Earl Aelfheah

My bad, just a mere 4 years, 7 months 🤣🤣 Give it another 5 months and it’ll all calm down

5 years 🤣

The example is the thread for ‘One Dulwich updates’, to rail against LTNs when there is already a thread on LTNs. If you want we can all keep creating different LTN threads in order to try and amplify a particular viewpoint, but I would argue it’s unhelpful.

So if you want to post views on the LTN, is there a reason not to do it in the LTN thread? I mean we can continue to create multiple ones of you want, but interested how you think it’s helpful? It feels a lot like an effort to push out different voices, ironically by those crying ‘censorship’ at the idea that it’s not ideal.

Yes, on any relevant thread. But someone has created an entirely separate one for whoever One Dulwich is, and their ‘updates’ nearly all of which are about the LTN. 🤦‍♂️

@Rockets I am fascinated by your belief that if people swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car, that it doesn’t increase the overall risk to others. Do you really not accept that every trip which is cycled rather than undertaken in a motor vehicle reduces the danger to other people?

There is absolutely no point in changing the law unless you can enforce it effectively, and that really means fitting all bicycles with speedometers and having a system of licencing. Ultimately, both of these things would disincentive cycling and if it leads to even a small fall in uptake / some journeys being swapped out for cars, would be entirely counterproductive. And again, it's the same people demanding more regulation for (objectively) one of the most benign forms of transport, whilst raging against enforcement of current traffic laws for one of the most dangerous. All feels very, very cynical.

I have not suggested that at all. I have stated a fact; That bicycles pose a far lower risk to others than a motor vehicle. So the more you incentivise people to swap a journey by bicycle for one in a car, you increase the risk to others. If you think that's 'claptrap', then I can't really help you. Perhaps look at the data, or think about the physics. According to the DfT almost 90% of drivers break the speed limit in 20mph residential areas.

Is this in principle or practice. How would you enforce it and would it apply to all age groups? Does it matter if it reduced uptake of cycling and made roads more dangerous? Or is it just a matter of principle?

It looks exactly as silly as it is. Glad you now agree that creating multiple threads on the same topic is ridiculous (does this make you guilty of ‘censorship’ though? 😉 ). Perhaps the anti LTN ‘updates’ can in future be posted to the LTN thread?

Wow. 🤣

Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motor vehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude). There is a well documented 'safety in numbers' effect for cyclists themselves too. In short, more people cycling leads to safer streets for everyone. There is strong evidence that stricter regulation of bicycles represents a barrier to cycling and reduces uptake. So if a whole new regime of regulation and enforcement reduced the popularity of cycling, even by small amounts, it would reduce road safety. And that's ignoring the time, energy, money and focus that implementing such a scheme would divert from tackling far more impactful interventions (although these are things you would object to as they would invariably involve tackling dangerous driving). So again, does it matter whether stricter regulation of bicycles leads to more dangerous roads in practice, or is it just a matter of high principle? How on earth do you come up with that What's in the pipe you are smoking? Edited 1 minute ago by Spartacus Great. Good to be clear. So if you believe that there should be one set of rules for all road users, does that include applying the same age limits, speed restrictions, requirements for formal training / testing, insurance, tax etc? And should the same rules be applied to HGVs, as cars, vans, motorbikes, bicycles and horse riders? You're the one wanting to test peoples logic apparently, so it would be good to be clear on yours.

Oh, so you don't think it "should be one set of rules for all road users"? Why is that?

@rockets - does it matter whether stricter regulation of bicycles leads to more dangerous roads, or is it just a matter of high principle?

Literally making the point about how annoying it is to create multiple threads on the same topic; something you (amongst others) keep defending. ...apparently to suggest that we should have one thread per topic is 'censorship' 🤣

This does happen. People are prosecuted and imprisoned where they have caused death or serious injuries when on a bike (which is thankfully rare). Probably in far greater proportions than car drivers ever face consequences frankly (as can be seen on the rapidly rising hit and run stats). In 2021 there were around 7,708 hit and runs in London - more than 21 a day. I 100% support anything that makes things safer for pedestrians and cyclists. But on the list of things you could focus efforts on to do this, speed limits for bicycles is not even in the top 10. In fact it could make we’ll make things worse (as discussed already).

What’s been said is that whilst no one is against it in principle, in practice it is difficult to implement and would likely be counterproductive. If it encourages people to switch away from cycling to a far more dangerous form of transport (even in small numbers), then it will actually make the roads more dangerous. Police can already pull over cyclist and warn them about their speed, and can issue penalty notices where they are behaving dangerously. Bringing in a whole new regime of regulation and enforcement for a minority issue (at best) has a massive opportunity cost; it takes that focus away from dealing with much more urgent issues of road safety. Would you place the same regulations on Trucks, cars, motorbikes, push bikes and horses? This is not what happens and for obvious reasons. If you are applying one set of rules for all road users, are you also calling for an age limit for bicyclists, licencing, insurance etc? The insistence that practicalities, or real world impact are not important, nor considerations of proportionality, is not very convincing.

Apparently suggesting that it's annoying having people start multiple threads to discuss a change in road layout implemented half a decade ago is 'censorship'. So here is another one. I'm sure this childishness will be roundly defended as 'free speech', by the always logically consistent anti-LTN obsessives.

This has been answered multiple times. Are you actually reading the responses?

How is suggesting that views on the LTN be posted in the LTN thread 'censorship'?

It’s not me constantly running to admin. People are already free to sign up to these tedious ‘updates’ if they’re interested. At the very least (if you insist on reposting them), put them in the right section.

No. Whoever it is writing 'one dulwich campaign updates' is talking about LTNs. They should be posted in the LTN section .

Yes, but can anyone explain why these ‘updates’ by who knows who, moaning about the LTN, aren’t being posted in the LTN thread? This is factually incorrect btw. The majority of those who responded is not the same as the majority of those consulted. Also, Southwark Council’s published report Appendix D – Dulwich Review Consultation Report dated August 2021, states that "from a survey of 7,542 people (of which 209 were void responses), 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative. Aims include road safety improvements, tackling climate change, reducing through traffic and providing more space for social distancing. The Council decided to modify the scheme in response to feedback received."

Can anyone explain why these ‘updates’ by who knows who, moaning about the LTN, aren’t being posted in the LTN thread?

There is no evidence that cyclists pedalling faster than 20 mph is a widespread issue, or that bringing in a speed limit for bicycles would make the roads safer. There is very good reason to believe that it would make the roads less safe. According to the DfT almost 90% of drivers break the speed limit in 20mph residential areas. You would be better putting even a fifth of the time, effort and money it would take to set up a scheme to limit the handful of cyclists who manage to pedal faster than the speed limit, on doing more to tackle the epidemic of speeding motorists. This suggestion is not a serious, thoughtful attempt to focus on road safety. It’s notable that some of those demanding stricter rules for bicycles, also rail against enforcement of existing rules in relation to motorists.