Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Rockets]

On 11/02/2025 at 10:01, Earl Aelfheah said:

For Southwark:

Between March 2017 – March 2020 there were 3,338 collisions

Between March 2020 – March 2023 there were 2,894 collisions

This suggests that road safety has improved since the LTNs were introduced (which would conform with all the research into the impact of LTNs in general). Obviously if you want to make claims about specific roads, then you need to do the work - specify what's changed and where and provide some evidence. Or you can continue claiming there is no data (without requesting it), or asking others to disprove your unsubstantiated / vague claims. 

....misleading data.....for one third of your second set of data England was in the midst of three national lockdowns. At no point during lockdown did traffic reach the average level for the preceding three years (in fact at one point recorded road traffic was down 63% on the preceding 3 year average).

Interesting chart I found as well plotting the increase in cycle traffic, casualties and fatalities comparing 2020 to the previous three years.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 12/02/2025 at 17:58, Rockets said:

....misleading data.....for one third of your second set of data England was in the midst of three national lockdowns. At no point during lockdown did traffic reach the average level for the preceding three years (in fact at one point recorded road traffic was down 63% on the preceding 3 year average).

Not misleading at all. I provided details of the date ranges which I was referring to, which spanned 3 years either side of LTN being introduced and linked to all of the data, so that you can take any cut of it you like.

I then also provided a summary of a two year period either side of the lockdowns, in response to your suggestion that it was relevant to the pattern described. It wasn't. In either case there is a reduction in the number of collisions when you compare a period pre ltn and one post ltn. 

So again, how is the transparent use of data, with links to the source of that data in any way misleading? 

And on your claim that LTNS have increased road danger - where is your data exactly? Embarrassing, as usual. 

Edited February 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I then also provided a summary of a two year period either side of the lockdowns, in response to your suggestion that it was relevant to the pattern described. It wasn't. In either case there is a reduction in the number of collisions when you compare a period pre ltn and one post ltn. 

Only when I pointed out the misleading data you had provided....sigh....

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Only when I pointed out the misleading data you had provided....sigh....

How is it misleading? This is absolute nonsense. You've made completely unsubstantiated claims about roads being more dangerous as a result of LTNs. I've linked you to detailed data, which shows that to be untrue. And you're still trying to pretend that it isn't. There is only one person making false claims here. It is not me.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

This suggests that road safety has improved since the LTNs were introduced (which would conform with all the research into the impact of LTNs in general).

Did you not say this in relation to your misleading stats.....?

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Did you not say this in relation to your misleading stats.....?

Yes, I said this. It’s demonstrably true. The data does suggest road safety has improved since the LTNs were introduced. Although I was not making this point specifically. I was challenging your assertion that the opposite is true; That roads have got more dangerous, as you falsely claimed. Again, if you are going to state something to be true, it is on you to provide some evidence to back up that claim. You seem to think you can just make anything up and demand others disprove it. This is such a bad faith tactic. The burden of proof is on you.

To be clear, I have linked you to detailed, multi year data. You will find the same result any way you cut it. There is no evidence that LTNs increase road danger. Theu do not.

You have made baseless claims and provided no evidence for them whatsoever. In fact you first tried to claim the data wasn’t collected (untrue), then claimed we couldn’t say how it was collected (untrue) and now try to double down on the claim that roads are more dangerous since the LTNs were introduced (untrue).

There is only one person deliberately trying to mislead, deflect and obfuscate here. 

 

Edited February 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Sue]

On 06/02/2025 at 16:01, first mate said:

This is the very essence of cyclist myopia! You are so resistant to any sort of testing or regulation for cyclists but want pedestrians to pass a test. Good grief.

That was obviously a joke!

Several people on here are so keen to have a go at Malumbu on every possible occasion that it seems that it's them that have myopia 🙄

It's getting more and more tedious.

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

Only when I pointed out the misleading data you had provided....sigh....

As a result of the LTN you claimed that the calton junction was now more dangerous (providing no evidence).

I linked you to data on recorded collisions that suggests it is actually safer.

You then claimed that no one collects data on bicycle / pedestrian collisions (apparently without actually checking)

I pointed out that this data is collected and linked you to it. I noted that it also shows the calton junction has got safer.

You then disparaged the data claiming that we don’t know how it’s collected.

I pointed out that it says exactly how it’s collected on the very first page, revealing that you hadn’t even briefly examined it before insisting we need ‘more robust data’.

You then claimed that if the junction was safer, other roads must be more dangerous as a result.

I pointed to the data for a period of three years before, and 3 years after the LTN was introduced, showing a reduction in collisions across Southwark.

You then claimed this was misleading because the period I had referenced included lockdown.

I pointed out that if you examine a period with excludes lockdown the data still shows a reduction in the number of collisions across Southwark roads, and invited you to take any cut of the data you liked (and again linked you to it).

You then repeatedly claimed I’m trying to deliberately mislead.

Meanwhile, at no point have you actually provided any evidence at all for any of your claims. You seem to seem to think it’s ok to just make stuff up, and when presented with evidence that what you have said is untrue, just move on to the next unsubstantiated claim, double down, deflect and resort to ad hominem attacks. I have literally pointed you to all the data you need to prove your point… were your point true. 

‘Sigh’

Edited February 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As a result of the LTN you claimed that the calton junction was now more dangerous (providing no evidence).

For pedestrians due to cyclists.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You then claimed that no one collects data on bicycle / pedestrian collisions (apparently without actually checking)

I asked the question does the data exist and if so who collects it and where does it come from. Does, for example, a child being knocked over by a cyclist get recorded if  no police or ambulance attended?

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You then disparaged the data claiming that we don’t know how it’s collected.

Because it comes from "TFL" and you could provide no detail on how it was collected - is it based on police reports, ambulance attendance, insurance claims....

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You then claimed that if the junction was safer, other roads must be more dangerous as a result.

No I asked you the question whether you knew that the displacement routes were safer. A reduction in accidents on a closed road is one thing, whether the displaced traffic causes accidents and issues somewhere else has to be considered.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You then claimed this was misleading because the period I had referenced included lockdown.

It was misleading because you did not acknowledge that it included lockdown - it's the very definition of misleading information., Especially as you drew a conclusion from said misleading info.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You then repeatedly claimed I’m trying to deliberately mislead.

I posed the question whether you do this deliberately. Certainly if you post comparative data, draw conclusions from that to back up your argument and forget that a large part of that time was during lockdown then, unless you admit it was an "oversight" then it does lead one to believe it was misleading.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I've not posted anything that is misleading. I've linked to official data which shows how both within and around the LTN (as well as across the wider area), the number of collisions have fallen. How the data is gathered is explained on page 1 (it's clear you still haven't even looked at it). Anyone can interrogate the dashboard, examining any cut of the data they wish (including bicycle / pedestrian collisions). It couldn't be more straight forward or transparent.

You on the other hand have made several claims now, providing no evidence for any of them. 

Edited February 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

This modus operandi always happens when someone scrutinises what people post - some don't seem to like any sort of scrutiny or accountability - which is a trait that is depressingly familiar amongst many on the pro- lobby and actually one of the reasons this issue will never go away - because people are fed-up with the council propagandists who will do anything to try and prove that they are right - whether they are or not. They are tired of the cultish behaviour.

[malumbu]

Good heavens, all very repetitive.  It would be good to have some new thoughts rather than the usual rhetoric.  Just slagging off those who don't agree with your perspective doesn't encourage debate.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Just slagging off those who don't agree with your perspective doesn't encourage debate.

Yeah Earl...take heed of Malumbu's words....;-)

[first mate]

It is the pro crowd that frequently frame anyone that does not agree with them as 'raging', 'angry', 'hating' and less recently, as having mental health issues.

I am even beginning to wonder if use of these descriptors is something that is suggested in an LCC 'how to quash debate' primer?

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 13/02/2025 at 12:16, Rockets said:

This modus operandi always happens when someone scrutinises what people post - some don't seem to like any sort of scrutiny or accountability

Irony is dead.

[first mate]

I just do not understand why cyclists would want to exceed designated speed limits.

[Penguin68]

13 minutes ago, first mate said:

I just do not understand why cyclists would want to exceed designated speed limits

Because they can and nobody is there to stop them. Drivers who do so of course are law breakers and should be prosecuted, cyclists are free spirits who mustn't be tied down. Haven't you got the message yet? 

[Glemham]

 

If all cyclists were required to have liability insurance, and their bikes registered and therefore recognisable surely this would be a deterrent for the antisocial  behaviour of those who break speed limits, ignore traffic lights and cycle on pavements.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 15/02/2025 at 10:12, first mate said:

I just do not understand why cyclists would want to exceed designated speed limits.

They rarely do. Most non sport cyclists would struggle to maintain speeds over 20 for any length of time, let alone 30. There is little evidence that it's a significant problem.

And it's notable that speed limits are regularly exceeded by motor vehicles, that there is clear evidence that it leads to death and destruction on a significant scale, and yet nearly all of the attention on this forum is directed at the former.

Feels a lot like a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. 

[Bicknell]

cyclists coming down hill eg calton ave etc build up speed

this thread about speed limit for all transport. 

seeing all the wood, and all the trees

[malumbu]

How do you know how fast they are going?  Are you a cyclist?  I've done 10,000s of miles cycling and only down a steep hill with no traffic and a good surface could I possibly exceed 20 mph.  A lot of histeria on this thread.

[Bicknell]

but thats what i was sayhing. Steep hill, no traffic and good surface - need speed limits for cyclists . jujst like need speed limits for cars, scooters, mopeds, etc etc. common sense.

[malumbu]

London roads are busy.  Unless you travel mainly in the early hours you will rarely be in this situation. So total overkill.  Disproportionate to the real hazard.  This discussion appears to be fuelled by perception and for some dislike of cyclists/cycles.  Not the real world.  Where do you stop?  Kiddies on balance bikes?

[first mate]

In your view Malumbu. It is your perception and bias as a cycling activist, that anyone that disagrees with you must hate cyclists or be angry.

Some of us would like to see cyclists adhere to speed limits,  not jump red lights, and want them to stop cycling in pedestrian only areas, including paths.

Edited February 18 by first mate

[malumbu]

I am a highly experienced cyclist.  I know many cyclists.  I know the local roads.  Why do you find it so difficult to comprehend that due to human physiology, the mechanics of bicycles and simple physics, the condition of the roads, traffic lights and junctions, and the number of other road users, it is difficult to maintain a speed over 20mph.  Why are you more of an expert that an experienced cyclist?

"According to data from Strava, the average cycling speed in London is around 22.5 km/h (13.98 mph), with most cyclists averaging a speed between 12-16 km/h when commuting, taking into account traffic lights and stoppages; this can vary depending on the specific route and cyclist ability."

The former relates to a relatively small number of active cyclists going for a hack eg on a Sunday morning.  No doubt into the quieter outer boroughs and beyond.

The latter is what you will generally see - the masses of  utility cyclists  particularly commuting.