snowy

So after 3 days we are back to the issue that every authority involved in designing, building, maintaining and managing the road network disagrees with one mono topic poster...

Classic Alan Partridge!

So one the one hand we have the following organisations who no longer use the word accident as "Describing every crash as an ‘accident’ in effect makes excuses for serious incidents. Most crashes are not ‘accidents’ but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention.” Edmund King (the AA) The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA and then on the other hand we have some lone, out of touch poster called Rockets.

You clearly don't understand that junction then.

Are you aware of the work of Brent Lee?

And another interpretation (the report was published when the Conservatives were in power): "Analysis of the most popular social media posts on the subject between 2022 and 2023 reveals that the proportion classed as ‘disinformation’ – including conspiracy theories – rose from 5% to 28% year-on-year, the report by the cross-party think tank Demos and the Public Interest News Foundation found. In parallel, the proportion of the same posts that could be classified as anti-LTN rose from 48% in 2022 to 79% in 2023. Demos says that the stark rise in disinformation came in the year that “Rishi Sunak attacked councils for the introduction of the policy his Government had previously championed”. There were also concerns that councils failed to properly engage and consult communities as the Government funding was dependent on fast implementation of the schemes. Direct attacks on the infrastructure such as planters, cameras and bollards have followed, as well as death threats against local councillors, the study found."

Its only an odd tangent if you don't think people with different needs are somehow 'othered' as you have done with your list of generous exceptions. You have already made an assumption that the people you saw 'weaving in and out' (do you mean cycling?) weren't disabled and/or weren't following a non statutory sign that they are perfectly permitted to ignore. A charity yards away has been campaigning for its removal as people like you don't understand it: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/campaign-calls-for-action-on-discrimination-against-disabled-cyclists/ Its also not recommended as being used as per TFL LCDS as being 'unnecessary, or in some way compromising wider objectives of promoting safety' Ironically, the yellow sign you have posted as an example of what could be done, is not a standard sign - as you can see it's temporary and not mandatory (indicated by the fact its in yellow and not round). It's not part of the TSRGD or the TSM. It was used on Wandsworth bridge from memory. Look forward to hearing your lobbying of Lou Haigh on the matter and of your support of Wheels for Wellbeing.

How do you propose telling a disabled cyclist to dismount?

The police actively support it in certain circumstances. Cyclists dismount signs are advisory and not compulsory aren't they - as you point out. But generally for Risk and litigation management. The signs also indicate its not 'pedestrian' space but shared space. Given the amount of planning involved and the perception of a massive budget, if it was actually an issue they would have designed it differently.

They really are living rent free in your head aren't they?

No, there's clear guidance in the highway code on it. The code you're meant to learn and keep up to date with in order to have a driving license and be responsible for a large and potentially dangerous vehicle on public roads. TfL even tell you how to deal with non commercial loading unloading and traffic wardens.

It's not a council designed sign either, and its location is most likely set by national guidelines.

Its crowd sourced content. I'm sure you are able to send in your own footage and stories.

In further Partridgisms from Rocks, i'm tickled that according to google no one has ever written the phrase "expensive looking crazy paving" on the internet before. Its a rare almost googlewhack

That's again not what confirmation bias is.

OMG when i read they were called the London Cycling Campaign, i didn't think they would actually campaign for cycling in London.

But you're reducing parents people regularly verbally abusing other parents and staff and throwing No Parking signs into a hedge to 'parking badly' to suit your Partidge-isms. The head of Dulwich Prep has written to parents to say that this behavior is unacceptable and breaks their Parent Code. I imagine a serious transgression of that code means they no longer want your business. Assaulting staff is probably on that list.

.

What a funny little Alan Partridge like post. You're so far down your rabbit hole that to score internet points against a twitter account you don't like, you're now appearing to excuse an untaxed vanity hire car with illegal number plates taking up space on LL.

The Judicial Review is now apparently on the consultation exercise according to their social media account

Apparently the 1000% statistic is made by comparing the accident statistics of the quieter roads that are due to be filtered and then extrapolating that to the arterial road that aren't being filtered and not applying any pro rata calculation. Its all quite bizarrely creative.

She's from Sheffield, so slightly hillier than Swaines Lane

I think the cycling touring club and the Roads Improvement Association in the late 19th century would correct you on that assumption.

"Put aside your dislike of the man and look at the positives." I had a look back at the other Tory mayoral candidates. Aside from Susan Hall, there was the unknown Moz Hussein who lost the the Tory internal vote. Mostly i assume because CCHQ couldn't dog whistle racism as a campaign technique whilst also having their own candidate named Mohammed.

Because she wasn't meant to be on the ballot. Daniel Korski was their first choice but he was added to the list of Conservative politicians accused of sexual abuse and had to step down. Interestingly that list is longer than the list of people ever convicted of voter fraud.