Rockets

Nah, sorry - you can't throw that back to me...you've done this before on many occasions. You're incredibly prejudiced - shockingly so in fact. Maybe you're trying to be funny..who knows. You're happy to accuse anyone who dares question your way of thinking as some sort of right wing bigot yet you're happy to indulge in bigotry. You can't have it both ways but your attitude is reflective of so many nowadays. It's sad and incredibly hypocritical.

How much has it increased by and when did it increase? Perhaps those who can afford cycle hangers are now seen as a revenue generating opportunity like people with gardens or cars? 😉 Of course it could also be that the council are skint (but only in areas that are not Dulwich Square of course!) #sorrycouldntresist

I very much suspect the 99% accuracy applies to "free flowing" traffic - MetroCounts words not mine. Rest assured when I have time to find the MetroCounter counter manual my paste came from then I will post it. If it does indeed come from a MetroCount installation instruction manual will you stand corrected and issue a grovelling apology? Or will you try to deflect and distract or perhaps construct some reason why they recommend installing in free-flowing traffic and avoiding congestion....?

They have tried to wrestle this confliction previously....on numerous occasions. And yet......;-)

Oh my......what a wonderfully prejudiced statement that is....

We will agree to disagree.....(not for the first time, not for the last time) Search MetroCount installation instructions and you will find the below...it's all publicly available Site Selection As with any axle-based classifier, also consider the following: Vehicles should be travelling at a constant velocity. Try to avoid bends, intersections and steep inclines. Vehicles should be free-flowing. Try to avoid areas with congestion. Explain to me then why Southwark decided to move the counters near Court Lane to down near Melford Road.....a co-incidence or oversight perhaps....perhaps they weren't reading the instructions supplied by MetroCount!!!

What I don't understand is those that are clamouring for this says there is an urgent need for more teachers yet they also say there are lots of places at schools for the children leaving private school due to dwindling pupil numbers (at primary especially). Surely then the teacher "gap" can, in part, be plugged by this? This does seem a very blinkered, dog whistle attack on a certain part of private education and it will be interesting to see how the courts (and Europe) views it. Given the government accelerated the rollout to happen in the middle of a school year (which no-one thought was a good idea) probably shows they may not believe they are on strong ground - it feels like a "beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission" situation.

Debunked by who exactly.....? Perhaps you can explain why Metrocount has a filter for sub-10km/h readings or why they state on their instructions: Vehicles should be free-flowing. Try to avoid areas with congestion. That seems to be counter to your "debunked" argument?

On my journey to work today at every red light cyclists jumped the lights. They did not kill or injure anyone. They were not killed or injured by anyone. But if they had been killed or injured whilst jumping the red light then that would be used to defend bad cycling by saying cars kill and injure more people than bikes do.

https://www.metrocount.com/sites/default/files/2023-05/speedaccuracy.pdf MetroCount's own installation instructions state: Site Selection As with any axle-based classifier, also consider the following: Vehicles should be travelling at a constant velocity. Try to avoid bends, intersections and steep inclines. Vehicles should be free-flowing. Try to avoid areas with congestion. Now, perhaps Earl you should be asking yourself why the tubes come with a sub 10km/h monitoring filter function, why Metrocount have such a facility and why Enfield had activated it. Why? Because the machines aren't very accurate at monitoring at those speeds. Now pair that with the fact Southwark actively moved their tubes closer to congestion and it doesn't take a genius to work out why that might be and what games these councils like to play to try and get the results they so desire.

Here is someone who does know how they work Earl (ExDulwicher - what happened to them I miss them - they were an island of sanity in a sea full of delusion) and look what they say about their accuracy in slow moving and congested traffic....and why Southwark was moving to Vivacity sensors.... Rockets said: Is it a co-incidence that the dashboard numbers are not being updated and many of the tubes seem to have been removed completely after people became more aware of their sub 10km/h limitation? Are the council tryng to mitigate potential exposure? Ex-Dulwicher said.....I suspect you've actually hit on part of the issue. Southwark (as with many boroughs in London and cities outside London as well) are moving a lot of their monitoring to Vivacity sensors. They're the camera type things with double lenses you can see on a lot of lampposts around the area and they're vastly more accurate, they can measure pedestrian, bike, car, truck, bus etc very accurately and also measure things like turning flow. They're largely immune to congestion issues and slow moving traffic, or at least can process this as part of the whole package (speed low, flow low, count low = congestion).

Look Earl, you lifted your rebuttal and your "proof" (almost word for word I hasten to add) on pneumatic counters from the WeArePossible website...so you rail against Twitterati and right-wing groups that you have convinced yourself are at the heart of the opposition to these measures whilst you lift your info from the website of a climate action group....now where is that shrug shoulders emoji.... https://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/your-ltn-questions

You might think it is nonsense but others do not and the weight of evidence suggests our position is a more reflection of reality than yours. Let's look.... The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) Southwark council stated they were phasing them out and replacing them with more accurate counters Even our dear friend Ex-Dulwicher (who works in this sort of stuff) admitted that they are not accurate when used in heavy traffic conditions. So combine all of the above with the fact that Southwark actively moved monitoring strips closer to choke points (to use their weaknesses to their advantage) then my statement is anything but nonsense. I don't know where Lambeth have put the monitoring strips in West Dulwich but if they are in areas of slow moving traffic then the pneumatic strips will not be providing an accurate reflection of traffic levels - that is not nonsense, that is a fact.

Dulwich Library/Plough junction is particular hot-spot for bad cycling - I just wonder what can be done there to try and resolve the problem. It seems some cyclists think the green pedestrian light applies to them.

Are Lambeth still using e flawed pneumatic counters? I thought councils were not using those anymore because of the issue of flawed counting or are some still happy to use them because it allows them to manipulate the process?

The more that can be done about crash for cash is to have more police and council presence in the areas where the criminals are operating to determine them. I see them circling around the Court Lane area, driving around and round in circles looking for their next victim.

This is interesting as I was looking at the local crime figures earlier this year (the catalyst for which was Cllr Leeming telling people there was no increase in crime but a perceived increase in crime) but there was actual month on month increases in crime and the trend was definitely upwards. Then, the police stopped reporting crime stats, or at least publishing them on a ward by ward basis across the whole of London. I think they have started again but I will take a look to see if the upward trend is continuing. Malumbu, if you don't have a go about the authorities about the problems with crime then who do you suggest becomes the focal point - after all it is the responsibility of both the police and council to keep us safe.

Yes we have been saying this for a long time and it is actually the pro-LTN, pro-cycle lobby that has been the catalyst for the very culture war that they now accuse others of starting. Many in the pro- lobby are now reaping what they sowed. FM you're right, the blind "cyclists are never wrong because they don't kill as many people as cars" narrative is incredibly damaging to their own cause. It's like those people trying to defend Starmer's government by saying that their sleaze isn't as bad as the Tory sleaze....they are kind of missing the bleedingly obvious point...

I didn't realise that but looking at the stats it does seem to be true. I do know the Dutch have a high per capita car ownership rate and a lot drive and cycle but why the mortality rate is so much higher than ours is interesting. Anyone have any clue?

Indeed, it just shows the lengths some on the pro-LTN cycle/lobby will go. I would put good money the same person posts under another name on this forum as well.....

To be fair Malumbu, some on here, rail against car use, champion a cleaner environment yet act in a most hypocritical way when it suits them to. You know you can be a cyclist and not like the way a lot of cyclists behave. I am, I am also a car driver and hate the way some people drive and not afraid to say it. It just seems there is some vow of silence amongst many in the cycle lobby to acknowledge that there might be a problem being caused by their fellow cyclists - this where the cycle cult reputation comes from. I think you'll find that history shows that the biggest lobby group working on councils to install LTNs was the cycle lobby - in all it's forms and to suggest otherwise is blinkered.

Interesting article from the Beeb on the challenges of housebuilding https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgw7x4y5rzo

Many happy returns Earl! It seems 2007 was a good year to join the forum as I did too!! One thing that hasn't changed is The Castle!

I once got stopped in Battersea Park whilst cycling by a Parks Police officer who tried to issue a PCN for cycling on the riverside walk (which I, at the time, had no idea cycling was not allowed on and actually successfully argued that there was no signage to inform people of such). Parks Police aren't police they are council employees dressed up as police. Given the high level of crimes in and around the park maybe the council could repurpose some of the traffic wardens they have flocking to the area to wander around the park to both provide a visual deterrent to those in the park up to no good (especially around school chuck out time) and they could also remind fast cyclists of their need to slow down (not many at all adhere to the 5pm limit in the park). So many people I know hate walking in the park (especially around school drop off and pick-up time) for fear of them or their dogs being hit by cyclists - the two most worrying sounds in the park are the hum of a Lime bike approaching from behind at great speed or the bone-shaker banging of a school drop-off cargo bike hurtling up behind you. A couple of weeks ago I saw the aftermath of a coming together of a Lime bike and a small child on a scooter (but didn't see the accident happen so cannot comment on who was in the wrong). Maybe there is also an argument (like that in Battersea Park) that cyclists should have to walk in the areas most used by pedestrians or the areas where large numbers of pedestrians congregate.

Yes I saw how they were proudly showing that they had built 70 odd affordable houses in the first batch. I really do hope they stick to their commitment but history tells us this is not what happens - that developers will often build the first batch fulfilling their affordable housing (to buy or rent) commitment but then u-turn. If I was a betting person I would wager that once completed the affordable housing is nowhere near 35%. Look at the Dulwich Square development - none of that ended up being affordable housing despite what the original application and plans said. If councils do take cash in lieu of social housing you can see why developers may see that as an easy way to pay their way out - they probably cover that cost 10 times over in the margins on the luxury properties they build instead.