The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

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

All the evidence of course, suggests that this is absolute nonsense.

As a pedestrian you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than a bicycle. if you doubt this, you just need to look at the statistics or understand basic physics.

LTNs cut the number of road casualties by more than half. 

Edited December 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, if you had bothered to take time to read what I wrote you wouldn't then try to use random stats to try to demonstrate I am wrong. Or maybe you would.

Re-read what I wrote....try not to knee-jerk all the time...

[Earl Aelfheah]

You said the junction is more dangerous for pedestrians now that it’s closed to motor vehicles than it was before.

No, the people on bikes represent a much greater danger to pedestrians than they did when they were accompanied by motor vehicles.

Stuff like this last month, definitely not a risk to pedestrians. Because it’s just a car 🤷 

Edited December 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ha ha, you just edited out your nonsense stats on the number of car accidents at that junction over the 5 years before the LTN.....nothing like a bit of Earl post exposure editing - did you suddenly realise your mistake after re-reading my post properly...

At that junction the danger is now posed by cyclists to pedestrians and i would argue that the risk to pedestrians is now greater than when the road was open to traffic. More than happy to argue with you on why that might be.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 minutes ago, Rockets said:

the risk to pedestrians is now greater than when the road was open to traffic.

I was editing my post when you responded. It was just a cross post. I took the stats out because I couldn’t be bothered going down that rabbit hole with you. Suffice to say there has been a fall in collisions around that junction since the LTN went in.

Btw, the junction is still open to traffic. It’s not closed, merely filtered. What’s changed is that the traffic that passes through now is made up of people on bicycles, where before it was people on bicycles, and motorcycles, and in cars, vans and Lorries. Alongside the change in the type of traffic, the volume of traffic has also decreased massively.

To think that reducing the amount of traffic and filtering out the motor vehicles increases the risk, one must assume that motor vehicles make pedestrians safer / protect them from potential harm.

Edited December 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ha ha, Earl of course....we saw what you did (again)! 😉 Caught red-handed (again).

You seem to like facts that have zero relevance to the discussion taking place but allow you to scream "But whay about the cars"!

Of course accidents involving cars decreased at the junction - cars no longer pass through the junction but with the new design of the junction the risk to pedestrians is now posed by cyclists....but that's OK because people prefer being hit by a bike than a car.....sigh....

[Earl Aelfheah]

58 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha, Earl of course....we saw what you did (again)! 😉 Caught red-handed (again).

You seem to like facts that have zero relevance to the discussion taking place but allow you to scream "But whay about the cars"!

Of course accidents involving cars decreased at the junction - cars no longer pass through the junction but with the new design of the junction the risk to pedestrians is now posed by cyclists....but that's OK because people prefer being hit by a bike than a car.....sigh....

I don’t know what you think you’ve ‘caught me red handed’ at. Apparently I can’t edit a post? You have never edited a post right? As I said, I couldn’t be bothered going down the usual rabbit hole of ‘how far from the junction’, ‘what counts as a serious accident’ etc. so decided not to get into discussing the data in detail. The point is that collisions have (not surprisingly) dropped significantly since motor vehicles were filtered out, as you’ve accepted.

So explain how a reduction in collisions around that junction, a drop in traffic passing through, and the filtering out of motor vehicles, translates to an increased danger to people? 

58 minutes ago, Rockets said:

people prefer being hit by a bike than a car

I don’t want to be hit at all (and with less traffic passing through the junction it is less likely), but if I had to choose I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car. Obviously. The fact that you repeatedly suggest that there is no difference (or that the bicycle is more deadly in this scenario) is astounding. The impact forces involved are wildly different by many orders of magnitude. Your chances of walking away from one as opposed the other are not remotely comparable. When I’ve pointed this out before you seem to have struggled with the basic physics, but there is a significant difference.

Edited December 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

It’s obvious which version is safer, and also which version has allowed more children than ever to be walking and cycling to school. Nicely illustrated by this photo comparison in a recent post from Clean Air Dulwich. https://bsky.app/profile/cleanairdulwich.bsky.social/post/3ld6usq4qbs2a

[first mate]

Earl said: " I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car."

Good that you finally recognise there is a risk of being hit by a bicycle. Those hire bikes are pretty heavy; I would not like to be hit by one of those at all. 

 

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The fact that you repeatedly suggest that there is no difference (or that the bicycle is more deadly in this scenario) is astounding.

Where have I ever said that? You're making things up again Earl. I have said I do not want to be hit by anything.

Even March46's picture validates my point. Is there more danger to pedestrians from stationery traffic at a junction or from fast moving bicycles moving through a pedestrianised area? Therein lies my point and thanks for illustrating it March46 so well with your picture.

The risk now to pedestriansin Dulwich Square is from bicycles and when you try to mix bicycles and pedestrians that risk increases significantly.

Would you not agree that some sort of pedestrian crossing at the top of the square might be good to reinforce to cyclists that pedestrians have the right of way and to slow some cyclists down?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Are you suggesting that there weren’t bike’s passing through tagt junction previously? The thing that’s changed is that they’re no longer accompanied by motor vehicles. Are you therefore suggesting that introducing more motor vehicles into an area somehow protects / reduces the risk to pedestrians?

3 hours ago, first mate said:

Earl said: " I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car."

Good that you finally recognise there is a risk of being hit by a bicycle. Those hire bikes are pretty heavy; I would not like to be hit by one of those at all. 

 

Firstly, I have never once said that there is no risk of ever being hit by someone on a bicycle.

On the second point, someone travelling on a bicycle would have to be travelling at 40x the speed of an average car to have anything close to the same kinetic energy (a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision) as a car. This constant false equivalence between the two demonstrates a wilful ignorance.

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Even March46's picture validates my point. Is there more danger to pedestrians from stationery traffic at a junction or from fast moving bicycles moving through a pedestrianised area?

The filtered Road that passes through / alongside the expanded pedestrian area, is not itself a pedestrian area…By definition. It’s interesting that you now accept that traffic previously queued through that area. You also seem to be hinting at the fact that perhaps the number of cyclists has increased. Some back-pedalling there (excuse the pun).

…anyway, to answer your question - a bicycle would have to be travelling around 200 mph + in order to carry the same force into any potential collision as a car going at between 5-10mph. This is why every time you remove motor traffic from an area road casualties drop significantly.

Edited December 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

On the second point, someone travelling on a bicycle would have to be travelling at 40x the speed of an average car to have anything close to the same kinetic energy (a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision) as a car. This constant false equivalence between the two demonstrates a wilful ignorance.

I think the wilful ignorance is actually on your part - time to take your head out of the bike hanger I suggest.

So are you saying that bikes only do harm when carrying the same kinetic energy as a car? What absolute myopic codswallop.

Speak to the woman hit by a bike in Regent's Park about that...oh you can't can you because she is dead. The cyclist got off charges because he said the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists but it's pretty clear he wasn't having to do 200mph to do harm.

Honestly this path the cycle lobby goes down to compare everything to the harm done by cars is so stupid because the argument only applies if cycles do no harm.

Jeremy Vine was at it yesterday where Iain Dale said he was nearly hit by a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing. Jeremy's response: "imagine if the cyclist had been in a car". Grow up Jeremy.

The cycle lobby does themselves no good and it is no wonder they are looked on with scorn by so many. It's almost as if their plan is to deliberately alienate themselves and aren't prepared to acknowledge any issues within their own community because, well, cars do more harm. Time to grow up a bit.

Edited December 14 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

42 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So are you saying that bikes only do harm when carrying the same kinetic energy as a car? What absolute myopic codswallop.

No. I didn’t say this. You can tell because my words are written down for you to read. What I’m saying (and it’s not an opinion but a matter of fact), is that the forces involved in a car collision and a bicycle collision are wildly different, even when the bike is travelling faster. That’s not to say a bicycle cannot harm, or even kill someone, but that it’s much less likely. A bicycle is less dangerous by several orders of magnitude. If you remove car traffic, but the cycle traffic remains, the risk to pedestrians (and cyclists) reduces accordingly. I do not believe that you are incapable of understanding this. Suggesting the opposite is true, that reducing cars increases the danger, is literally ridiculous and you embarrass yourself doing so.

Edited December 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Before this re-design bicycles mainly (obviously there were always the illegal exceptions) went on the roads, and pedestrians on the pavements. Pedestrians entered roads at controlled crossings (although of course cyclists did ignore those). Now pedestrians and cycles have to share space coterminously.  Which increases by some large margin the chances that they will be in exactly the same space at exactly the same time. Hence the chances of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians have increased. And that includes little pedestrians much more likely, because of their size and relative weight, to be damaged by such an impact.

Yes, the cars, driven in the main by trained drivers who had to pass a test, have now gone - to be replaced by untrained cyclists who don't have to pass tests of any sort. Not, to my mind, a good or fair swap.

And showing pictures (above) of cars (a car) which was being driven very carelessly in the small hours is not an exemplar of everyday risks to pedestrians - very few of which would have been about, if any, at the time of the accident.

[Earl Aelfheah]

All irrelevant. We don’t have to speculate about whether removing motor vehicles from an area reduces casualties. It does. We have plenty of data to prove it. And the Square isn’t a shared space. Calton road has always been and still is, well, a road. The difference is that the road has been filtered and the pedestrian space expanded.

51 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Yes, the cars, driven in the main by trained drivers who had to pass a test, have now gone - to be replaced by untrained cyclists who don't have to pass tests of any sort. Not, to my mind, a good or fair swap.

There were always bicycles that used the road. There were also cars, motorcycles and vans. So how do more motor vehicles make it safer for pedestrians exactly? Would it be safer is we allowed motorcycles through, or do only cars reduce the risk to pedestrians? Are bigger vehicles better? Perhaps we should encourage more HGvs to drive through the area to ensure safer streets?

Honestly, this is ridiculous. 

Edited December 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

48 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Before this re-design bicycles mainly (obviously there were always the illegal exceptions) went on the roads, and pedestrians on the pavements. Pedestrians entered roads at controlled crossings (although of course cyclists did ignore those). Now pedestrians and cycles have to share space coterminously.  Which increases by some large margin the chances that they will be in exactly the same space at exactly the same time. Hence the chances of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians have increased. And that includes little pedestrians much more likely, because of their size and relative weight, to be damaged by such an impact.

Yes, the cars, driven in the main by trained drivers who had to pass a test, have now gone - to be replaced by untrained cyclists who don't have to pass tests of any sort. Not, to my mind, a good or fair swap.

And showing pictures (above) of cars (a car) which was being driven very carelessly in the small hours is not an exemplar of everyday risks to pedestrians - very few of which would have been about, if any, at the time of the accident.

As I have stated on numerous occasions driving standards are not great as once drivers pass their test there is no regular training.  Again, you are ignoring this.  So you would rather have cars than bikes.  A pity.

[Rockets]

Penguin68 gets it! Let's see if others can engage the parts of their brain not controlled by the cycle lobby brainwashing! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Penguin68 gets it! Let's see if others can engage the parts of their brain not controlled by the cycle lobby brainwashing! 😉

Does he. So just to be clear, Penguin's argument is that if we banned bicycles from using the road, and opened it to just cars, vans and lorries (and despite the fact that as you've accepted it would mean more collisions), safety would increase because car drivers take a test? Is that what we're going with now?

...although that's not even the argument is it. Because effectively the position is that if you allow bicycles, motorcycles, vans and lorries to all pass through, it is safer.... because.. some of them have passed a test? No, you're right, I don't get it, because it makes literally no sense.

Edited December 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

To pass your test you need to show that you can control a car, keep to an appropriate speed, within the speed limit or lower if the road is hazardous eg parked cars, poor lines of vision, and/or if there are vulnerable road users ie non-motorised vehicles, pedestrians including by schools, choose appropriate gear, smooth driving avoiding harsh braking and acceleration, see and communicate with other road users, position the vehicle appropriately, anticipate the traffic ahead, and follow the rules of the road such as giving way when you don't have priority.

The vast majority of collisions are because drivers are not following one or more of these.  Because once they pass the test, they will not do all of the above, form some dreadful habits but at the same time feel that they are an excellent driver.

Most of government's efforts are on inexperienced drivers as that is where the best return on investment.  But we've all see the humorous bumper stickers complaining about having to have a black box.  I'm tempted to write my congratulations for being a responsible driver. 

[Kathleen Olander]

I just want bikes to stick to their bit of DV Junction and pedestrians to keep out of the cycle lane.  Pity it wasn't defined better.

Bikes are still riding through pedestrian crossing when green man is showing.

 

 

[Rockets]

Earl, you've completely misinterpreted what Penguin, and I, are saying.

Have a re-read and see if the penny drops...

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets Perhaps you could clarify which of the following statements you want to take issue with:

• As a pedestrian you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than a bicycle. 
• The number of collisions around the Calton Avenue junction have reduced since the introduction of the LTN
• Removing motor vehicles from an area always leads to reductions in road casualties
• Being hit by a car and a bicycle travelling at similar speeds does not pose the same (or comparable) risk of serious injury or death

And assuming that you do accept these factual statements, could you explain why you think that in this case, opening the road to more through traffic from both bicycles and motor vehicles, makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists, than filtering out the motor vehicles?

Edited December 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, are you just playing daft for the audience, the giggles or the trolling?

I am taking offence to how you wilfully misinterpret everything anyone who dares disagree with you says. 

What you continue to do is ludicrously transparent. 

If you really still don't get it ask someone to explain it to you.

 

 

 

[first mate]

Earl just needs to 'win', that is clear.
 

A number of us now have had experience of careless cycling in the ED and Dulwich area, but especially around Vanity Square... likely owing to the design which makes it unclear what is and what isn't a cycling area. But Earl states these experiences are "unbelievable" and push the bounds of "probability" because HE has not experienced them.

This is clearly a ludicrous position.

I think most will draw their own conclusions as to what is motivating him to twist and turn to get himself out of this.

It is no good spouting stats about cars, cars no longer drive through Vanity Square. This is purely and simply about the relationship between cyclists and pedestrians ( plus disability vehicles).

[Rockets]

Bravo FM, bravo!