Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Bicknell]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Just took a look at the data covering the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

link to data, please earl. www.crashmap.co.uk shows just 1 in Calton in 2019

[Earl Aelfheah]

35 minutes ago, Bicknell said:

link to data, please earl. www.crashmap.co.uk shows just 1 in Calton in 2019

Linked to it further up the thread. It's taken from the tfl data Microsoft Power BI

I emailed them to ask if they had records of collisions with pedestrians involving bicycles and they linked me to their dashboard, which has loads of really detailed / interesting data on it. Re. Calton avenue, I looked at the three years leading up to the introduction of the filters in March 2020 and the three years afterwards.

I think the crashmap data is specifically related to insurance claims, whereas tfl is reported accidents involving casualties (at least I believe that's the case). 

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Just took a look at the data covering the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

Does this come as any surprise - one arm of the junction has been closed to motor vehicles - this is a bit like when the council said that the LTN was a success because their monitoring inside the LTN showed motor vehicle journeys had dropped - it's a bit of a...errr yeah, go figure moment?

Earl, has a similar drop been seen on the displacement roads that are currently taking the traffic that used to go along Calton to and from the Village?

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

I emailed them to ask if they had records of collisions with pedestrians involving bicycles and they linked me to their dashboard, which has loads of really detailed / interesting data on it.

Did they say this did include records of collision with pedestrians involving bicycles because if they claim it does it would be interesting to know from what source they are taking that data.

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Does this come as any surprise - one arm of the junction has been closed to motor vehicles - this is a bit like when the council said that the LTN was a success because their monitoring inside the LTN showed motor vehicle journeys had dropped - it's a bit of a...errr yeah, go figure moment?

I do think it's a no brainer, yes. But some (yourself included) have tried to suggest that the junction is now more dangerous. It isn't.

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl, has a similar drop been seen on the displacement roads that are currently taking the traffic that used to go along Calton to and from the Village?

If you think there has been an increase, why don't you say so. I've linked you to the data already. I get a bit bored with the constant insinuations / innuendo around this topic. Do the work, demonstrate your point. I've seen no evidence at all that the roads are now more dangerous, in fact the exact opposite.

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Did they say this did include records of collision with pedestrians involving bicycles because if they claim it does it would be interesting to know from what source they are taking that data.

It does contain that info yes. And I've linked you to the data and even summarised it for you in this thread (last year in London there were 303 pedestrians injured by pedal bikes, 4,170 injured by motor vehicles.). Again, instead of the 'I'm just asking questions' tactic, why don't you actually say what you mean and provide some evidence to back up your argument?

Edited Friday at 17:36 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you think there has been an increase, why don't you say so. I've linked you to the data already. I get a bit bored with the constant insinuations / innuendo around this topic. Do the work, demonstrate your point. I've seen no evidence at all that the roads are now more dangerous, in fact the exact opposite.

Your research is not complete though Earl is it - you are throwing figures around without broader context? You are cherry-picking a stat, like the council loves to do, and are providing no further context. I was just interested to see whether you had looked at that because pointing out that accidents had reduced on a closed road is a bit of a no-brainer but if you haven't looked at accidents on the displacement routes then you cannot actually say whether closing the road has reduced accidents or not - unless the only stat you are interested in is accidents on a closed road. Do you see the point now?

[Earl Aelfheah]

No. I'm really not. I've pointed you to the data that you claimed wasn't collected. It is, and all it took to check was an email to TfL. I've linked you to it. To remind you, you claimed:

Quote

 

I would argue with you that for pedestrians that junction is now more dangerous than it was when it was open to cars.

...If anyone bothered to monitor it I bet you there would be far more cycle vs pedestrians incidents in that area now than car vs pedestrian indicents when it was open to cars. Every day I see pedestrians having to take defensive action due to cyclists.

 

Well it turns out that it is monitored and that the junction is not more dangerous now than when it was opened to cars.

There is no evidence that collisions have increased on 'displacement routes', and of course you provide none. One cannot prove a negative. It is for you to provide evidence of your claim (more of an insinuation).

Edited Friday at 17:51 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no evidence that collisions have increased on 'displacement routes', and of course you provide none

Ah so you did research it. Can you share the data you found to put your closed road stats into context?

Edited Friday at 19:09 by Rockets

[Dulwich dweller]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

This is getting unpleasant and not encouraging any debate.  Have a safe day.

There is no debate to be had with you because you just roll out stats and evade pertinent points. The irony of you bemoaning the lack of debate isn't lost on me. 

 

 

[malumbu]

You make a statement that you would trust a motorist over a cyclist.  I question this.  Then you are abusive.  That speaks for itself 

[Dulwich dweller]

On 24/01/2025 at 12:35, first mate said:

I have said this before, but when I am out cycling I find the behaviour of some other cyclists just as, if not more, worrying than car drivers, in terms of predictability.
 

 I am looking at suitable mirrors for my bike as I have been silently overtaken at speed by another cyclist, too many times of late. It felt like were I to shift over to avoid a pothole or similar, I would have taken a knock/ come off. It feels similar to the type of reckless car driver that likes to 'go for the gap'. 

You can get small wing mirrors which are easy to attach. I used to use them and found that they were a real help. They enable you to remain focused on the road and obstacles ahead of you without the interruption of having to look over your shoulder. They're not expensive, flash or gimmicky. In fact I think all bikes should be equipped with them. I'd certainly suggest them for cyclists who can get a bit nervy on busy roads. They're essentially another set of eyes.

 

 

[tedfudge]

On 07/02/2025 at 22:27, Dulwich dweller said:

You can get small wing mirrors which are easy to attach. I used to use them and found that they were a real help. They enable you to remain focused on the road and obstacles ahead of you without the interruption of having to look over your shoulder. They're not expensive, flash or gimmicky. In fact I think all bikes should be equipped with them. I'd certainly suggest them for cyclists who can get a bit nervy on busy roads. They're essentially another set of eyes.

 

 

Think that's a good idea but also lights on bikes should be essential especially for night riders as see so many in dark clothing with no lights and maybe also reflector strips that I've seen some cyclists wear... and the main thing a helmet as could save a cyclists life... 

[DuncanW]

On 08/02/2025 at 23:38, tedfudge said:

Think that's a good idea but also lights on bikes should be essential especially for night riders as see so many in dark clothing with no lights and maybe also reflector strips that I've seen some cyclists wear... and the main thing a helmet as could save a cyclists life... 

LIghts are essential - it's a legal requirement

[first mate]

I do see a fair few younger cyclists, often dressed in dark clothing, no reflective gear, no helmet and no lights.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 07/02/2025 at 19:08, Rockets said:

Ah so you did research it. Can you share the data you found to put your closed road stats into context?

Here is how things work. When you claim something to be true, you provide evidence for that claim.

Here's how it doesn't work. You make an unsubstantiated claim and then ask others to disprove it. E.g. dragons are real, and if you don't believe it, you must prove me wrong. 

That is just a bad faith, rhetorical tactic that any of us can use to make any claim we like, true or otherwise.

BTW, I have twice linked to the TfL data. Look back up the thread.

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. 

[Rockets]

Are those figures pro-rated/adjusted due to the impact of the lockdowns because your second set of figures includes a huge tranche of lockdown time when our roads were pretty much deserted? 

Also, my question was about the displacement routes and you have quoted figures for the whole of Southwark - and my point was it's great to say oh look accidents have reduced on closed roads - but this is only good if accidents have not increased on the displacement routes. Do you have the granularity to back up that claim or are you just basing your assertions on the whole of Southwark stats you have quoted?

[Earl Aelfheah]

47 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Are those figures pro-rated/adjusted due to the impact of the lockdowns because your second set of figures includes a huge tranche of lockdown time when our roads were pretty much deserted? 

Also, my question was about the displacement routes and you have quoted figures for the whole of Southwark - and my point was it's great to say oh look accidents have reduced on closed roads - but this is only good if accidents have not increased on the displacement routes. Do you have the granularity to back up that claim or are you just basing your assertions on the whole of Southwark stats you have quoted?

I've linked to detailed data (the tfl dashboard) which you can interrogate yourself. I've pointed out some specific stats related to the junction around Calton (which show that collisions and causalities have fallen). I did this because you claimed the data didn't exist (whereas I emailed tfl and asked whether it did and they linked me to it). I've also taken a quick look at the general stats pre and post LTN introduction in response to your claim that if collisions have fallen around the LTN, then they must have increased elsewhere. If you want to do some more detailed analysis to back up your unevidenced claims, please do. I'm simply pointing out that:

1. there is data if you are actually interested in it (obviously if you're more interested in proving a prejudice, then it's irrelevant).
2. the data suggests that the changes around calton have not increased collisions, but reduced them
3. there is no data I have seen that suggests that the introductions of LTNs have increased road danger more generally / away from the LTN (in fact if anything it suggests the opposite).

If you want to make claims to the contrary, then the burden of proof is with you. It not really for others to ask for info, to review the data, or to disprove unevidenced claims on your behalf. 

Again, when you claim something to be true, you are meant to provide evidence for that claim.

How it doesn't work: You make an unsubstantiated claim and then ask others to disprove it. E.g. dragons are real, and if you you can't prove they're not, I must be right! That is just an illogical, bad faith, rhetorical tactic that allows any of us to make any nonsense claim we like. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, are the numbers you shared adjusted for lockdowns?

Are you not comparing the data from one three year period that did not have an extended period of lockdown against a three year period that did include an extended period of lockdown? If so, the data you have shared is misleading and needs to come with a huge caveat, does it not?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do the work. I'm not your secretary. Stop making unsubstantiated claims. I've literally linked you to all the data. Why don't you interrogate it yourself.

[Rockets]

It's a simple question: is the data you have shared (to back your claims) comparing apples with apples? I do not think it is. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is so, so tedious. I have literally spoon fed you the data you claimed wasn't collected (you hadn't even tried to see if it was) and you now want me to analyse it for you?

If you take a 2 year period before the lockdown and pre-ltn and another after, it also shows a decrease (march 2017 – 2019 2,217, march 2021 - 2023 2,074 collisions). All of this (and any other cut of the data) you can do yourself.

The truth is you have no interest in reviewing data. You rubbish it without examination, because it's clear you're only interested is in proving your prejudice, and making completely unevidenced claims.

[Rockets]

No I rubbish it because you are presenting (deliberately?) misleading data.

[Southeast Twenty Stu]

.

Edited 13 hours ago by Southeast Twenty Stu

[Earl Aelfheah]

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No I rubbish it because you are presenting (deliberately?) misleading data.

Misleading how?

I’ve provided a link to detailed multi year data, that anyone can look at.

What data are you presenting in support of your claims that LTNs have made roads more dangerous? None. There is none.

You’ve just made it up. Is that misleading do you think?

Deliberately misleading perhaps?

Edited 12 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Dulwich dweller]

On 08/02/2025 at 23:38, tedfudge said:

Think that's a good idea but also lights on bikes should be essential especially for night riders as see so many in dark clothing with no lights and maybe also reflector strips that I've seen some cyclists wear... and the main thing a helmet as could save a cyclists life... 

Get them every evening riding the pavement along the rye coming from East Dulwich Road end. Its a poorly lit stretch and it can be hazardous when alighting the bus at the Gardens stop. No lights or reflective/ bright clothing. But hey they can see me so that's fine. Plus cars are evil, heavier and hurt people unlike bikes when they hit you.