Earl Aelfheah

Take the Windrush line from either Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill (the latter is step free) to Clapham Junction, then switch on to the Mildmay line (it's on the same platform) to South Kensington

I have addressed both those points. Go back and read what I've posted if you're genuinely interested. As a pedestrian you are more likely to be seriously injured by a person travelling by car than by bicycle. Including on the pavement. By a significant margin.

I have actually discussed red light jumping by cyclists and suggested how you might seek to reduce it. What have you actually added that is constructive with regards the topic? You've mainly made a series of really silly straw man arguments attacking things that no one has said.

On the one hand you claim that people are scared of being seriously hurt by cyclists and that the perception itself is harmful. On the other you seem to ignore, or fail to recognise the reality of the fact - that people travelling on bicycle actually pose very little risk relatively, to pedestrians. When one posts constantly, across multiple threads about the dangers cyclists pose, whilst attempting to close down any examination of the causes of the vast majority of pedestrian injuries, who is doing most to add to disproportionate, unrealistic, and harmful perceptions? What about the use of misleading data, or conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally, aimed at stoking fear; For example when it is stated that Dulwich Square is now more dangerous than it was previously for pedestrians, and that it is a high crime area? These things are objectively untrue. Is that helpful? Or how about an article with the headline "How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians"? Does that headline reflect reality?

That's not the point (read the whole of my post). I agree that as with crime, perception can cause real harm, entirely separately of the reality. It’s exactly why I object to people making up or misusing statistics to exaggerate risk and stoke people’s fears. For example when people claim that areas are crime hotspots, or dangerous crash hotspots for pedestrians, when they objectively are not.

I’m not the one disproportionally ‘obsessed’ about the impact of objectively the most benign form of private transport, whilst constantly minimising the impact, and shouting down any discussion of, the least. I am very happy to discuss both, but with some sense of proportion and based on evidence. The use of statistics in that Telegraph article is misleading when it comes to comparing the relative dangers of bicycles and motor vehicles. Whilst collisions involving cyclists can lead to pedestrian injuries, collisions involving motorists injure pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and all other road users (those additional injury numbers are excluded). The relevant comparison is 28,000 serious injuries involving motor vehicles annually, and 189 involving bicycles. For deaths you can see the graphs above. Motor vehicles led to around 1,600 deaths, bicycles 3 (two more than were caused by a pedestrian running into someone else who was on foot). Which takes us to the other issue; Using percentages to compare changes from wildly different baselines. If next year pedestrians cause 2 deaths instead of 1 there will have been a 100% increase, but it won’t tell you much about how dangerous pedestrians are getting. Likewise if there is one less death caused by a cyclist, it would represent a 30% drop, but wouldn’t really tell you that cycling is getting safer. The article also ignores the relative growth in people travelling by bike over the reference period. Cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London, but this obviously relevant context isn’t mentioned. Fundamentally, the more people who cycle rather than drive, the safer pedestrians are.

As I said

They’re not involved in serious collisions at any where near the rate of any other type of private vehicle. I would need to look at the stats, rather than conclude anything from a Telegraph article declaring a war between people, but they don’t appear to take account of the actual risk per mile. So my initial guess is that it’s at least in part related to a massive growth in the numbers / proportion of bicycle traffic, especially in the City where bicycles now make up the majority of peak-time traffic. The fact that cars are getting safer is multi-factor, but is linked to things you oppose- reduced speed limits, camera enforcement as well as improvements in technology. I have suggested interventions you could introduce to reduce the risk those travelling by bicycle pose. But from articles like that one and from the multiple threads on this forum, you could wrongly believe that people on bicycles pose the biggest risk to others of any form of private transport. The truth is the opposite of course (see below from the DfT: That’s in absolute terms, when you look at other road users killed by distance travelled, motorbikes jump to the top of the list, followed by HGVs. Bicycles are still at the bottom, pedestrians aside.

Don't think it's upset anyone, (perhaps those who object to a question about the source?). The headline is How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians. In an article that adds a one liner towards the bottom of the article, that "cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists.". The article also ignores the increases in the number of people cycling over the period referred to. But all that aside, the fact that as the number of people travelling by bicycle increases you need to review laws and enforcement (and improve / expand infrastructure), is fairly obvious. Fundamentally though, it's important not to lose sight of the big picture - the more people who travel by bicycle rather than car, the safer pedestrians are - quite at odds with that headline.

I have commented on them. That figure on investment is also a statistic, for which there is no reference, so it's not unreasonable to question it's source. The article is not a particularly serious analysis on any level, it's an editorial piece in the Telegraph. That said, clearly there has been a big increase in the number of cyclists, especially in London, and especially in the City. Whilst that almost certainly a net benefit for pedestrian safety, it does also means that you have to give greater thought to the rules and enforcement around bicycles as they grow in number. But worth keeping it in perspective, and treating articles in the Telegraph, with silly headlines about people declaring war on each other with a little scepticism.

You're right, it should have been much higher!

I mean I don't consider it particularly lucky to find oneself in dangerous situations on a daily basis, let alone within a single, very small pedestrian area.

@Dulwich dweller it's not an unreasonable question. That article is heavily editrorialised, including a ridiculous headline. But regardless, I'm not sure what it's really meant to add; Even if you just take it at face value, it suggests that bicycles are involved in collisions with pedestrians (at an increasing, but still much, much lower rate than motor cars). This isn't news, and it's not hugely surprising (as there has been a massive increase in cycling, something the article ignores). We know that there is a lot of bad road behaviour regardless of the mode of transport people use. We could discuss how you address that, rather than constantly turning everything into a football match.

I mean there is official collision data and crime stats, but fair enough, I can tell first mate has taken my comments to heart and I apologise. I am sorry that he's finding himself in dangerous situations at Dulwich Square on a daily basis. I sincerely hope his luck improves. I do too. But I could equally say the same about people travelling by foot or by car and the latter is objectively the biggest problem in terms of impact. That's not to say that we shouldn't discuss all of these, but it would be good to be able to do so in a balanced and evidence based way.

...relayed incidents that you have witnessed daily on the square. I don't know how much time you spend there each day, but considering you were supporting the idea that it is a dangerous place for pedestrians and Rockets dubious claim that it's also a high crime area, one does wonder why you keep exposing yourself to regular near misses and potential crime. Perhaps you're just a regular Kate Adie, choosing to return to the frontlines everyday to bring us reports at great personal risk... or perhaps there has been a little hyperbole. I’ve not seen any data suggesting that it’s dangerous or crime ridden (quite the opposite), and it’s not most people’s experience either, but perhaps you are particularly unlucky. On the fact that there are incidents of bad road behaviour, this is not a remotely contested fact. There are of course examples of bad behaviour by people travelling on foot, bicycles and in motor vehicles. All are a problem, but clearly the mode of transport significantly impacts the danger posed to others. As more and more people cycle, then it is inevitable that there will be more incidents involving bicycles, that does need to be attended to, and is being. But in terms of road safety, bicycles get a massively disproportionate amount of attention across this forum, by people who insist on treating road safety as some kind of team sport, where you cannot point out the elephant in the room, or discuss evidence based interventions. I would love to be able to have a serious, evidence based discussion about road safety on this forum occasionally, which included thought about how to direct resources towards the most impactful interventions. Instead we just get the usual suspects endlessly complaining in very general terms about 'bloody cyclists', whilst minimising the cause of the vast majority of KSIs and adding almost nothing constructive in terms of either (or worse in Rockets case, regularly treating it like a game and making objectively false or misleading statements). It’s a shame imo.

East Dulwich placed at number 4. Seems a little low to me 😉

.

I suggested that your claim to be witnessing dangerous cycling and near misses on the pavements at Dulwich Square daily, stretched the bounds of probability. It was on a thread where it was being said the square was a dangerous place for pedestrians, and there was a good deal of hyperbole on display. I have never suggested that dangerous road behaviour doesn’t exist, and that includes by people travelling on bicycle.

Is that right? I thought government data showed overall cycling casualty rates on UK roads falling since 2004, even as cycle traffic has increased (from an estimated 2.59 billion miles in 2004 to 3.61 billion in 2023 - an almost 40% increase). The most recent figures I can find for London specifically show a 43% reduction in casualties per million cycle journeys between 2000 and 2022. The Telegraph article is based on their own analysis and omits a lot of important information (the massive increase in cycling numbers over the period referred to for example). This is especially relevant in the City of London (which it identifies as having the highest number of bicycle / pedestrian collisions); In the City bicycles are now the majority mode of transport during peak commuting hours. The headline (which is actually ridiculous), betrays the Telegraph’s agenda. They publish these types of articles regularly (and of course they get good click through / engagement from their target demographic). All that said, there clearly is an issue with people behaving irresponsibly and dangerously, and it’s becoming a bigger issue in relation to bikes specifically, especially as the number of people cycling increases. It is worth mentioning that this is well recognised (despite the pretence by people like rockets that somehow it is not), and there are things being done to address it. This includes changes in the law referenced in the article, and targeted enforcement (I linked earlier in the thread to an article about measures the City police have been taking specifically). Other things I think could be done include changes to road layouts on some of the bigger commuter routes (for example Blackfriars’ Bridge Road bike lane), where the numbers of bikes travelling at rush hour is massive and the fast and constant flow of traffic creates a risk of being rear ended when you stop to let a pedestrian cross. Some traffic calming measures (signage and textured road surfaces around crossing for example) would be really good to see. Also some pressure on Lime to look at their charging model to discourage red light hopping, and some more creative solutions around things like the Idaho stop as already discussed. And of course (even though for some reason we’re not allowed to mention it as road safety has to be discussed through a 'team' lens 🙄), if we want to increase pedestrian safety we do need tougher crack downs on speeding and dangerous car driving - as a pedestrian you are still much, much more likely to be killed or seriously injured by someone acting irresponsibly when travelling in a car.

Rubbish. I mentioned Lime bikes because there is something you could do specifically in relation to their charging model to encourage people to stop at red lights. I have offered some other suggestions about push bikes more generally too. That's not a deflection tactic, it’s actually engaging with the topic. At no point have I or anyone else said "it's not actually cyclists jumping red lights". In fact I provided the stats for how many cyclists do regularly jump the lights, described it as a problem and offered some potential solutions. You've started going on about illegal bikes / mopeds. You've literally spent pages, adding nothing constructive. You've contradicted yourself over a "report that did not include 20mph roads" (and then quoted what it says about 20mph roads). You've attacked me based on your 'confusing' a comment about a drop in KSI numbers with an entirely different exchange on the prevalence of speeding. And you've made a series of really silly straw man arguments about people claiming "all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes", and people pretending Lime bikes are motorbikes - no one has said these things, you've just made them up. And when any of this has been pointed out, instead of just going back, reading what's been said and admitting your errors, you've doubled down (at which point, it can't really be said to be a misunderstanding; It's just base dishonesty). You seem incapable of engaging in good faith.

I agree. No one has said otherwise btw. Rockets just trying to deflect by bringing electric mopeds and motorbikes (a clear legally defined category) into it. Illegal electric mopeds are also a problem of course, but a different one in terms of enforcement. Yep. This has been discussed many times, even recently on this thread. There are pedal assist e-bikes and there are electric mopeds / motorcycles. These two are quite different. Are you not reading anything that’s been posted?

That’s why it contains a hyperlink to some data. Again, no one has said people on bicycles do not jump red lights. And your trying to claim that motorbikes (under the legal definition of motorcycles shared multiple times with you), are actually bicycles, is a ridiculous and irrelevant distraction.

No. I have not said anything of the sort as is self evident and as you very well know.. Again no one has said or even remotely suggested this. You’re just making ridiculous straw man arguments and spiralling badly. You’ve absolutely embarrassed yourself on this thread, making a number of objectively false and misleading statements. Instead of admitting your ‘mistakes’, or just staying quiet for a bit, you’re doubling down as usual, and showing yourself up further. Sorry to hear this Sue, hope you weren’t too shaken. I actually see cars jumping reds most days on my commute into central London, unfortunately it’s not as rare as you might imagine. The fact is that whilst people are much more likely to jump a red light when travelling on a bicycle (for one thing they have far greater opportunity to than a full width vehicle), as a pedestrian, you’re much more likely to be seriously injured or killed by someone in a car jumping a red. Anyway, glad you’re ok.

Thanks for actually writing to the local councillor and sharing the reply, it's really helpful. I've not taken much interest in this to be honest, because I feel it's mainly up to those who live on the roads in question. Having taken a quick look through the documents though, am I right in thinking that they've consulted with residents and only intend to introduce controlled parking on streets where it has the support of the majority of those who live there? Also looks like they're only introducing controls on three streets? Maybe I've missed something.

That's really rubbish. I feel for them, they've done a great job of converting that space.