Sydenham Hill Consultation: a manipulative trend or a one-off?

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

"well I've never seen anyone using it therefore it's a waste of money".

Therein lies the issue. People see so much money being poured into cycle infrastructure (especially at a time when council's are pleading poverty) people, understandably, start to question whether that money is being spent wisely when they see no-one using it. When journeys for thousands of people are being made more difficult because of infrastructure to support the supposed explosion in cycling and you see no-one using it really makes people question how sensible that investment is.

I don't use Strava - can you see the number of daily journeys made? If so, I would be interested to hear what it is for Sydenham Hill and how that compares to other areas.

[exdulwicher]

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Therein lies the issue. People see so much money being poured into cycle infrastructure (especially at a time when council's are pleading poverty) people, understandably, start to question whether that money is being spent wisely when they see no-one using it.

The money being "poured" into cycle infrastructure is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the colossal sums being spent on roads. A single junction upgrade on the M25 is costing twice as much as the entire annual active travel budget for the whole country. 

And this whole "I don't see anyone using it" rubbish. Are you there watching it 24/7? Got a video feed that you scroll through every day? Do you do this with any other infrastructure - stand there in front of the library and count how many people use the wheelchair ramp? 

Bloody hell, no-one is using the West Coast Main Line either! Best get rid of that. 

 

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

And this whole "I don't see anyone using it" rubbish. Are you there watching it 24/7? Got a video feed that you scroll through every day?

No but when I do pass there I never ever see anyone cycling on it. Come on, you have access to Strava, tell us what the average number of daily weekday and weekend cycle journeys are - I very much suspect it is not many at all.

 

4 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Bloody hell, no-one is using the West Coast Main Line either! Best get rid of that. 

A daft analogy if there ever was one -  the difference is of course the West Coast Main Line wasn't carved out of existing transport infrastructure was it or are those displaced horses we can see....;-)

I tell you what though I would like to wager a bet with you that a single West Coast Main Line train carries more people on a journey than the Sydenham cycle lane does in one week. Come on, you have Strava...tell us!!! 😉                                                                         

[snowy]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Ex Dulwicher said: Even the most basic look on Strava, the fitness tracking app, shows tens of thousands of rides along there

Does Strava differentiate between use of road and of cycle lane? 

It will probably do your blood pressure no good to hear that cycle lanes aren't compulsory and aren't recommended if you're cycling over 12mph. 
 

None of the anti-infrastructure comments reflect that the road narrowing was implemented because drivers were consistently breaking the speed limit and causing collisions.

What's the usual line - 'when will the driving community accept responsibility for the actions of some of its members "?

It wasn't installed to create a new cycle lane, that was an ancillary project. 

[exdulwicher]

Just now, Rockets said:

Come on, you have Strava...tell us!!! 😉                                                                         

As I pointed out, Strava only shows how many active Strava users went along the entire segment. If I ride along it (with Strava running) but turn off half way along, I won't complete the segment so I won't show on the stats.

If someone rides along it without Strava, it won't show anywhere either. I used the example of Strava because it gave a very quick rebuttal to the utterly stupid "I never see anyone using it" comment. 

If you want daily stats, direction of travel etc, you'll need a system like Vivacity or induction loops to give a count of every passing cyclist at a specific point. 

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

A daft analogy if there ever was one                                                               

The analogy I'm making is that we both know full well that hundreds of trains travel up and down the WCML every day. But at that moment in time, it looks empty. The point I am making is that just because it LOOKS empty doesn't mean there aren't trains on it. 

You aren't watching it 24/7 and I'm not really sure why you care anyway. 

 

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, snowy said:

What's the usual line - 'when will the driving community accept responsibility for the actions of some of its members "?

And what's the usual answer: A darn sight sooner than the cycle community will ever do! 😉 

6 minutes ago, snowy said:

It will probably do your blood pressure no good to hear that cycle lanes aren't compulsory and aren't recommended if you're cycling over 12mph. 

Who recommends not using them if you're cycling over 12mph - is that part of the Highway Code?

[exdulwicher]

Look at that, there's no-one using Turney Road either! Why aren't motorists using that expensive infrastructure that has been provided for them? It's a lovely day, surely they should be out in droves enjoying their roads? 

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, exdulwicher said:

As I pointed out, Strava only shows how many active Strava users went along the entire segment.

Ok then, pick a day and tell us how many went along it's entire segment - it will give us a good idea - maybe then pick another road like Calton Avenue to give a comparison.

10 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Look at that, there's no-one using Turney Road either! Why aren't motorists using that expensive infrastructure that has been provided for them? It's a lovely day, surely they should be out in droves enjoying their roads? 

Well didn't the council's monitoring reckon between 3,000 and 4,000 car journeys a day are made along Turney post-LTN - pretty good ROI don't you think...how does that compare to the ROI or cost per journey for the Sydenham Hill cycle lane.....?

[snowy]

41 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And what's the usual answer: A darn sight sooner than the cycle community will ever do! 😉 

Who recommends not using them if you're cycling over 12mph - is that part of the Highway Code?

Tellingly no comment on any of the other points?

Come on - give us a yes or no answer- were the sydenham hill road changes put in to reduce driver speeds irrespective of the cycle lane addition?
 

and on cycle lanes: https://gprivate.com/6g4et

[first mate]

I was aware that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes. That is why I asked if Strava data or similar accurately show cycle lane usage over a short distance, like Sydenham Hill, or do they simply indicate the amount of journeys up and down the hill, whether in the cycle lane or in the wider road space? 
 

Aside from that, I'd imagine this is a hill climb relished by local cycle clubs etc so it would be interesting to know if data for that small section is spread evenly throughout the week and year, or instead there is greater frequency on say early weekend mornings?

  On 17/03/2025 at 21:54,  malumbu said:

  On 17/03/2025 at 16:24,  jazzer said:

Exactly, the cycle lane was an excuse to slow traffic, it's unnecessary because it's never used, never seen one cyclist cycle along there, EVER, EVER. It is an excuse to solve another problem.  

It's meant to slow the traffic.  Narrows the road, so naturally slows the traffic.  That is because before it was a race track up to the cameras.  Much nicer now.

Expand  

Snowy, may I also just draw your attention to one of Malumbu's earlier comments in response to another poster ( Malumbu's comment below Jazzer's, above)

Edited March 21 by first mate

[Rockets]

@snowy here is the section in the Highway Code on Cycle Lanes - can't see a mention of 12mph anywhere.....where is that recommendation exactly?

Come on - one of you Strava users must be able to share the data....why the reluctance to share it?

 

Rule 61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.

Edited March 21 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Well didn't the council's monitoring reckon between 3,000 and 4,000 car journeys a day are made along Turney post-LTN - pretty good ROI don't you think...how does that compare to the ROI or cost per journey for the Sydenham Hill cycle lane.....?

What exactly are you getting at here? I have no idea of the point you're trying to prove other than you seem to have moved on from the conspiracy theory that the cycle lane was "forced through" by some underhand cycle campaign manipulation and now you're trying to prove that it's not used? I'll repeat the questions I posed to Penguin earlier - what constitutes an acceptable level of use? What arbitrary number is the minimum for you and why? 

It's actually interesting that people say things like "ooh it's a lovely quiet road" or conversely "this road is so busy, it's very unpleasant" but as soon as it's a cycle lane, it's the opposite. Apparently it needs to be rammed with cyclists 24/7 in order to justify it's existence? As soon as it's quiet, it needs to be ripped out?

And no, I'm not going to give you the figures from Strava because it's not representative. You will of course know all about this because you're very keen on representative accurate verified data, you've said so many times.

As I explained, it's only counting active Strava users who ride the whole segment, it won't be picking up people who ride half of it and turn off, people not using Strava, people who are using it but have set their ride to Private etc, nor is it distinguishing between the cycle lane and the road. In fact the segment I looked at is one way so it's ignoring people going the other way too.

It's like counting all the blue cars driving this way -----> along a road and trying to use that as a basis for overall traffic. I know exactly what'll happen if I say "X number of Strava users rode the whole segment this week", you'll twist it to say "only X number of cyclists ever use this lane!"

And on that note, I'm off for the weekend. Why don't you pop up there and have a ride along it, see what you can see? Bonus for riding it is that as you descend Sydenham Hill, you can't be caught by the bus lane camera if you're on your bike...

[Rockets]

7 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

And no, I'm not going to give you the figures from Strava because it's not representative.

I suspect, if truth be known, it is probably very small compared to other comparable roads and you dont want to share it because it validates our statement that the two cycle lanes are not used very much at all.

Have a great weekend! 

[first mate]

I drive up that hill regularly and rarely see a cyclist, not even an e-bike/motorcyclist. But if a sports group was going up most weekends, at a time others are not really about, I can see how the numbers would stack up. It could be the same club and same people, each weekend. Anyway, guess we'll never know.

[malumbu]

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

I was aware that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes. That is why I asked if Strava data or similar accurately show cycle lane usage over a short distance, like Sydenham Hill, or do they simply indicate the amount of journeys up and down the hill, whether in the cycle lane or in the wider road space? 
 

Aside from that, I'd imagine this is a hill climb relished by local cycle clubs etc so it would be interesting to know if data for that small section is spread evenly throughout the week and year, or instead there is greater frequency on say early weekend mornings?

 

  On 17/03/2025 at 21:54,  malumbu said:

  On 17/03/2025 at 16:24,  jazzer said:

Exactly, the cycle lane was an excuse to slow traffic, it's unnecessary because it's never used, never seen one cyclist cycle along there, EVER, EVER. It is an excuse to solve another problem.  

It's meant to slow the traffic.  Narrows the road, so naturally slows the traffic.  That is because before it was a race track up to the cameras.  Much nicer now.

Expand  

Snowy, may I also just draw your attention to one of Malumbu's earlier comments in response to another poster ( Malumbu's comment below Jazzer's, above)

Just leave me out of this tiresome thread.  The only interesting post I've seen is Rockets admitting again to needing some refresher driving lessons.  I admire your stamina Snowy, Earl and Ex but debating with some feels a little futile.  This is me being polite.

[Rockets]

@first mate this is why no-one wants to share the Strava data.....they can all see the numbers for themselves....

[snowy]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

I drive up that hill regularly and rarely see a cyclist, not even an e-bike/motorcyclist. But if a sports group was going up most weekends, at a time others are not really about, I can see how the numbers would stack up. It could be the same club and same people, each weekend. Anyway, guess we'll never know.

I cycle it regularly and see a broad range of people using it.

[first mate]

On 21/03/2025 at 23:17, snowy said:

I cycle it regularly and see a broad range of people using it.

I also see a broad range of people using it, just they are not on bicycles. We'll just have to agree to disagree,  but at the very least it would have been helpful to see that Strava data.

[snowy]

Why are you asking me? I don't use strava. 

i rode along it again yesterday, people cycling to the pub and the park...

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is all just noise. There is no conspiracy.

The bike lane was not the point of the scheme (read the TMO). It was intended to slow traffic on a stretch of road which had a problem with speeding.

The design could have included a bike lane or not - but the road would still have been narrowed to control speed. Those who took part in the consultation overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of a bike lane in the design. Are people arguing that they'd rather the road had been narrowed but a bike lane excluded? For what purpose? Just because 'grrr, bikes'?

This whole thread was started because one person knee jerked to a misunderstanding about the nature of the scheme; wrongly thinking they'd uncovered some new fact (that the council were 'using bike lanes to slow traffic') and that this pointed to a conspiracy. They've got it so back to front it's laughable.

And of course, wrongly thinking they'd uncovered something, they set about looking for 'evidence' to 'prove' their conclusion, completely misinterpreting / misrepresenting some cherry picked data, as usual. 

So a thread about nothing, based on conspiracy thinking, confirmation bias, and a monomaniacal obsession. It's boring, and pointless.

I would just ask what it is you're actually railing against? 

Do you want to road widened?

Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And for what purpose?

 

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

24 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This whole thread was started because one person knee jerked to a misunderstanding about the nature of the scheme; wrongly thinking they'd uncovered some new fact (that the council were 'using bike lanes to slow traffic')

Once more, no, this idea that the cycle lane was there to slow traffic was introduced by Malumbu and backed up by you.

Rockets and I commented on this and said we had not heard of that before.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Once more, no, this idea that the cycle lane was there to slow traffic was introduced by Malumbu and backed up by you.

Rockets and I commented on this and said we had not heard of that before.

Do you really not understand this.

A bike lane was not introduced to slow traffic.

Sydenham Hill was identified as one of the top 10 roads in the borough that saw regular speeding. It was also identified as an accident hotspot. So it was decided that traffic calming measures were needed which included road narrowing.

The consultation was on the design and one option was the inclusion of a bike lane which the road narrowing made possible. The inclusion of a bike lane was widely supported (why would it not be?), but without it, the road would still have been narrowed.

This is not the same as a bike lane being used to slow traffic. It’s a completely topsy turvey misinterpretation of the nature of the scheme.

If you still don’t get this. If you still haven’t read the TMO (which you were pointed towards right at the start), then I can’t help you.

Again, I would just ask what it is you're actually railing against? 

Do you want to road widened?

Do you want cars to regularly break the speed limit along that road again?

Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And if so, for what purpose?

 

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A bike lane was not introduced to slow traffic.

You'd better take that up with @malumbu as he was the one who made that claim.

No point going over and over the point of the thread as that is clear for anyone who cares to read it and the data is there in black and white - the very odd distribution of positive responses of those not resident of Southwark or Lewisham. Perhaps it is a statistical anomaly or perhaps LCC and Southwark Cyclist lobbying efforts swung it in the council's favour - I mean the thread also acknowledges that people on both sides have been trying to manipulate the process - and I though we had all agreed there needs to be a more grown-up approach taken to consultations. My personal feeling is that councils were happy to turn a blind eye to interference when it suited their agenda but keen to police when it didn't.

 

 

Also, on the subject of whether the cycle lane was a good investment still waiting for someone with the Strava data to share it because apparently it's perfectly reasonable to make a claim that the cycle route is well used because "a quick look on Strava shows tens of thousands of rides along there" and then when challenged to share the data suddenly Strava is "not representative" even though we were asking for comparative data with a cycle lane/route where we all can acknowledge has decent usage.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

the data is there in black and white - the very odd distribution of positive responses of those not resident of Southwark or Lewisham.

You've misinterpreted the data. The reference to 'Southwark resident' and 'Lewisham resident' refers to those living (resident) on Sydenham hill or a surrounding road... Those on the Southwark side and those on the Lewisham side (the road divides the two boroughs). I've already pointed this out to you.

The rest of the responses are those who are not resident of Sydenham hill or a surrounding road (people from East Dulwich who responded to the consultation for example; People like you, who said at the time, that you supported it).

There is no 'odd distribution'. The majority of those living on the road, as well as those from further afield, supported the change. Only 26 people living on the road objected.

As for the cost - deciding to include a bike lane using wands, was probably cheaper than excluding it and just narrowing the road using hard landscaping.

You have (wilfully?) misunderstood everything about the scheme from it's purpose (read the TMO), to the consultation responses. And you seem completely uninterested in the schemes actual (positive) impact. Just bizarre.

Again, I would simply ask what it is you're actually railing against? 

Do you want to road widened?

Do you want cars to regularly break the speed limit along that road again?

Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And if so, for what purpose?

…from this and many of your other posts, it does appear that you’re just against cycling infrastructure per se.

Edited March 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

Its the Just Asking Questions approach isn't it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions

https://thelogicofscience.com/2020/05/31/the-problem-with-just-asking-questions/

 

Edited March 24 by snowy