Earl Aelfheah

I suggested that your claim to be witnessing dangerous cycling and near misses on the pavements at Dulwich Square daily, stretched the bounds of probability. It was on a thread where it was being said the square was a dangerous place for pedestrians, and there was a good deal of hyperbole on display. I have never suggested that dangerous road behaviour doesn’t exist, and that includes by people travelling on bicycle.

Is that right? I thought government data showed overall cycling casualty rates on UK roads falling since 2004, even as cycle traffic has increased (from an estimated 2.59 billion miles in 2004 to 3.61 billion in 2023 - an almost 40% increase). The most recent figures I can find for London specifically show a 43% reduction in casualties per million cycle journeys between 2000 and 2022. The Telegraph article is based on their own analysis and omits a lot of important information (the massive increase in cycling numbers over the period referred to for example). This is especially relevant in the City of London (which it identifies as having the highest number of bicycle / pedestrian collisions); In the City bicycles are now the majority mode of transport during peak commuting hours. The headline (which is actually ridiculous), betrays the Telegraph’s agenda. They publish these types of articles regularly (and of course they get good click through / engagement from their target demographic). All that said, there clearly is an issue with people behaving irresponsibly and dangerously, and it’s becoming a bigger issue in relation to bikes specifically, especially as the number of people cycling increases. It is worth mentioning that this is well recognised (despite the pretence by people like rockets that somehow it is not), and there are things being done to address it. This includes changes in the law referenced in the article, and targeted enforcement (I linked earlier in the thread to an article about measures the City police have been taking specifically). Other things I think could be done include changes to road layouts on some of the bigger commuter routes (for example Blackfriars’ Bridge Road bike lane), where the numbers of bikes travelling at rush hour is massive and the fast and constant flow of traffic creates a risk of being rear ended when you stop to let a pedestrian cross. Some traffic calming measures (signage and textured road surfaces around crossing for example) would be really good to see. Also some pressure on Lime to look at their charging model to discourage red light hopping, and some more creative solutions around things like the Idaho stop as already discussed. And of course (even though for some reason we’re not allowed to mention it as road safety has to be discussed through a 'team' lens 🙄), if we want to increase pedestrian safety we do need tougher crack downs on speeding and dangerous car driving - as a pedestrian you are still much, much more likely to be killed or seriously injured by someone acting irresponsibly when travelling in a car.

Rubbish. I mentioned Lime bikes because there is something you could do specifically in relation to their charging model to encourage people to stop at red lights. I have offered some other suggestions about push bikes more generally too. That's not a deflection tactic, it’s actually engaging with the topic. At no point have I or anyone else said "it's not actually cyclists jumping red lights". In fact I provided the stats for how many cyclists do regularly jump the lights, described it as a problem and offered some potential solutions. You've started going on about illegal bikes / mopeds. You've literally spent pages, adding nothing constructive. You've contradicted yourself over a "report that did not include 20mph roads" (and then quoted what it says about 20mph roads). You've attacked me based on your 'confusing' a comment about a drop in KSI numbers with an entirely different exchange on the prevalence of speeding. And you've made a series of really silly straw man arguments about people claiming "all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes", and people pretending Lime bikes are motorbikes - no one has said these things, you've just made them up. And when any of this has been pointed out, instead of just going back, reading what's been said and admitting your errors, you've doubled down (at which point, it can't really be said to be a misunderstanding; It's just base dishonesty). You seem incapable of engaging in good faith.

I agree. No one has said otherwise btw. Rockets just trying to deflect by bringing electric mopeds and motorbikes (a clear legally defined category) into it. Illegal electric mopeds are also a problem of course, but a different one in terms of enforcement. Yep. This has been discussed many times, even recently on this thread. There are pedal assist e-bikes and there are electric mopeds / motorcycles. These two are quite different. Are you not reading anything that’s been posted?

That’s why it contains a hyperlink to some data. Again, no one has said people on bicycles do not jump red lights. And your trying to claim that motorbikes (under the legal definition of motorcycles shared multiple times with you), are actually bicycles, is a ridiculous and irrelevant distraction.

No. I have not said anything of the sort as is self evident and as you very well know.. Again no one has said or even remotely suggested this. You’re just making ridiculous straw man arguments and spiralling badly. You’ve absolutely embarrassed yourself on this thread, making a number of objectively false and misleading statements. Instead of admitting your ‘mistakes’, or just staying quiet for a bit, you’re doubling down as usual, and showing yourself up further. Sorry to hear this Sue, hope you weren’t too shaken. I actually see cars jumping reds most days on my commute into central London, unfortunately it’s not as rare as you might imagine. The fact is that whilst people are much more likely to jump a red light when travelling on a bicycle (for one thing they have far greater opportunity to than a full width vehicle), as a pedestrian, you’re much more likely to be seriously injured or killed by someone in a car jumping a red. Anyway, glad you’re ok.

Thanks for actually writing to the local councillor and sharing the reply, it's really helpful. I've not taken much interest in this to be honest, because I feel it's mainly up to those who live on the roads in question. Having taken a quick look through the documents though, am I right in thinking that they've consulted with residents and only intend to introduce controlled parking on streets where it has the support of the majority of those who live there? Also looks like they're only introducing controls on three streets? Maybe I've missed something.

That's really rubbish. I feel for them, they've done a great job of converting that space.

This is nonsense. A person on an illegal moped doesn't behave 'exactly like cyclists'. Your perception is irrelevant (and objectively wrong in terms of the legal framework and I would argue, any type of common sense). This is also, completely irrelevant to the discussion. As usual Rockets, with nothing constructive to add and having been caught out making a series of false statements, has again deflected. It's very tedious.

It's not a grey area though is it. There is a clear legal framework. "in the UK, an electric bike (e-bike) that doesn't meet the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) regulations is legally classified as a moped or motorcycle. This occurs if the e-bike's motor provides assistance above 15.5 mph (25 km/h), has a maximum power output over 250 watts, or has a throttle that can be used without pedalling. " I don't really care what you chose to call it. Both legally, and in common sense terms, it is a nonsense to claim that a motor powered, throttle operated bike, capable of doing speeds perhaps as high as 70mph, is a bicycle.

Where have I claimed that "a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping."? This is rubbish. I actually pointed out that data shows around 16% of people on bikes don't stop. I did suggest that you could do something targeted, to disincentive people travelling by Lime bike specifically, from jumping the lights (amending the charging model). This is not to say that they're 'the ones causing the problem'. I also pointed out in the same post that in many ways pedal assist bikes generally, do less to discourage stopping, because the loss of hard gained momentum is not an issue in the same way as it may be on a conventional push bike. I've suggested other, more general interventions you could make, that taken together might help reduce red light hopping. From what I can tell, you've contributed nothing constructive at all, as usual. Firstly, your constant reference to anyone who disagrees with you as 'the cycle lobby' is getting increasingly embarrassing. Are you 'the car lobby'? The only one who constantly takes irrational, binary positions, based on a dumb 'car vs bicycle' position, is you. Most people are thankfully capable of looking at evidence and applying their critical faculties in order to form nuanced opinions. Concerning cycling numbers, they have consistently been on the rise for around two decades now. Boosted by the investments in cycle infrastructure you regularly complain about and claim to be ineffective. There is plenty of data on this, which of course you've (predictably) tried to minimise or misrepresent on numerous occasions. On the classification of different two wheeled vehicles, this has been discussed many times with you (so it's not like you don't know this): Trying to suggest that someone travelling on an illegal, throttle powered, electric motorbike (which may be capable to travelling of speeds up to 70 mph) is a 'cyclist', is self evidently ridiculous / desperate. You really are not engaging in good faith debate. It's just a constant stream of nonsense.

@Rockets are you disputing the fact that cycling has increased. The number of daily cycle journeys in London has risen 26% since 2019.

What ‘case’? I’ve quoted a report on speeding directly, which you have then claimed doesn’t say things you’ve gone on to quote it as saying. I’ve also pointed out why KSI numbers have fallen (notably in London, having plateaued elsewhere) because of targeted and successful interventions you’ve argued against. Meanwhile you’ve done nothing but try to kick up dust and deflect with your usual nonsense, because we can’t discuss speeding in relation to motor vehicles (only bicycles bizarrely), or what has actually been effective in improving road safety (because it involves things you’ve argued against). It’s embarrassing. And if you had any shame, you'd apologise for repeatedly making stuff up and stating that I've said things I self evidently have not.

Who's that?

Yes, agree about the headline, but the fact that air pollution has dropped so dramatically is fantastic. It will save many lives.

@Rockets the quote you’ve used was a response to the above, in which I explain the interventions that have led to a drop in KSI numbers. Read it again: ‘Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 You can read about it here https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london So no, it's nothing to do with a random, contorted context you're trying to desperately apply, to prove... something - I've no idea what? Your 'case' may have some holes in it.

This is just nonsense. You’re spiralling. Show me where I’ve said this, show the quotes. Have you actually bothered reading anything I’ve said before responding? Not long ago you were saying that they didn’t look at 20mph zones. Now you say they were. It’s all of course irrelevant to the point being made (that speeding is commonplace and contributes to serious injuries and deaths), but you love to kick up dust, and deflect to obscure facts you don’t want discussed.

@Rockets Wow that’s some Olympic level nonsense and deflection. You know that everything that is said is recorded? You seem to forget. Go back and read what I’ve written.

Well then you haven't read what I said, because this is not true. And you've just changed your argument - a minute ago you were claiming that your issue was the report didn’t mention 20mph roads?! You’re all over the place. It's just the usual noise and deflection It's very, very, tedious.

I really don't get your point, or how you think you've shown me to be wrong? I originally said: The point was simply that speeding is common place. As usual, you ignored the point and tried minimise the prevalence of speeding, claiming that those roads aren't relevant (although there are still plenty of motorways and 30mph roads in London). So I pointed out that the same report also looked at 20 mph roads, where the number of people speeding is even higher. But again, the point of course is not the numbers per se - it's that speeding is commonplace and is a significant problem. It's a factor in more than half the collisions that result in serious injury and death in London each year. But rather than talk about that fact, you obviously, predictably, tried to kick up dust. Because ultimately, although it is unequivocally true that people speeding whilst using cars kill a lot of people, you weirdly see them as 'your team', so you knee jerk deflect. Its' ridiculous. Getting back to that. There is definitely something around the pricing model for Lime bikes that could make a difference. When you're on a bicycle, getting started from a stop is the hardest part, so there is some incentive to maintain momentum where possible (which may be why some people are reluctant to come to a full stop if they think they can get away which not doing so). The beauty of pedal assist bikes is that they reduce the 'cost' of lost momentum, with that electric boost to get going again. Lime's pay per minute model works against this, encouraging people to keep moving despite the electric assist. If they had a pay for distance model, then you might see more people happy to stop and start.

Wow, that's amazing! Great news.

This is just untrue. From said report: This by the way is absolute gold: In an attempt to minimise the high numbers of 'killed and seriously injured' on London streets, you suggest that we don't need to overly concern ourselves about it because there is already very effective, but unknown, action happening... Well that action is laid out clearly in the mayor's Vision Zero strategy - they're the interventions that you have opposed vocally - 20mph schemes, LTNs, traffic filters, segregated bike lanes, camera enforcement for traffic offences etc. And there is it. No interest in even discussing the evidence on road safety in a serious way. No interest in anything practical. No interest in directing resources towards the most impactful interventions. Just a constant kneejerk instinct to attack 'cyclists' and defend 'drivers', as if they're not the same people just travelling in different ways at different times. It's so, so boring. ...said with a straight face after trying to minimise how widespread speeding is and it's clear role in serious road injuries and deaths.

The report says: Yes, it offers caveats around the available data, but it's not true that it does not study 20 mph zones as you claimed above. And this sits in the context of a number of studies and surveys, all of which point to speeding being common place. We know that there are literally thousands of serious injuries and deaths in London every year, where speeding is recorded as being a significant factor. This report from the BBC also give some additional context, on the reasons people gave for speeding to both the RAC and the BBC themselves: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62gz9261xgo And yes, as well as minimising the issue of speeding, you have repeatedly tried to minimise collision data, as well as the seriousness of specific crashes (see the thread Upturned Car on Adys Road, or Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished, your constant attacks on 'Dulwich Roads', or in fact any thread where serious accidents that have involved motor vehicles have been discussed). You have objected to 20mph schemes, LTNs, traffic filters, segregated bike lanes, in fact almost all of the measures that have contributed to recent reductions in road casualties across London (the same reductions you cite as a reason not to be worry about speeding drivers incredibly). The pattern is very clearly one of you attacking 'cyclists' and jumping to minimise or defend 'drivers'. This and your constant references to anyone who doesn't follow the same binary pattern as the 'active travel lobby' just illustrates how you seem to view the issue of road safety as a game with two opposing sides (as does your weird insistence that I condemn dangerous behaviour by people travelling by bicycle, as if I haven't regularly done so, or would for some reason not want to). It's really very sad. So you know, interpret that as you wish 🤷‍♂️

Yes, for the thousands of people every year who are seriously injured or killed, for their friends and families, it is a disaster. But I also consider it a disaster for the community who would object to action to address it. Those reductions in deaths that have been achieved in London as a result of targeted interventions, do you think that they weren't really worth it? Even though they've saved a significant number of lives? If 30,000 UK citizens were killed every year as the result of plane crashes, we would demand urgent action. Regardless of it being fewer deaths per 'person miles travelled'.

But, unfortunately for you, not the study from which you cited You either haven't read it, or you've just resorted to your usual tactic of making stuff up, doubling down and deflecting. I'm not going to get into it. If you want to claim that people don't regularly break the speed limit, or that speeding isn't a significant contributory factor in a large number of collisions resulting in serious injuries and deaths, fill your boots. It's sad how you regularly try to defend dangerous road behaviour where it involves a motor vehicle. @Penguin68 as pointed out by Rockets, there have been significant reductions in serious injuries and deaths in London already as a result of many of the interventions that he has objected to. The idea that there is nothing that can be done is demonstrably not true. The idea that we shouldn't try to do anything is pretty awful imo. Read the Vision Zero strategy and how it's already made a massive difference.