Southwark consultation on Peckham gyratory

[Earl Aelfheah]

How is it ‘skewed to motor vehicles’ exactly? And what’s your point here? You think there shouldn’t be improvements to pedestrian spaces, or additional crossings because ‘bikes’’?  What exactly are you objecting to in the proposed changes to the gyratory?

Edited March 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

If widened pedestrian spaces are also used as cut throughs by bikes, especially e-bikes, with no demarcated cycle lane, then a widened pedestrian area is not automatically better for pedestrians. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

If widened pedestrian spaces are also used as cut throughs by bikes, especially e-bikes, with no demarcated cycle lane, then a widened pedestrian area is not automatically better for pedestrians. 

 

So you don't want pavements wider, or street clutter removed because it could get used by bikes? Bizarre imo, but sure. What about additional crossings for pedestrians should they also be paused until... what? Bicycles are banned? Your obsession with what you wrongly perceive as the massive danger posed to others by bicycles seems to be a prospectus for no investments in either walking or cycling. So just more encouragement for people to drive everywhere for 'safety'? I suggest you work it out and put it in your response to the consultation, but personally the idea that improvements to pedestrian areas should be halted because 'bikes' is massively misguided.

[first mate]

But Earl, please show where I said, " I do not want widened pavements" in the Peckham Gyratory? I merely pointed out that it is not necessarily the improvement for pedestrians you claim it is. It may be, that is if it is not used as a cut through by cyclists and motorcyclists- something we do see in other recently pedestrianised areas.

As an aside, please do not state that I have "obsessions" as I believe that is offensive and derogatory. Let's keep things civil. I am sure admin will agree.

[Penguin68]

It is not that bikes on pavements cause 'massive' dangers now, and nobody I think has suggested that they do, but they do pose real risk of injury to pedestrian pavement users - and bicycle accidents do have the capability of killing or injuring severely even though this is a rare occurrence. The more pavement cycling occurs, of course, and the more cyclists, and particularly electric cyclists, use pavements the more frequently real damage will be caused. The fact that the cycling lobby dismisses these dangers, and shrieks in fury when they are mentioned tells me rather more about the cycling lobby than I wished to know.

'Wider' pavements per se have no merit in most areas - although clearly where there are shops and high levels of pedestrian traffic they are advantageous to users, and very narrow pavements when bins are placed on them, even if only during bin collection day, do cause problems (as does overgrown hedging). 

But in most places widening pavements is only done to restrict road usage, by those who have an agenda which is anti-car. I am by no means sure if the 'pro-cycling' lobby is rather more anti-car than pro-cycling - and if so can I just note that as someone who is definitely not anti-car, I am also not anti-cycling.

Edited March 19 by Penguin68

[first mate]

P68, well said and we must not forget that perception of being unsafe while using the pavement is a negative factor for some elderly and vulnerable. A cyclist swerving to avoid a pedestrian may cause no material damage, but it can affect wellbeing and confidence. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

55 minutes ago, first mate said:

But Earl, please show where I said, " I do not want widened pavements" in the Peckham Gyratory?

In response to:

On 17/02/2025 at 19:39, march46 said:

5 new pedestrian crossings is a pretty awesome win for pedestrians.

You said:

On 18/02/2025 at 07:19, first mate said:

Not if cyclists whizz through them, as many seem to do. Similarly, the widened pavements will only be a win for pedestrians if cyclists stay off them...let's wait and see. 

And later:

3 hours ago, first mate said:

If widened pedestrian spaces are also used as cut throughs by bikes, especially e-bikes, with no demarcated cycle lane, then a widened pedestrian area is not automatically better for pedestrians

This strongly implies that you are not in favour, or at least don't see the point in widening pavements or increasing the number of crossings because of 'bikes'. Yes, I know it's a bit incoherent, but I can't really make out your point beyond that.. It's why I asked you to clarify it. 

54 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

It is not that bikes on pavements cause 'massive' dangers now, and nobody I think has suggested that they do, but they do pose real risk of injury to pedestrian pavement users - and bicycle accidents do have the capability of killing or injuring severely even though this is a rare occurrence.

No one is in favour of people cycling on pavements. No one thinks that people cannot cause harm to others when they collide with them on a bicycle. But to object to the creation of safer places to cross the road, or against the creation of more space for people to walk (in a busy areas with lots of bars and restaurants) implying it's about pedestrian safety is a bit rich. 

If you think that to do these things are 'anti car' then put it in the consultation.

Edited March 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah I am expressing doubts, that is not the same as making an outright statement against something. However, I would appreciate you quoting me accurately in future. As your assembly of my statements on the proposed Gyratory changes show, I have not said "I don't want pavements wider" for pedestrians. Those are your words and yours only and are highly misleading.

We can all agree that cyclists and motorcyclists on single-use pedestrian areas are a bad thing, but there seems little will to do anything about it. It may require more creative thinking. Having witnessed recent cycling behaviour round Dulwich Square I can only echo P68's thoughts that while it may not seem much of an issue now, if use of bikes, and e-bikes in particular, increases, it may well become one in the not too distant future.

 

Edited March 19 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just now, first mate said:

I have not said "I do not want widened pavements for pedestrians". Those are your words and yours only and are highly misleading.

Where I have quoted you, I have quoted you directly and in a 'quote' box. Where I have sought to understand your position, or paraphrased my understanding of your position, I have not used quotation marks. You have previously on this thread accused me of 'lying', which is ridiculous. My words are recorded for people to see. You may not like my characterisation, or you may disagree with my interpretation of your meaning, but I have always sought your clarification. 

So again, are you saying that you do approve of the proposed changes to pedestrian areas and the creation of additional crossings, or that you don't approve of them? Because I read your comments (the ones quoted) as suggesting that you were not in favour of them.

[first mate]

Earl, the way you choose to interpret my comments is totally down to you, but is not evidence of my motivation for making those comments.

I have already said I have reservations about pavement widening plans and have given reasons why.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

How is it ‘skewed to motor vehicles’ exactly?

Because it relies on police reports on accidents and only get added when the attached form is filled out - so it is only indicative of the accidents attended by police who then fill out the form, or accidents where people submit the attached form to the police. It was one of the challenges with the death of a woman in Wiltshire who was hit by a cyclist as the police refused to launch an accident investigation because they said, incorrectly and they have since changed their policy, that they would not investigate because "it did not involve a motor vehicle".

It you get hit by a bike and have an injury (unless of course it is a death or a very serious injury) it is very unlikely the police will attend. So you cannot use that dataset as definitive proof of how many cycle vs pedestrian accidents are happening - which is exactly how you have been using it.

This is why so many people, myself included, have been calling for proper data to monitor how much of a problem this has become.

stats19.pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, first mate said:

I have already said I have reservations about pavement widening plans and have given reasons why.

But object to my paraphrasing this as you not being in favour of widened pavements? Feels like dancing on the head of a pin to me. And are you in favour of the crossings, or do you have 'reservations' about that too?

[first mate]

To add, I very much doubt that a collision between a pedestrian and say an e-bike in a pedestrian area would be recorded or reported. Stand to be corrected though.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@rockets - it relies on reported incidents. How else would you collect the data on collisions? This is also irrelevant to this thread.

Just now, first mate said:

To add, I very much doubt that a collision between a pedestrian and say an e-bike in a pedestrian area would be recorded or reported. Stand to be corrected though.

If there was any kind of injury it's likely it would be. It's also the case that many minor incidents involving motor vehicles go unreported. Again, irrelevant to this thread. 

[first mate]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

But object to my paraphrasing this as you not being in favour of widened pavements? Feels like dancing on the head of a pin to me. And are you in favour of the crossings, or do you have 'reservations' about that too?

You can be in favour of something in principle, hypothetically, in an ideal world. In this instance, some of us also have reservations. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 minutes ago, first mate said:

You can be in favour of something in principle, hypothetically, in an ideal world. In this instance, some of us also have reservations. 

So you're in favour in principle, but in practice you're not in favour of the pavement widening or the proposed new crossings? Why will you not clearly state your position, whilst also claiming that any attempt on the part of others to clarify it is 'lying', or 'misrepresentation'. Why so coy?  

Edited March 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Nothing coy going on, I have stated my position and my thoughts. 
 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well if you won't clarify you point, you do invite people to interpret your words as they are. Please don't accuse me of lying again. It's out of order and ironically, completely untrue.

[first mate]

Earl, as I said, I have stated my thoughts on the Peckham Gyratory, thus far. As far as I am concerned I have clarified. It is of course your choice to accept that, or not.

[Rockets]

On 19/03/2025 at 11:09, Earl Aelfheah said:

@rockets - it relies on reported incidents. How else would you collect the data on collisions? This is also irrelevant to this thread.

Reported incidents via police using the STATS19 form, the vast majority of which are from police attending the scene of an accident and all of the accident/crash stats you cite (CrashMap, Microsoft whatever it is, TFL) come from the very same source - STATS19. So those are not all accidents - only those to which police attend or a member of the public filled out at STATS19 form.

On 19/03/2025 at 11:08, first mate said:

To add, I very much doubt that a collision between a pedestrian and say an e-bike in a pedestrian area would be recorded or reported. Stand to be corrected though.

Only if the police attended and filled out a STATS19 form. Or if a member of the public went to a police and filled out/submitted a STATS19 form. So if, for example, an ambulance attended and police did not the police would not report it.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The police record any incidents that are reported to them. Again, I am not sure how you think incidents should be recorded where they're not reported. Good to see that you've seamlessly moved from claiming there is no data, to trying to undermine the data, but at no point actually reviewing or engaging with the data. A repeated pattern. It's almost as though you're just interested in proving a preconceived conclusion.

Again, irrelevant to the thread.

[Rockets]

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The police record any incidents that are reported to them.

Only if the person reporting it has filled in the STATS19 form.

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Good to see that you've seamlessly moved from claiming there is no data, to trying to undermine the data, but at no point actually reviewing or engaging with the data.

No I was challenging you on your use of the data as a like-for-like comparison. It cannot, and should not be used for that. 

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, irrelevant to the thread.

Yes but it's important to correct misleading use of a dataset that does not have the granularity required for the purpose it was being used.

[Earl Aelfheah]

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Only if the person reporting it has filled in the STATS19 form.

Nope. As a member of the public you do not have to fill out a STATS19 form. If you report an incident to the police, it's recorded by the police. You are wrong.

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No I was challenging you on your use of the data as a like-for-like comparison. It cannot, and should not be used for that.

What, a comparison between reported collisions and injuries involving different vehicles? That is like for like. You seem to think I should compare unrecorded incidents and recorded incidents? Using telepathy and / or magic? What are you talking about?

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes but it's important to correct misleading use of a dataset that does not have the granularity required for the purpose it was being used.

No misleading use of a dataset. It's just called using a dataset. Also known as rationale evidenced discussion. As opposed to speculation, anecdote and prejudice.

Again, this is irrelevant to the thread.

Edited March 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, I am not sure how you think incidents should be recorded where they're not reported.

Surely the point that was being made is that the only incidents being reported, in order to guage frequency, are those reported via the police system. Minor incidents which may involve younger cyclists and which haven't led to significant injury may well not be reported, as not being worth the effort and trouble. If these incidents both exist and are becoming more frequent, as some suggest, (and the weight of electric assisted vehicles would tend to make injury more likely) we might expect to see more serious injuries. This is more likely on shared spaces and if pavements become more used by cyclists. Which seems to be the trend. 

Just using police reports as the basis for assessing impact and risk may be to be relying on flawed (not comprehensive) data, although it maybe the only data we now have. 

Luckily recent reports suggest that with sales of new bikes falling away and usage dropping post lockdown the problem itself may be resolving. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Minor incidents involving all vehicles go unreported. And you can't report on unreported incidents. What is your point, that bicycle collisions are causing carnage, whilst also being too minor to report? It's logically incoherent and ultimately just an argument for ignoring the data and relying on speculation and prejudice.

40 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Luckily recent reports suggest that with sales of new bikes falling away and usage dropping post lockdown the problem itself may be resolving.

Usage isn't dropping. And what is the problem you think may be resolving itself? Bike use?

Edited March 25 by Earl Aelfheah