Earl Aelfheah

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.? I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing and using a little comedic licence, but it's not far off: There are people saying they don't want bike lanes. and all over this section, suggesting that cyclists represent an almost unique and singular danger to pedestrians (obviously they can pose a danger, but one that is several orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by motor vehicles, which people seem to be completely blind to). And of course, the same people obsessed with speed limits for pedal bikes, are the same that complain about police enforcement in relations to motor vehicles.

The point is that there are far fewer people travelling by bicycle than motor vehicle. And even fewer of those who are travelling by bicycle over the speed limit (as it applies to cars). And at the same time, a far greater proportion, of the far greater number of people travelling by car, regularly speed. And they speed not just at 20mph, but up to and beyond 70mph. And of course they seriously injure and kill many many more people.

So in summary, people want to discourage bicycles. And until there are fewer people travelling by bicycle, any action to improve things for pedestrians are futile? Yup, that's pretty standard for the 'roads and transport' section. ...because it's definitely people using bicycles, and people using cars, that are serious injuring and killing thousands of pedestrians each year.

They rarely do. Most non sport cyclists would struggle to maintain speeds over 20 for any length of time, let alone 30. There is little evidence that it's a significant problem. And it's notable that speed limits are regularly exceeded by motor vehicles, that there is clear evidence that it leads to death and destruction on a significant scale, and yet nearly all of the attention on this forum is directed at the former. Feels a lot like a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Have you looked at the proposal? It will create new crossings and will widen and declutter existing pavements.

More than half of UK drivers believe there is a culture of it being OK to break the speed limit. I would agree. Excessive speeding now commonplace on UK roads | RAC Drive According to the DfT: “under free-flowing conditions, 44% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30 mph roads” So picture is one of frequent / regular speeding, with some examples of really extreme speeds. Overall it appears (and a majority of drivers agree), that there is a culture of speeding being considered acceptable.

Do you have a local Iceland?

Irony is dead.

Yes, you're right, it would have run to Peckham, with a branch to Brixton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_River_Tram

I can't say about the next 20 years (you may be right), but right now the Castle is a lot busier than it has been for a long while, and has a lot more, younger people visiting. I suspect that prices are a big part in that, as it's significantly cheaper than other local boozers.

To balance my previous post above, I had a far more positive experience in Poundland today. Good staff, no music and everything a lot tidier.

Any minute now, those deeply concerned about fast pedalling cyclists, will be voicing their ideas on how we address the fact that 90% of UK police forces have clocked people driving cars at 60mph and over, in 30mph zones.

There was a proposal for a cross river tram, running from Camden to Camberwell some years back. We obviously have a fairly extensive tram system running from Croydon to Wimbledon.

@rollflick - you may well be right in your comments generally - I do agree that the council should provide a lot more info, that they could be more ambitious. I would point out though that Rye Lane is now bus only, which is quite a significant change made in the last few years. This may have changed things in terms of bus times running north, I don't know. Again, a good reason for the council to provide more info with which to judge the changes. Whether the proposals address the most pressing issues / prioritise correctly though, possibly not. All that said, I can't see anything in the proposed changes which makes things fundamentally worse, and quite a lot of small improvements which should be welcomed.

If anything, won't this divert traffic travelling East alongside the rye, further away from ED and LL, via consort road? There aren't really any changes to travel up the west side of the rye for motor vehicles from what I can tell (?). Improvements for pedestrians I welcome - making crossing easier and widening some pavements. The triangle is now quite a fashionable little area, with a lot of foot traffic, so that seems like a good thing. It will presumably also be better for buses travelling south, and having segregated bike lanes (separating cycles and motor vehicles), seems better for both. Feels like it will improve the experience of those walking, cycling and using public transport, with minimal impact on drivers, from what I can tell at least.

Police catching motorists doing 90mph on 30mph roads - BBC News Almost half of UK police forces have caught motorists driving more than 90mph (144km/h) on 30mph roads in the 20 months to the end of August, the RAC says. A total of 48% of forces found drivers going more than three times the 30mph limit, while 90% had clocked people driving at 60mph.

I've not posted anything that is misleading. I've linked to official data which shows how both within and around the LTN (as well as across the wider area), the number of collisions have fallen. How the data is gathered is explained on page 1 (it's clear you still haven't even looked at it). Anyone can interrogate the dashboard, examining any cut of the data they wish (including bicycle / pedestrian collisions). It couldn't be more straight forward or transparent. You on the other hand have made several claims now, providing no evidence for any of them.

The proposed bus gate is on Peckham Rye between Dulwich Road and Nunhead Crescent. …So referring to the north section I believe.

As a result of the LTN you claimed that the calton junction was now more dangerous (providing no evidence). I linked you to data on recorded collisions that suggests it is actually safer. You then claimed that no one collects data on bicycle / pedestrian collisions (apparently without actually checking) I pointed out that this data is collected and linked you to it. I noted that it also shows the calton junction has got safer. You then disparaged the data claiming that we don’t know how it’s collected. I pointed out that it says exactly how it’s collected on the very first page, revealing that you hadn’t even briefly examined it before insisting we need ‘more robust data’. You then claimed that if the junction was safer, other roads must be more dangerous as a result. I pointed to the data for a period of three years before, and 3 years after the LTN was introduced, showing a reduction in collisions across Southwark. You then claimed this was misleading because the period I had referenced included lockdown. I pointed out that if you examine a period with excludes lockdown the data still shows a reduction in the number of collisions across Southwark roads, and invited you to take any cut of the data you liked (and again linked you to it). You then repeatedly claimed I’m trying to deliberately mislead. Meanwhile, at no point have you actually provided any evidence at all for any of your claims. You seem to seem to think it’s ok to just make stuff up, and when presented with evidence that what you have said is untrue, just move on to the next unsubstantiated claim, double down, deflect and resort to ad hominem attacks. I have literally pointed you to all the data you need to prove your point… were your point true. ‘Sigh’

Yes, I said this. It’s demonstrably true. The data does suggest road safety has improved since the LTNs were introduced. Although I was not making this point specifically. I was challenging your assertion that the opposite is true; That roads have got more dangerous, as you falsely claimed. Again, if you are going to state something to be true, it is on you to provide some evidence to back up that claim. You seem to think you can just make anything up and demand others disprove it. This is such a bad faith tactic. The burden of proof is on you. To be clear, I have linked you to detailed, multi year data. You will find the same result any way you cut it. There is no evidence that LTNs increase road danger. Theu do not. You have made baseless claims and provided no evidence for them whatsoever. In fact you first tried to claim the data wasn’t collected (untrue), then claimed we couldn’t say how it was collected (untrue) and now try to double down on the claim that roads are more dangerous since the LTNs were introduced (untrue). There is only one person deliberately trying to mislead, deflect and obfuscate here.

How is it misleading? This is absolute nonsense. You've made completely unsubstantiated claims about roads being more dangerous as a result of LTNs. I've linked you to detailed data, which shows that to be untrue. And you're still trying to pretend that it isn't. There is only one person making false claims here. It is not me.

Not misleading at all. I provided details of the date ranges which I was referring to, which spanned 3 years either side of LTN being introduced and linked to all of the data, so that you can take any cut of it you like. I then also provided a summary of a two year period either side of the lockdowns, in response to your suggestion that it was relevant to the pattern described. It wasn't. In either case there is a reduction in the number of collisions when you compare a period pre ltn and one post ltn. So again, how is the transparent use of data, with links to the source of that data in any way misleading? And on your claim that LTNS have increased road danger - where is your data exactly? Embarrassing, as usual.

Misleading how? I've linked you to high quality, multi year data. I've provided some accurate examples of cuts of that data and linked you to the full data set for you to interrogate yourself in any way you wish. You on the other hand have made completely unevidenced claims, not for the first time. So if you're going to accuse me of presenting misleading data, I want you to explain how you believe it's misleading.

That name ('on the Lordship') really makes me cringe.

Just re-read the document. So they're making the east side of Peckham rye buses only? Is that likely to impact lordship lane? I'm in favour of the extended pavements, safer crossings and segregated bike lanes. I imagine that making the east side of the rye a fast bus route will improve journey times too.