LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

It's a clear manipulation of the data gathering process, the one on Lordship Lane is now more than 20feet away from the threshold of the crossing and roundabout meaning most traffic will be crawling over it. If that is providing data for that section of the road it is going to be inaccurate data. I see no reason it could not have been placed further up the road.

The council know what they are doing and have been doing it since the measures went in - the one near Melford Road at the other end of Lordship Lane (which interestingly has now been removed) started it's monitoring life near the bus stop past the Court Lane junction...the only reason it could have been moved was to make sure if was exposed to crawling traffic for much of the day.

[sizemore]

I have to admit that when the original thread on this subject was closed “as it was getting too personal, too vindictive, too "wrong"” I did worry that the new thread would peter out, but here we are, 70 pages later, and everyone on both sides is still as vexed as a wet hen. With no end in sight, well done to all involved! What stamina. Good luck and carry on the good fight!

[heartblock]

The queues of traffic and pollution every morning caused by the LTNs remains. When it goes back to pre-LTN levels and there is not a queue of traffic idling all the way from LL to Village Way, then I'll stop discussing it on this thread.

I'll even stop discussing it if Southwark actually measure the particulate pollution and NOx levels at 8:30am on a school day and publishes the data, or start measuring 'congestion' rather than ATC traffic counts from ATC's that do not register idling traffic.

So yes, I'm sure it is an annoying and very long discussion for anyone who is not harmed by this polluting traffic or doesn't care if anyone else is.

[first mate]

And anyone who cares about democracy, transparency and a degree of plain old honesty, should continue to call out the imposition of LTNs.

[malumbu]

sizemore post

I have to admit that when the original thread on this subject was closed “as it was getting too personal, too vindictive, too "wrong"” I did worry that the new thread would peter out, but here we are, 70 pages later, and everyone on both sides is still as vexed as a wet hen. With no end in sight, well done to all involved! What stamina. Good luck and carry on the good fight!

What a wonderful term Sizemore - vexed as a wet hen. Never heard of it but a Google suggest it is an Americanism for angry. I'm not angry and I expect many of us who try to point out alternative views are similar. There is some very entrenched views but I doubt whether the argument has progressed much in the 70 odd pages. You'll note some hard core, and some who have posted 100s of times. Personally I doubt if this thread will make a jot of difference.

Here's a list of things that I am vexed as a wet hen about

Lack of enforcement of 20mph zones. Lack of central government action with regards to urban motoring, reducing carbon and air pollutant emissions through driver/owner behaviour, lack of training for drivers (pass your test at 17 and then drive like an rrrrrs for the next 60 years), sorting out the whole mess of (currently illegal) electric scooters and twist and go electric bikes, including for example the PCSOs who just ignored the scooter coming down Rye Lane at 15 mph in the pedestrianised section, cycling standards - the minority who do things that endanger themselves and others (again a big role for central government) - complex as there are those who just couldn't give a flip and those who should know better including the Dulwich mummies and daddy's cycling their kids on the pavement when the Village is one of the best places to cycle. And Nextdoor.com which is so reactionary. No, I will not sign your petition opposing CPZs.

Can't be bothered to check my post, and it will come over as a rant. Good!

But wont get a lot of traction on much of the above here so tend to write to my MP from time to time.

[Bic Basher]

Where I finally agree with malumbu on something is cycling standards. The amount of jumping lights at junctions is ridiculous along with the arrogance that they don't have to comply with the Highway Code.

I'll wait at the Dulwich Library crossroads and everytime I wait at the box junction for bikes, you'll see other cyclists jumping red lights while I'm left with petrol vehicles including mopeds and scooters.

[Rockets]

The police are starting to clamp down on it as I think they are being forced to as the problem is so widespread. Just last week I walked across London Bridge and a cyclist rode up from Monument, on and off the pavements and then cycled across the pedestrian crossing in front of a police motorcycle who was waiting at a red light at the junction in front of Monument tube. The police offer watched them, shook their head, turned on their blue lights and then pulled the cyclist over further along the pavement on Cannon Street and was in the process of issuing something to the cyclist who had the most incredulous look on their face.

The Plough junction is particularly bad with many cyclists thinking the green pedestrian lights apply to them and I am reminded of this video by Barbyonabike who works locally and films, amongst other things, Dulwich cyclists flaunting the rules of the road!!!

[redpost]

Cyclists are low hanging fruit for the police, easy to catch and good PR to give a cyclist a bollocking in front of the car driving public.

[malumbu]

OMG what have I started? I thought I'd put this in for a bit of balance, I'm more vexed as a wet hen about the government kowtowing to motorists yet again by not returning fuel duty to it's previous level, let alone keeping it up with inflation. Government can continue to cap fuel bills as the cost is so much lower than initially thought, yet with fuel coming down by 35 a litre from it's peak cannot meet the commitment to end the temporary reduction in April.

As for cyclists, as a pedestrian I'm 100 times more likely to be killed by a two tonne metal box and certainly do not subscribe to the one size fits all expressed above. Government puts out red meat from time to time with talk about tougher penalties, and nonsense legislation that is never going to happen. It would be much better to inform and persuade in the same way that most dog owners pick up and bag mess, and the vast majority of us segregate our recycling. Rather than looking to the Mail and Torygraph.

Obviously totally off topic but some reading on the subject to better inform you

This one quotes Aldred so that will get you excited (not directly relevant to the subject matter)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140522000123

It's a proper peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal

"Of the 3414 pedestrian casualties from collisions with one or more pedal cycles, 763 (22.4%) had fatal or serious injuries. Of the 258,593 pedestrian casualties from collisions with one or more motor vehicles, 57,594 (22.3%) had fatal or serious injuries."

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-killed-dangerous-cyclists-road-deaths-3812845

There is not data on whether collisions are on pavement or on road. I expect most are on road. And to put things into perspective you are more likely to be killed as a pedestrian by a vehicle mounting the pavement than by a bike. But that doesn't seem to get people all vexed like a wet hen.

[Nigello]

Cyclists are low hanging fruit for the police, easy to catch and good PR to give a cyclist a bollocking in front of the car driving public.

 

Nonsense - police explaining the dangers of running red lights to the cyclist and others seems a rare bit of useful public service from officers these days.

Cyclists without lights/helmets/bells/hi-viz/running reds/on pavement abound and it’s dangerous and selfish of them.

[Spartacus]

Mal

Thank you for posting

Curiosity is gnawing away at me on two fronts

1. The comparison of deaths caused by cyclists vs. Cars is fascinating but lacks proportionality

If the number of cycles on the road matched at all times the number of cars then what would the projected numbers be ?

As it is, comparing the number of accidents caused by each (car or bike) is not a true comparison as statistically there are more cars on the road so you would expect a higher collision rate. What may be interesting is to scale the number caused by cyclists up to account for equal number of cyclists and cars to see what the real figure would look like. Given that they want to encourage more of us to cycle then will we see more cyclist caused accidents?

2. If a cyclists jumps a red light and causes an accident then who would be at fault? Arguing the car driver should have taken more care may not wash if the cyclists doesn't give them any opportunity to avoid the accident.

Let's be Frank "All" road users should respect the rules of the road especially around lights and crossing which would negate the perception that cyclists are a law to themselves

[malumbu]

Stats don't have that level of granularity. I expect most collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are because the latter walk out in the road not looking as they don't hear cyclists. My first experience was when I worked off Fleet Street and I'd get a shopper or two doing this a week - funnily didn't happen when I used to work on streets with more office workers. Fast forward twenty years and it is pretty common due to texting, calling, headphones etc etc.

So personally near misses on road, dozens, collision one (all due to pedestrians not looking). Near misses/collisions when cycling on pavement zero, helped by rarely having my bike on the pavement beyond shared use where we ride very differently*. The latter was funny in that I the bike went 90 degrees in the air, and I fell on the pedestrian, Obviously no injuries to either party or else I wouldn't be laughing.

Ultimately it is the absolute numbers rather than relative that matter, and therefore the focus needs to remain on motorised vehicles and reducing collisions with motorists. So police would be better directed to stopping cars speeding in 20mph roads. But not considered to be a policing matter nowadays.

* not my experience of powered two wheelers (scooters and e bikes) on Rye Lane shared pavement

[Bic Basher]

Wrong thread. Edited March 15, 2023 by Bic Basher

[ianr]

Malumbu 15 Mar 2023, 18:46:

> There is not data on whether collisions are on pavement or on road.

Table 3?

[Rockets]

I just don't get the bleedingly obvious statement "cars kill more people" deflection techniques put out by the pro-cycle lobby - I don't know about them but I don't want to be hit by either a car or a bike - when cyclists do hit people or things do they say "well, could have been worse, I could have been in a car". Just because bikes killing people happens very infrequently I suspect the numbers of people injured by being hit by bikes is growing all the time. Especially given the instances of bad cycling you can see on a daily basis.

The bad cycling problem is so widespread now I think the police are having to take action and the quest for active travel has seemingly been taken by some cyclists to interpret that as they don't have follow the rules of the road. Of course, every accident involving a bike the natural position is to assume the vehicle or (or in Malumbu's suggestion above) the pedestrian is at fault but it's not always a simple as that and often the manner of the cycling has contributed to, if not caused, the accident.

Just look at the most recent video Barby posted in the last few days of some of Dulwich's finest cyclists doing their bit for bad cycling - some of it is innocuous and pretty harmless but a lot of it is downright dangerous (both for the cyclist and other road users). The guy on the cargo bike at 4.28 and, then again at, 5.49 (looks like he does this all the time) really demonstrates why police are proactively trying to get offending cyclists to follow the rules - a fine for him would probably help focus his mind before he causes a collision. One wonders where he needed to get to in such a hurry that he couldn't wait at the lights.

[malumbu]

Ianr - cheers, yes it is an interesting paper and worth a longer read. It doesn't break down whether those on crossings were on green or red, but all road users should be watching out for pedestrians at crossing points.

Rocks, it is difficult to respond to your tirade. You clearly are vexed as a wet hen both about LTNs and cyclists

[CPR Dave]

The 5.49 one he is on the wrong side of the road as well as going through a red light.

If he's doing that with his children in the box at the front then he should be prosecuted for child abuse and have his kids taken into care.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - every time you try desperately to make things personal I just take that as proof that I have posted something you are incapable of responding to in a considered, adult way. It's almost a daily occurrence... sticks and stones and all that....

[Spartacus]

Ultimately it is the absolute numbers rather than relative that matter, and therefore the focus needs to remain on motorised vehicles and reducing collisions with motorists.

 

 

The issue is with absolute comparisons is that in this case you are comparing grapes with the moon (relative sample size) so whilst it's factual it's not an accurate representation of the issue

[malumbu]

So what would you prioritise, reducing ksi's from collisions between cars and pedestrians or cyclists and pedestrians?

Or more importantly what is government doing? Or are the figures acceptable in the modern world?

Genuine questions.

Worth checking manifesto commitments

[Spartacus]

So what would you prioritise, reducing ksi's from collisions between cars and pedestrians or cyclists and pedestrians?

Or more importantly what is government doing? Or are the figures acceptable in the modern world?

Genuine questions.

Worth checking manifesto commitments

 

Simple

I would prioritise that everyone follows the rules of the road

Cars stick to the speed limit /obay traffic signals

Cyclists don't jump lights or ride on the pavement

And pedestrians don't just step out in the road without observing the green cross code

We all need to take action and not just play the blame game. It's not always as simple as some try to paint it and our individual safety starts with ourselves.

[Rockets]

Agree - very simple - if everyone follows the rules then everyone is happy. You can't focus on, or give any leeway, to any one group.

Many cyclists think the rules don't apply to them and the videos posted from Dulwich by Barby illustrate that very clearly.

And there is enough material for a whole other thread on elements of the Highway Code that cyclists seem to happily/wilfully ignore that goes beyond cycling on pavements and jumping red lights - Rule 74 seems to be a particular favourite - but let's not go there for fear someone calls me a name! ;-)

[malumbu]

But how do we get everyone to follow the rules? Employ zillions of enforcement officers? Alienate road users? Surely a job for government with a mix of carrot and stick. None of the major parties have reducing road injuries and deaths in their manifesto.

A simpler example is delivery riders. These are some of the most dangerous road users. Government could actually do something to stop illegal twist and ride bikes being on the road. The riders could have compulsory training and have automatic lights welded onto their machines. With registrations they'd be out of a job for misbehaving, But "oh no" it would put the price of deliveries up, and would no doubt be unpopular.

Rocks, you can only join in our playground/Oxford University debate if you promise not to keep going off on one about cyclists.

Seems to be the only main player with any sense is what was the Institute of Advanced Drivers - rebranded as IAM Roadsmart to try and get rid of the image of male pale and stale older drivers

https://www.iamroadsmart.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/iam-roadsmart-manifesto-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=6b4a15a6_0

[Spartacus]

Mal

You've raised a good question (don't let it go to your head)

Better enforcement is required but better education is also needed.

Remember tufty and the green cross code man telling us how to cross the road safely (or Alvin Stardust 😅)

Remember the great "think once, think twice, think bike" campaigns

Remember "Clunk cluck every trip"

There is nothing of that memorable ilk today.

We recently had a revision to the highway code but I bet not many know the new rules in detail.

Where are the public education films to remind people of the rules ? Why don't we see them anymore?

Whilst it's everyone's responsibility to know the rules, positive reinforcement messaging is still required.

Whilst I also get the argument that we need to protect the more vulnerable on the road, the recent changes to the highway code have shifted the responsibility for pedestrians walking out into the road from the pedestrian taking care to "its the drivers fault" does the green cross code no longer apply ?

The rules are there for everyone to follow but there is almost no positive engagement to remind everyone to abide by them.

[exdulwicher]

There is nothing of that memorable ilk today.

The rules are there for everyone to follow but there is almost no positive engagement to remind everyone to abide by them.

 

Social media has a lot to answer for in these cases.

The problem with the "positive engagement" aspect is that the people who listen to the message already know it (to a greater or lesser extent). The people who don't care will continue not to care.

And now, social media has given them a way of answering back. Look at any tweet from the local police saying (for example) "it's cold and wet out there, watch for icy patches, slow down..."

There's a torrent of abuse in the replies telling them to go and catch some real criminals, get the council to fix the roads, stop being the nanny state.

Same in any of those countless "share the road", "respect other road users", "share with care", "think bike"...

Every time there's any sort of road safety campaign now, it rapidly degenerates into a free for all of replies that cyclists should pay road tax, horses should be in the fields and not ridden on the roads, the Government are ripping off drivers and so on.

About the only campaign that did have any effect was "don't drink and drive" and that took 20+ years to really become accepted - part of that was a lad's drinking culture, I can handle my drink, I've always had a couple of pints and been fine attitude which has taken a generation to really change significantly. No other campaign has ever lasted that long - there's a few weeks of a "be safe, be seen" or something and it might come around again the following autumn as the nights draw in but that's it. Even the "don't use a mobile while driving" stuff has been very quiet - the penalty for it went up but everyone knows there's very little chance of being caught so its rife.

Enforcement isn't a vote-winner in most cases - drivers complain that they're being treated as a cash-cow (seemingly ignoring the glaring inconsistency that if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't be fined), and doing high profile "crackdowns" are very resource heavy which brings up the other common compliant of "go and catch some real criminals".

Given a choice between the scarce police resources being deployed en masse on a junction to catch e-scooter riders or cyclists jumping the lights and the resources being deployed against knife crime or drug dealing,, the latter tend to be higher priority and more politically welcomed...

Ultimately, you're right, it needs enforcement. You could set the penalty for phone use at £1000 but people knew the chances of being caught were near zero, they'd carry on using phones. On the other hand if the penalty was £100 but you were near certain to be caught, it'd stop after a few months of £100 fines every time.