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?

Exactly. That's why there urgently needs to be a more balanced and pragmatic approach.

But it's not the only part...and many in the pro-cycle lobby (especially those in a position to set policy) often forget this.

They appear to be a serious "nuisance" to a some of their riders. Who was calling for them to be banned? Ah, employing the Snowy form of discussion I see. What "from your understanding" is the story then - a reminder we're still waiting for Snowy's exposure on the death of Hilda Griffiths.

The article doesn't compare the injuries to those similar to motorcycles but says: More Londoners have approached London Centric with stories of their legs being severely broken after Lime’s heavy e-bikes fell on top of them, with the victims suggesting the design of the ubiquitous vehicles needs reappraising. One London hospital is automatically assessing patients coming to A&E after Lime bike accidents as potential trauma incidents due to the prevalence of severe “motorcycle-esque” injuries. One Lime user whose leg was almost severed in an accident alleged the company is leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bill for injuries caused by poor maintenance, branding Lime’s business model a “wealth transfer from British people funding the NHS to venture capital guys in California”. London Centric has seen Lime’s rider insurance policy, which requires users to be permanently disabled in a severe manner such as the “complete loss of one kidney” before it will pay out. What they are saying is that: 1) hospitals are seeing Lime-bike trauma injuries that are at the same seriousness as motorcycle injuries caused by bikes falling onto their riders - so much so that if they hear someone is coming to hospital after a Lime bike crash they categorise it (and prepare for) more severe injuries 2) If you do fall off and the bike badly breaks part of you the Lime insurance doesn't look like it will cover you 3) Some are accusing poor maintenance of Lime bikes as a reason for some of the accidents Time and time again the pro-cycle lobby doesn't want to acknowledge many of the issues being created by these new forms of cycling. They will deny it's happening but then find that there is increased legislation because others (most notably and powerfully the medical lobby) will say, hang on something needs to be done. Throw Lime bikes into the same "it's not happening" bucket as the problems caused by red-light jumping, pavement cyclists and the dangers of floating bus stops and mixing pedestrian and cycling usage. One wonders which one will be the trigger for changes that the cycle-lobby then refers to as "draconian, unnecessary and pandering to a small vocal minority". That video really shows what the problems are now and I dare any pro-cycle lobbyist to come up with some excuse for what's going on there - actually probably best to post that in the bad cycling thread as the majority of these aren't Lime bikes. What's happening there is cyclists aren't stopping and giving way to pedestrians as they are required to do - just watch as some of them try to force their way through - how dare these pedestrians slow us down! This is one very specific example of problem location (caused by cyclists not wanting to/abating their speed as they come off the bridge) but this is happening all over London - even in Dulwich Square - the path of cyclists is being prioritised over pedestrians.

Ultimately once hospitals start saying there is a problem then governments will be forced to act. It happened with e-scooters after hospitals saw a rise in e-scooter related injuries. But remember folks, bikes weigh much less than cars and do far less damage so those trauma injuries caused by Lime bikes (often to their own rider) aren't important and should not be considered for fear any remedial measures thwart the growth of cycling....sigh....

It seems hospitals are seeing lots of "severe motorcycle-esque" injuries caused by the weight of Lime bikes. https://www.londoncentric.media/p/lime-ebike-london-switch-cheaper-chinese-tyres

The fight back started in Dulwich! https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/dulwich-residents-lead-national-charge-against-unwanted-ltns/

Creating parking pressure to then be able to charhe residents for the privilege will be part of this council's tarnished legacy. How very socialist of them...

I don't think it is. One of the criticisms from a man whose wife was killed by a cyclist that the reporting of such incidents was insufficient. I would be interested to know how Earl's shared data is collected - is it from police sources, ambulance, hospital data. There seems to be a lack of reliable data on cyclist vs pedestrian accidents. I saw one journalist say that injuries had increased significantly since Covid (I think they said doubled) but they did not cite a source for that but suggested it came from the NHS. Maybe it is time for data to be robustly collected.

Of course you don't.

I do not believe this is true (Southwark's claim they had to). Didn't Cllr Barber flag this many years ago around the time of the first attempt to force a CPZ on Dulwich that it was Southwark's decision to extend them?

Funny how the council has only shown interest in this when it's trying to get CPZs in....I mean for how many decades has it not been of any concern. The council uses it to create parking pressure and the usual suspects start regurgitating the "sightline" narrative they have been fed. So predictable. Of course CPZs are part of addressing the climate crisis too.....ahem...

Double yellow lines are becoming part of the armoury of underhand techniques the council uses to try to create demand for revenue generating CPZs. I know some people complained about the problems they were causing and councilors responded by saying: we can help you get a CPZ. It's brazen and utterly reprehensible and they need to be held to account.

It's hard to find a junction now where Southwark have not extended double yellow lines to the legally permissible length - whether they are needed or not. This has zero to do with road safety and everything to do with revenue generating CPZs. Look at what has happened around Townley and Calton: the council manage to persuade a few supporters to support a CPZ. One or two roads get a CPZ (whether the majority want them or not) then teams of council workers extend the double yellow lines on the surrounding roads - ostensibly to make our roads safer but actually to make parking more challenging. When people then write to their councillors the suggested solution to the problem (that the council have created) - a CPZ! Honestly, anyone else who thinks anything else is a deluded (or blinkered) fool....it's so transparent it's laughable. There were never parking problems in Dulwich until the council started meddling. They are the ones solely responsible for creating parking pressure on our streets and all because they have managed to persuade a very vocal (and gullible) minority that there is "dangerous parking".

Think about it Earl, just think about it for a moment. No just years and years of the council doing this...speak to James Barber about it...he was on the case years ago. Anyone with a modicum of sense can work out why the council extends them as far as legally permissible (when many other authorities do not) - its to create parking pressure. Ask anyone on a street where they have done it.

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

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 you're misrepresenting what I was saying...again....tsk tsk. Of course, if you remove cars then the danger from cars reduces - you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work that part out. What takes a little more grey matter is to work out that when there was slow moving congested traffic then the risk to pedestrians was low. Remove the vehicles and replace them with fast moving bikes and try to mix them in a highly pedestrianised area then the risk to pedestrians will be higher. Is that clearer now?

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? 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.

The council are extending all of the DYLs in the area to the legal permissible maximum to create parking pressure to try and create demand for CPZs. Where is this? The irony is they claim it is to make junctions safer but it seems to be having an adverse impact because people can now see more around the corners and are not slowing down.

Because you are pro-cycling lobbyists who are blinkered by your own fixation with cycling. You fail to acknowledge the issues caused by bad cycling and if anyone challenges you on it you scream: “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!”. Something has to change, streets are becoming more dangerous due to bad cycling.

Do you also feel that it is a disgrace that people's bus journeys have been delayed by displaced traffic from LTNs?

I do wonder if we will have to head towards a CBT scenario with bikes - that there has to be some sort of basic cycle training before people head out onto the road. Only horses and cyclists can head out onto the road without any sort of training. Bring back the Cycling Proficiency! Everyone used to do it at school way back when and that meant everyone had a modicum of road sense...which seems to be severely lacking in many of today's cyclists.

I had forgotten that they have also managed to close East Dulwich Grove too! We are completely encircled