out, they're naturally talking about what has changed relatively recently. One contributor does reference new Bike lanes. As I said, above: That is not the same as saying that bike lanes are the primary cause of carriageway pressure. As first mate has pointed out: What do you think is the primary cause of carriageway pressure? Do you think it's likely to be from the much fewer people travelling on small bicycles, or the much greater number of people travelling in big private motor vehicles? There aren't even any segregated bike lanes round here that I can think of. There are lot's of cars on the roads though, and they have got bigger - turning roads that previously functioned as two-way streets, into ones where cars have to constantly stop to let each other pass. Do you think that bicycles are the thing that are slowing local buses down? Really? And can we assume you'd support removing some parking on Lordship Lane and making the bus lane 24/7 to increase journey times? Seeing as you're definitely, genuinely, concerned about the issue.

What do you think is the primary cause of carriageway pressure? Do you think it's likely to be from the much smaller number of people travelling on bicycles, or the much larger number of people travelling in big private motor vehicles? And it's interesting how the argument against bike lanes has gone from: They don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to; They have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that didn't exist, to; They slow buses , which I'm now concerned about (but I oppose removing parking, giving buses priority, or making bus lanes 24/7, because that might impact me and my car) I mean it makes sense, It's not like there are any cars on the roads round here, or that they're getting bigger (turning roads that previously functioned as two-way streets, into ones where cars have to constantly stop to let each other pass) - it's just miles and miles of segregated bike lanes 🤔. This constant pivoting to different arguments, desperately looking for different ways to try and undermine a good news story is not a great look. Keep going. I'm sure that if you just keep throwing 💩 some of it will stick - at least to those who want to believe it.

I assume you'd support removing some parking on Lordship Lane and making the bus lane 24/7 to increase journey times right? Seeing as you're genuinely concerned about the issue.

We need to build houses for social rent. Not 'affordable housing' (which is a euphemism for housing that is completely unaffordable to most) - actual council housing. Taxes do need to go up. We have to stabilise public services and start paying down our national debt to break free of the sway bond markets have over UK governments freedom to act. We are probably all going to have to work longer too. The original UK state pension was there to help those who often had been in physically demanding manual or labouring jobs. The retirement age was set above average life expectancy at the time; It was not designed for a population of mainly white collar workers people to spend one-quarter, to one-third of their adult life in retirement. I know that may sound harsh, and I certainly don't want to work forever, but the fact is that we have an aging population and a diminishing tax base, and no politician who is willing to make fundamental reforms. Mostly we need to grow, and that means at some point, addressing our relationship with the world's largest trading block right on our doorstep. The damage done by Brexit has been crazy. The fact that it's chief architect has managed to come up smelling of roses and may potentially be our next PM is just mind blowing to me.

The landscaped, pedestrian area on the junction of Dulwich Village and Calton Ave

Yikes! That's pretty grim

The congestion is multi factor. There has been a massive increase in roadworks, some reallocation of space to bicycles (still pretty minimal in the overall picture and in the context of massive growth in numbers - the actual topic of this thread btw), and a big growth in the size of the average car. That last factor has probably done a lot more to increase congestion than is discussed often. The UK’s cars have been growing 1cm every two years for some time now, with 52% of cars sold now too large for minimum parking spaces. London's limited and historic road network was not designed for the fashion of large off-road style cars. This is seriously impacting use of valuable city space. Many roads that previously functioned as two-way streets no longer do (Crystal Palace Road being just one, obvious, local example), leading to bottlenecks and queues as vehicles wait to pass each other. That creates congestion that fans out and contributes to increased standstill traffic across the network. And yes, some of the road space that has been re-allocated for cycle lanes will have had an impact, although the number of segregated cycle lanes locally is almost zero. I whole heartedly support local bus lanes being made 24/7 (have called for it before), but I know that those who, when it's convenient for grinding their 'anti bike' axe, will show concern about bus delays, object at all other times to anything that might speed up buses to the detriment of cars. Locally, I would make Lordship Lane a 24/7 bus lane, remove some parking in order to widen both the pavements and the carriageway slightly - making it easier for buses to pass, and reduce the number of cars manoeuvring in and out of spaces on the high street. Similar measures elsewhere would significantly improve the experience of pedestrians and help move our buses more quickly. And just to address your insinuation that when it comes slow bus journeys, that bikes are the problem' - The main cause of interminable congestion in London is too many, too large, private cars, making short, single occupancy journeys.

It's good advice in that video. The 'life saver' check / over the shoulder check is so important. Those two things, position and observation are probably the biggest things you can do to try and stay safe. That said, when you spend most of your time in primary position, which is usually right in London, you will inevitably get occasional, angry responses, especially on less quiet roads than the ones in the video. It's not uncommon to have cars overtake on the wrong side of a traffic island for example, it you correctly take primary position to prevent being squeezed. I like how calm he is. Ogmios' School of Zen motoring is another good example of how temperament is another important factor in making our roads safer and more pleasant.

Yes, I've read your posts. When you talk about 'years of decline in growth', that language is chosen to give a misleading impression. You've repeatedly made a false claim about a promise of a 10 fold increase in cycling, suggested that 'promise' was used to obtain funding, and referenced £800m alongside it. That is entirely misleading and is clearly intended to minimise the success described in the BBC article, by presenting it as some sort of failure against a target that didn't exist. To be clear, there have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

You’ve repeatedly talked about TfL lobbying for money on the ‘promise’ of a ten fold increase in cycling, alongside an £800m investment. There was no 'promise' - that is false. As is the impression that £800m was somehow linked to such a promise. No, the corrections and clarifications started when you questioned whether anyone had suggested cycle lanes were a waste of time / that cycling hasn't increased as a result, implying no one had - so I pointed out that you have - multiple times. You also made that false claim of a ‘promise of a ten fold increase’ in that first post, and talked about £800m spent since 2019 - giving the impression of huge investments in cycle infrastructure, without placing it in the context of annual TfL spend of circa £11 billion. You later started talking of ‘repeated years of growth decline’ and asked what people think is the catalyst for this - a dishonest rhetorical framing to anchor a misleading narrative of 'decline' in the premise - adding ‘I am not buying the infrastructure message’ (underlying further that it was not an honest question). So not 'attacks', but attempts to correct some of the inaccuracies, and highlight misleading statements.