Earl Aelfheah

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.

You regularly minimise serious collisions where they involve motor vehicles: I can point to several examples if you want. In dismissing the need to take stronger action to reduce the thousands of serious injuries and deaths on our roads on grounds that there have been improvements, you've ignored the fact that numbers are falling because of the policies you object to - LTNs, 20mph limits, segregated bike lanes, speed cameras, etc. The fact is that despite this, there are still around 4,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the Capital. Speed plays a part in more than half of them. So I would suggest that speeding is still a significant problem. I didn't initially bring cars into anything btw, I responded to Penguin68's comment where he suggested only cars ever have to 'slam on the breaks'. I actually pointed to what is already being done to address red light hopping and suggested how else you might improve that issue (more than you've done). But regardless, it is obviously relevant when people start talking about road safety interventions, to discuss how to direct resources in ways that will have the biggest impact. This assumes of course that one is actually interested in improving safety, and not just in a silly game of car vs bike, where you blindly defend 'your team'. This is perhaps where you are struggling to see the relevance. And on that, I have never once defended bad road behaviour. Regardless of whether the person behaving badly is travelling by foot, by bicycle or motor vehicle. You won't find me complaining across multiple threads about how unfair it is to be fined for breaking the rules, like some people I could mention. It's instructive that you project this on to me, by asking silly questions, like 'do you think it's OK to jump a red light', when I've clearly said it isn't more than once - it says a lot about your mindset. With regards to speeding on 20mph roads - there have been many different studies and surveys done. I'm not really interested in your usual tactic of tying to kick as much dust as possible to try and obscure something you don't want to admit, but which is undeniably true - it's common place for people to speed, and is a factor in thousands of collisions in London annually. P.S. Please learn how to format your 'cut and paste' posts so they're not in bold font 48.

That kids are able to play outside in a residential area without fear of being run over? I hope so. It used to be considered quite normal.

Haven’t avoided it, I answered it before it was asked… the question wasn’t serious, it was a very poor / transparent attempt to deflect, which is why I’ve ignored it. Obviously I don’t agree with cyclists jumping red lights, I described it as a problem, pointed out current attempts to address it and suggested some other things you might do. Rockets on the other hand, clearly doesn't think that 4,000 serious injuries and deaths in London each year is a problem. Mainly (from what I can tell), because despite the continued high numbers, there have been recent improvements as a result of interventions he vocally disagrees with 🤷‍♂️.

They found that three-quarters of drivers exceed the speed limit on "free-flowing" 20mph roads. So when not stuck in traffic, most people break the speed limit. There are around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the UK. In London it's around 4,000, with speed playing a role in more than half of them. You have naturally tried to minimise these stating that: "whatever they're doing the numbers are going down". Well I've told you what they're doing, it's clearly articulated in the 'vision zero' document. It's all the things you've objected to repeatedly.

‘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

...a conversation about how to stop red light jumping, in the context of road safety. I've offered suggestions for the former and suggested that it's important to direct resources for maximum impact in terms of reducing serious injuries and deaths. So, so boring. Are you 'the car lobby'? Grow up. As usual, you're offering no solutions, just playing silly games.

This is my main objection. I don't like the rhetoric. In terms of a 'digital ID', we already have one effectively, they're just formalising it / giving it a name.

I'm not using any 'strategy'. I don't' believe in this constant 'footballification' that you love to indulge in, where everything must be seen through a lens of cars v's bikes, where you fight for your 'team'. Most people travel around by different modes at different times, and many of the people who demonstrate bad road behaviour do so whether they're in the car, or on a bike. I'm pointing out that there are issues of road safety that need addressing, and that interventions should be proportionate to maximise their impact on safety. I don't believe this is anything a rational person could argue with - but then if you insist on seeing it as a competition with sides, then of course you're not being rational. That's good, but it still leaves a significant problem; we tolerate around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the UK. In London it's around 4,000, with speed playing a role in more than half of them. Amazing that you would imply that's not such an issue, but then you were also trying to minimise a car on it's roof on another thread, so I probably shouldn't be surprised. In terms of red light hopping by those travelling by bicycle, I think we should look at legal reforms to allow safe progression through red lights at some junctions. Exdulwicher mentioned the 'Idaho stop' previously, which alongside stricter penalties and enforcement, sounds eminently sensible. Other than that, more dedicated infrastructure to separate bicycles and cars would help, but you've generally opposed that.

I think that when it comes to privacy and surveillance, the ship has already sailed. Most of us carry a mobile phone everywhere, pay for things digitally, buy things and access services online, are tracked by CCTV and APNR etc.

TfL set up cameras to monitor people going through red lights whilst travelling by bike. They found around 16% breaking the rules. That's similar to the figure of 1 in 6 given in that article who said they regularly ignore the lights. A 2023 gov.uk report showed that in 2022, 45% of cars on motorways and 50% on 30mph roads were exceeding the speed limit. There are issues around people travelling by bicycle not stopping at lights, seriously endangering (primarily) themselves, and a significant problem of people in motor vehicles breaking speed limits, and seriously injuring and killing others (around 30,000 in the UK annually). Both need to be tackled in ways that are proportionate and increase safety for everyone.

Terrible. I hope the victim is OK.

This is not the case. It's not unusual for cars to pull out straight into the path of cyclists either. And I'm sure we've all experienced pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking / on their phones. There are some pretty irresponsible road users unfortunately, regardless of the mode of transport they are using. We need to encourage better behaviours all round; The 'cars vs bicycles' narrative isn't particularly helpful. There are particular issues around people travelling by bicycle not stopping at lights, seriously endangering (primarily) themselves, and also people in motor vehicles regularly breaking speed limits, and seriously injuring and killing others (around 30,000 in the UK annually). We need to point resources at addressing both in ways that are proportionate and increase safety for everyone.

I'm not sure deliberately driving a car into someone (no matter how poorly they're behaving) is advisable Ted.

There are some obvious differences between traditional bicycles, pedal assist e-bikes, and illegal electric motor powered bikes that are throttle operated.

This is quite old now, but it's an interesting analysis and I thought the final line is quite surprising "A key finding from this use of NTS showed that young males are up to five times safer when they cycle than when they drive – and the rest of us are also safer if they cycle and don’t drive!" https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/nts-road-deaths/#:~:text=Death rates were very similar,other than the car driver.

My kids saw the aftermath of another car crash on the South circular this morning. Can’t even find a report of it online. These incidents are so commonplace.

I associate limos with hen parties more than I do celebrities

Between Herne Hill and North Dulwich gives you good options for transport. You have the line into London Bridge, trains to Victoria and the Thameslink into City Thameslink. Plus it's not too far from Brixton tube.

They have a number plate under the qr code, so you can report any badly parked bikes.

This. Personally, I've always felt safe in London. Probably famous last words and I'll get mugged later.