Earl Aelfheah

The speed cameras there are really obvious. The speed limit is clear. The limit isn't arbitrary, it's an evidence based intervention that has saved lives. Stopping distance increases by approximately 11 metres when increasing speed from 20 mph to 30 mph, and risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately five times higher if hit. That road runs alongside a park and driving faster towards the end of a line of stopped traffic achieves absolutely nothing. A 20 mph limit does very little to slow down your overall journey Yeh, sometimes we lose concentration and get caught breaking the limit. It hopefully reminds us to pay more attention in future. It's annoying, but t's a fair cop. I see little point in complaining about getting fined for doing something you know is subject to a fine.

But what's the point of accelerating to 30 towards the next line of cars or set of lights? It doesn't actually speed up your overall journey in any material sense. It just makes it more likely you'll hit someone and more likely you'll injure them if you do.

Powerful new long-term TfL research shows 20mph speed limits save lives on London’s roads It is also unlikely that 20mph speed limits make much difference to overall journey times in a built up area like London. If you increase your speed, you're mainly just racing towards the same set of lights you would have been sat at had you proceeded a little slower.

There is the Blue Brick Cafe for vegetarian food too.

I originally meant Kensington Olympia (my bad), but updated that to say West Brompton, which is closer to the hospital. ...although Dulwich Dwellers suggestion may be better (345 from Clapham Junction)

Think it's still going. Saturday, 8 November this year, 17:00 – 20:00

Wow, that looks really serious. I hope no one has been hurt.

It amazes me how little outrage there actually is. The US is very clearly, and very quickly falling into autocracy. And as noted above, there are an alarming number in the UK who appear to support the direction the US is taking.

It doesn't surprise me. This is what press offices do (kindly, one might call it spin). It's why you should take newspaper stories and press releases (from not just the mayor, but anyone) with a pinch of salt and look to good (ideally peer-reviewed, academic) sources. I agree that it's disappointing, but also seems to be fairly standard PR behaviour.

The 200 years figure is nonsense reporting. From what I can tell, it's based on this paragraph in the research: They've taken the highest possible estimate (193 years) based on trends for NO2 between 2010-16 continuing without interruption and being projected out. Needless to say this is sensational / disingenuous reporting by Forbes, not a fault of the research (in which the figure is contextualised properly). Regardless, it’s clear the ULEZ has had a hugely positive impact.

That may be true. It obviously varies according to time of day, location etc. But objective counts regularly put the number at around 16-17%, or 1 in 6. We could fall down a rabbit hole discussing the exact percentage however, it's not really the point. The point is that it's too high and we need to do something about it that is proportionate and actually improves safety. I'm not really interested in rules for rules sake, but I am interested in improving safety, especially for those impacted by others bad behaviour. I think this is why interventions like the Idaho stop rules would help. As well as putting pressure on companies like Lime to review the incentives they create with their charging models. Ultimately though, I do think it needs a degree of perspective. People travelling by bicycle are far, far less likely to seriously injure others. The more people who cycle, rather than drive, the safer our roads get. Reading the multiple discussions across this section and in the right wing media, one might be forgiven for thinking that the opposite is true (or as the article shared, hysterically declares: "cyclists are waging war on pedestrians"), which is misleading and unhelpful.

@tedfudge No one is doubting that cyclists are far more likely to jump red lights than cars (for one thing they have far more opportunity to than a full width vehicle). Not sure about 58% figure though. TFL, as well as the article that started this thread, both suggest it's around 16%. Constantly posting evidence that people on bicycles are sometimes involved in collisions, or that they can break the rules of the road, isn't adding much. Neither fact is disputed. Placing it in context however, describing the relative impact, is obviously important if you're interested in proportionate and appropriate interventions.

You mean the types of tricks used in an article with the headline "How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians", described here: ...or the ones where you have used misleading data, and conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally?

The Mayor deserves credit for pushing ahead with ULEZ in the face of some pretty hysterical opposition, including in the right wing press. It took political courage to stick the course and it's had a hugely positive impact. He's also done a lot to improve road safety, again in the face of some strong opposition from similar quarters. Many politicians would have wobbled and perhaps reversed direction. It shows real leadership to do what's right and not just what's easy.

Yes, you're right, South Ken isn't accessible. You could get off at West Brompton which is step free? So Windrush line from Denmark Hill to Clapham Junction, change train (it's on the same platform) and go two stops to West Brompton. From there you can take the 430 bus the short distance to the hospital.

Take the Windrush line from either Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill (the latter is step free) to Clapham Junction, then switch on to the Mildmay line (it's on the same platform) to South Kensington

I have addressed both those points. Go back and read what I've posted if you're genuinely interested. As a pedestrian you are more likely to be seriously injured by a person travelling by car than by bicycle. Including on the pavement. By a significant margin.

I have actually discussed red light jumping by cyclists and suggested how you might seek to reduce it. What have you actually added that is constructive with regards the topic? You've mainly made a series of really silly straw man arguments attacking things that no one has said.

On the one hand you claim that people are scared of being seriously hurt by cyclists and that the perception itself is harmful. On the other you seem to ignore, or fail to recognise the reality of the fact - that people travelling on bicycle actually pose very little risk relatively, to pedestrians. When one posts constantly, across multiple threads about the dangers cyclists pose, whilst attempting to close down any examination of the causes of the vast majority of pedestrian injuries, who is doing most to add to disproportionate, unrealistic, and harmful perceptions? What about the use of misleading data, or conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally, aimed at stoking fear; For example when it is stated that Dulwich Square is now more dangerous than it was previously for pedestrians, and that it is a high crime area? These things are objectively untrue. Is that helpful? Or how about an article with the headline "How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians"? Does that headline reflect reality?

That's not the point (read the whole of my post). I agree that as with crime, perception can cause real harm, entirely separately of the reality. It’s exactly why I object to people making up or misusing statistics to exaggerate risk and stoke people’s fears. For example when people claim that areas are crime hotspots, or dangerous crash hotspots for pedestrians, when they objectively are not.

I’m not the one disproportionally ‘obsessed’ about the impact of objectively the most benign form of private transport, whilst constantly minimising the impact, and shouting down any discussion of, the least. I am very happy to discuss both, but with some sense of proportion and based on evidence. The use of statistics in that Telegraph article is misleading when it comes to comparing the relative dangers of bicycles and motor vehicles. Whilst collisions involving cyclists can lead to pedestrian injuries, collisions involving motorists injure pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and all other road users (those additional injury numbers are excluded). The relevant comparison is 28,000 serious injuries involving motor vehicles annually, and 189 involving bicycles. For deaths you can see the graphs above. Motor vehicles led to around 1,600 deaths, bicycles 3 (two more than were caused by a pedestrian running into someone else who was on foot). Which takes us to the other issue; Using percentages to compare changes from wildly different baselines. If next year pedestrians cause 2 deaths instead of 1 there will have been a 100% increase, but it won’t tell you much about how dangerous pedestrians are getting. Likewise if there is one less death caused by a cyclist, it would represent a 30% drop, but wouldn’t really tell you that cycling is getting safer. The article also ignores the relative growth in people travelling by bike over the reference period. Cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London, but this obviously relevant context isn’t mentioned. Fundamentally, the more people who cycle rather than drive, the safer pedestrians are.

As I said

They’re not involved in serious collisions at any where near the rate of any other type of private vehicle. I would need to look at the stats, rather than conclude anything from a Telegraph article declaring a war between people, but they don’t appear to take account of the actual risk per mile. So my initial guess is that it’s at least in part related to a massive growth in the numbers / proportion of bicycle traffic, especially in the City where bicycles now make up the majority of peak-time traffic. The fact that cars are getting safer is multi-factor, but is linked to things you oppose- reduced speed limits, camera enforcement as well as improvements in technology. I have suggested interventions you could introduce to reduce the risk those travelling by bicycle pose. But from articles like that one and from the multiple threads on this forum, you could wrongly believe that people on bicycles pose the biggest risk to others of any form of private transport. The truth is the opposite of course (see below from the DfT: That’s in absolute terms, when you look at other road users killed by distance travelled, motorbikes jump to the top of the list, followed by HGVs. Bicycles are still at the bottom, pedestrians aside.

Don't think it's upset anyone, (perhaps those who object to a question about the source?). The headline is How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians. In an article that adds a one liner towards the bottom of the article, that "cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists.". The article also ignores the increases in the number of people cycling over the period referred to. But all that aside, the fact that as the number of people travelling by bicycle increases you need to review laws and enforcement (and improve / expand infrastructure), is fairly obvious. Fundamentally though, it's important not to lose sight of the big picture - the more people who travel by bicycle rather than car, the safer pedestrians are - quite at odds with that headline.

I have commented on them. That figure on investment is also a statistic, for which there is no reference, so it's not unreasonable to question it's source. The article is not a particularly serious analysis on any level, it's an editorial piece in the Telegraph. That said, clearly there has been a big increase in the number of cyclists, especially in London, and especially in the City. Whilst that almost certainly a net benefit for pedestrian safety, it does also means that you have to give greater thought to the rules and enforcement around bicycles as they grow in number. But worth keeping it in perspective, and treating articles in the Telegraph, with silly headlines about people declaring war on each other with a little scepticism.