Earl Aelfheah

Tbf this may not be the answer specifically. I just don’t think it’s that difficult to pull over electric motorbikes which are clearly being driven using a throttle and which are already illegal. They should be confiscated and those riding them fined. Same goes for pedal assist where they’re clearly travelling at speeds in excess of 15.5 mph / have been modified. Police can pull people over and confiscate them. I don’t see how it’s a case of additional laws helping, when we’re not remotely using the powers that already exist / enforcing current regulations.

But it is not helpful to conflate legal, pedal assist e-bikes and illegal, unregistered electric motorbikes. They are different issues. It is definitely nit helpful to bundle them in with push bikes.

Yes, The Netherlands have of pursued radical policies over decades to increase cycling and to remove motor traffic from many areas (not without opposition). The types of interventions which we are only seriously starting to implement here now, like segregated bike lanes, pedestrianisation, road filters etc. A bike which is has a throttle and is powered by a motor is a motorbike. It is not the same as a pedal assist e-bike.

We shouldn’t be allowing the sale of mod kits. And electric motorbikes, sold with a throttle, should be registered and licenced at point of sale. This is a whole other topic, which probably merits its own thread, but I don’t think it’s helpful to conflate motorbikes and push bikes.

I do live in ED, yes. I don’t know where you’ve got the impression I live further a field. Like I said, I would personally rather effort be put into stopping what I see as much more dangerous behaviour (based on the actual data), but accept that it’s important to reassure those who perceive risk differently and so would support some spot checks if it achieved this. I don’t support 20mph speed limits for push bikes, for reasons I’ve explained at length, but briefly, because I believe it would be disproportionate, and ultimately counterproductive (this is not just my conclusion, it’s been looked at many times before and universally dismissed as impractical and unhelpful). There is another thread for ‘debating’ the idea of speed limits for pedal bikes.

This makes no sense. Why would regulation of e-bikes have to include push bikes? I don’t agree that you can’t separate control of illegal electric motorbikes from pedal assist e-bikes either. There has been almost no effort to stop the sale of illegal electric motorbikes in the UK, or to force registration / licensing at point of sale.

E-bikes are already regulated. Those bikes tagt go over 15.5 mph are illegal. Most have throttles and are actually motorbikes. Enforcement is way too lax, although the police do occasionally have targeted operations to stop and confiscate / impound them. We don’t need to muddy the debate by conflate electric motorbikes and push bikes. They are two entirely different categories of vehicle 100%. This is because cycling is a seen as something everyone does. It’s actually part of the reason that the more people who cycle, the more it is seen as a normal, everyday activity, the safer the roads are for everyone. The Netherlands shave of course pursued radical policies over decades to increase cycling and to remove motor traffic from many areas (not without opposition).

I am sorry if you read it this way Eh? I agree. I think I just suggested it, no?

Firstly I would reassure you that the junction has seen far fewer collisions since motor vehicles have been removed (according to the data at least). With regards the remaining risk posed by the bicycles that still pass through, perhaps the police could do some targeted stops and issue fines for anyone caught jumping lights? You do seem to report a lot of very regular, angry interactions and near misses with people on bicycles. This is certainly not everyone’s experience of walking around Dulwich. Are these happening in a particular place at a particular time? If so, it may be worth giving this info to the police so they can monitor it. Honestly, I personally worry more about the number of motor vehicle collisions locally, high rates of speeding and drink / drug driving and would rather see resources targeted there; but if it helps reassure people who do see road safety through this bike vs car lens, then perhaps it’s worth diverting some effort.

I can’t comment on everyone of your weekly anecdotes. I’ve said numerous tImes (not that it should need stating, but you seem determined to ascribe views to me that exist only in your imagination), that people should obey road rules, give way to pedestrians (and in the case of cars, to bicycles too), and act in ways that don’t endanger others. What I will add is that the sheer number of near misses you have been reporting are extremely worrying and do seem incredibly high. I’m sorry, but why do you insist on labelling me as a ‘born again cyclist’? Because I think the square is an improvement on how the junction was before? I drive, I walk, I use public transport and occasionally ride a bicycle. This binary opposition you’ve set up in your head (bike vs cars), is your issue not mine.

I am not a cycling activist. Not in the slightest. Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it the case.

“ …we know why you were saying”. We don’t. Why but be brave enough to spell out your accusation? And what’s the reference to me apropos of nothing? You come across as a little obsessed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m flattered, but I suspect you’re not my type.

I am following your lead and quoting your own response to a simple question. Here is a little reflection on ‘being grown up’. When I stated that: ”Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motorvehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude).” You mocked me, pretending it was a claim that: Quite obviously you can see the difference between the actual statement and the straw man one you invented and attacked, entirely in bad faith. I then asked a very straight forward question seeking to clarify your genuine view on this: “Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others? “ You responded: And then: This is some of the most blatant examples of gaslighting I think I’ve seen on the forum. When you’re willing to have a grown up conversation, and debate in good faith, let us know. If you don’t like people using your own ‘tactics’ against you, to illustrate how unhelpful they are, maybe reflect on that, instead of getting all indignant and resorting to insults.

This makes no sense. I can no longer decipher the riddles you set. 🤣

You’ve quoted the bit where I say there is misunderstanding and then cut the bit where I explain how. I could repost the whole thing, or you could scroll up a little and read it there. I hope that’s not too complex a riddle to decipher 😂

Oh dear. Is this ‘censorship’ ab29? 🤣 🤔

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Highway Code changes across this section. Of course cyclists should give way to pedestrians. Cars should do so also, stopping to let pedestrians cross at junctions (something that they almost never do). That does not mean that if you step out into the path of either a car or a bike that you may not be at fault. I took Mal’s post to be pointing out how you need to regulate appropriately and proportionately. Lots of people are hurt falling off ladders. It would probably save some lives it you made it a legal requirement to wear a hard hat whilst using one, but that fact alone doesn’t make such a regulation proportionate to the size of the issue necessarily. This is not a difficult concept. The fact that some of the same people who have suggested that we are already spending enough trying to reduce the tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicles each year, are balking at the idea that speeding bicycles probably aren’t a big enough issue to merit legislation and licensing? The issue of relative risk, proportionality, and opportunity cost are obviously hugely relevant here, as much as some would pretend not to grasp these concepts. This is not a ‘complex riddle’. If you don’t consider such things, you end up making poor, often counterproductive policy decisions.

Easy there Mal, that sounds like a call to think rationally and act proportionally.

How is Southwark Cyclist encouraging people to express their views on a consultation, different to ‘One Dulwich’ doing the same 🤔 Not a little hypocrisy going on today. Multiple threads and campaign literature on LTNs ok, but only if it’s from Rocks?

It is an incredibly complex riddle to decipher. 🤣😂 …or perhaps a very simple question you’re ducking 🤔

🤣 I’m drawing a direct parallel with your One Dulwich missives. Yup. That’s the point. Separate threads for all organisations campaigning on LTNs. It’s called satire

I think you missed the point. 😉

I would be interested in this too. Haven’t personally been down there since it went live. Has the signage changed?

What has rockets ‘revealed’ or ‘uncovered’ exactly? Is this some weird, desperate, stalky behaviour again? Honestly, talk deflection? Ether you think it’s ok to have multiple threads or you don’t. In case you missed it, I’m the one arguing for some etiquette and illustrating my point with a mildly silly post. I think we can see who is throwing a tantrum (“you’re abusing the forum… treating people with contempt”). So calm down I’m just having a bit of a laugh. It wasn’t me inviting and defending multiple threads 🤣

It’s so obvious why you won’t answer. Because you understand the implications for measures which might encourage people to swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car on road safety.