Earl Aelfheah

It’s been nearly 5 years since the change in road layout. The new square a looking great. I can’t believe more than a tiny handful of obsessives would want it ripped out and replaced with a Line of queuing traffic. Long past time to move on. …also, why are you not posting this in the LTN thread? You constantly creating multiple posts to discuss the LTN, and diverting every other topic into a discussion of the LTN, ruins the transport section.

Very interesting.

No. There is a difference between posting your views, and promoting material on behalf of a confederation of UK wide groups who hide who runs them and how they are funded, and who appear on the surface at least to be involved in astroturfing. If you have a view, speak for yourself. If you're posting on behalf of an organisation that claims to represent others, it should have a degree of transparency and accountability. These are not difficult concepts.

It's irrelevant if they're posting their opinions, on their own behalf.

The Dulwich Society (a much better comparator than a couple of twitter accounts) are quite clear on their constitution, publish minutes of decision making, are accountable to members, hold regular AGMs etc. I agree that the Dulwich Society and One Dulwich are not too dissimilar, except in their levels of transparency, which are world's apart. ...this is kind of the point. We know nothing about One Dulwich, except that they co-ordinate with similar, equally opaque 'One' groups around the country. Are they all run by the same person, or people? One Dulwich (and the confederation of UK 'One' groups) have all the hallmarks of astroturfing.

You have a point, although they both appear to be mainly Twitter accounts, as opposed to being part of a national and co-ordinated network of similar groups often quoted in the press etc. The scale, reach and degree of organisation is slightly different.

This is nonsense. I am just not interested in second guessing the outcome of any inquiry where I don't have all the facts. We know enough about the macro picture to have a debate about road safety, without blundering into specific tragedies to try and prove something. It's pretty unpleasant tbh.

DulwichRes is an individual posting their opinion. One Dulwich is part of a wider, co-ordinated campaign effort across the country, claiming to speak on behalf of the community. It publishes no details of it's constitution, funding, or leadership, but does release press statements and updates. That's quite a different thing and very unusual indeed for a legitimate campaign group. It is not 'shutting down debate' to ask obvious questions.

Of course it's dangerous. And yes, as you say, cyclists do get fined for this. Yes, it sounds very simple doesn't it; Except bicycles don't have speedometers and don't have licence plates. They also don't have and age limit. I've already said that I would have no issue with a change to the highway code, but if you're serious about enforcing a change in the law, then it isn't as simplistic as you make out. More importantly, is there nothing better you could think of, to spend the time, effort and money on, to reduce the thousands of deaths and serious injuries, or millions in property damage each year on our roads? Because I question whether focussing resources on trying to slow down a small number of cyclists exceeding 20 mph is going to do much, if anything, to significantly reduce them. Out of interest, what do you think would improve road safety more - prioritising slowing down cyclists, or motorcars? Because of course, outside of the silly footballification stuff, we all know the answer to that.

Rockets. You don't have all the facts of this tragic case. Both the coroner and an eye witness said the incident wasn't the cyclists fault. A partial account from a newspaper article does not put you in a position to second guess the judgement. Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the judgement that was reached, (I am not close to the detail of this case anymore than you are), but I don't think we can assume it is wrong. Any chance that you might answer this? When challenged on things you've said, you always jump up and down and say you're being misrepresented, but then decline to clarify or correct their apparent meaning. I'm really glad that you now support Vision Zero, as you have, across many threads, opposed nearly all of the actions linked to it: Vision Zero action plan This bit from the Vision Zero plan is quite interesting, considering your mockery of the idea that some vehicle pose a greater danger than others:

An article in the Standard is not 'having all the facts'. An eyewitness testified it had not been the cyclist’s fault, and the coroner found that the collision had been an accident. I don't' know whether that's correct or not, but I don't think we can assume it isn't.

What a ridiculous (and typically insulting) question. Of course I don't think it's OK for a cyclist to hit and kill a pedestrian. The difference is, that I don't think it's OK for anyone to hit and kill a pedestrian. I'm interested in action to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries. Your proposal could very well take resources away from much more effective action, and might even make cycling more dangerous and see a shift toward more journeys being undertaken by car - again, increasing the number of KSIs. I'm not interested in tribalism, but pragmatic and rational, evidence based actions. On the second part of your question: This is speculating on a specific case I know nothing about, which I already said I wouldn't do. It seems unlikely to me that the judge did not take account of all the circumstances, including the speed, and I'm not going to pretend I have the facts based on some newspaper headlines. I suspect there is quite a lot more to the story than the Mail reports. This Guardian article perhaps suggests there may be more nuance to it. Are you saying that despite your previous words, that you do not consider people cycling over 20mph to be the most pressing road safety issue? I would really like you to clarify this, as it very much did sound from your previous post that you did.

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach No, I am very clearly not putting words in your mouth. In fact I am quoting your words and asking you to clarify what they mean, if not what they appear to mean. As the above does sound very much like a criticism of the idea that people cycling over 20mph might not be the most pressing issue. The clear implication being that you believe it is.

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach but according to TFL in their 2023 report, deaths and serious injuries caused by cars in London are at their lowest ever and continuing to decline. Of course, there is still risk and more needs to be done but, I bet if you polled pedestrians in Dulwich they would say they feel an increasing threat from cyclists. So just to be clear, you do think that the most pressing road safety issue is people cycling over 20 mph? Is that correct? Only when an offence has taken place. Well yes. People can't be prosecuted and imprisoned for hurting others if they haven't hurt others. As pointed out by First Mate, the police do also stop and fine people for cycling dangerously. Have you actually read Vision Zero?: "At its heart is a bold aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041." Not sure that moves which are likely to lead to bicycle licencing and disincentives the use of cycles are going to help.

As you say, police can already fine people where they are behaving dangerously, which would include cycling faster than is safe in a particular context. I question the need for additional regulation. And I strongly suspect that new regulation would lead on to calls for improved enforcement, licensing, etc. If it were simply an update to the highway code saying 'cyclists should make every effort to judge their speed and adjust it to the road' or something like that I would have no problem with it. But bear in mind that most people don't have speedometers on their bicycles, and most people don't' cycle at above 20, or 30 mph (I would suggest very, very few people do). I really question why, when you look at the issues on our roads, (the tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries, and millions of pounds of property damage each year caused by motor vehicles, the thousands of hit and runs which are rising in number) anyone would consider this to be the priority? As has already been said, people who hurt others when using a bicycle are prosecuted and can be imprisoned. It is rare, because the incidents are rare. I cannot understand how one can look at the data around road safety and think "you know what the most pressing issue is here? People cycling at over 20mph". Dare I say it, as with much of this section of the forum, the debate feels driven largely by tribalism, rather than any serious engagement in how road safety could be most quickly and effectively improved.

A serious issue, but not really what we're talking about. We're talking about 20mph speed limits and upwards on public roads. If you were asked to prioritise actions to make our roads safer and reduce the number of casualties, are you willing to say that tackling people travelling on bicycle at more than 20mph is the priority? And that a system of bike licensing and enforcement is the right place to invest? I would be amazed if anyone actually believes that.

I don't want to comment on a specific case that I don't know the details of. The judge will have seen all the evidence and I'm not going to assume he got it wrong based on some headlines (that's not to say he couldn't have got it wrong, just that I'm not in a position to second guess it with none of the facts). But in general, it is the case that people have been imprisoned for causing serious injury or even death as the result of cycling into people.

Not particularly new, but finally visited Evi's and Trinco recently and really enjoyed both. Evi's a bit expensive imo, but excellent food and really nice 'vibe'.

It hasn’t been swerved. Without licensing it would be meaningless / unenforceable, and with licensing you would disincentivise cycling. This would encourage people to shift to more dangerous forms of motorised transport. For those who kept cycling, you would also reduce the well documented effect of ‘safety in numbers’ leading to more casualties. In other words, it would very likely be counterproductive. But really the onus is on those who want to create new regulations to explain why it would be proportionate in terms of the time, cost, and impact, and how tackling cyclists pedalling too fast should be a priority over other things. There is very little evidence (is there any), that people are regularly pedalling at speeds in excess of 20, 30, or 40 mph. Are speeding cyclists a big problem? Most people probably travel around on bike at about 12mph. Also, a 10kg bicycle is not remotely as dangerous as a 2 ton vehicle when both are travelling at the same speed. Bicycles do not cause tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries, or millions of pounds of property damage each year (no that doesn’t mean they can’t cause any damage Rockets). So it would be a hugely disproportionate thing to do, even without the inevitable, negative, unintended consequences (some of which I’ve pointed out above). It’s why whenever it’s considered and assessed it’s quickly dismissed. For the cost of setting something like that up, you could actually do loads of other things that would have a far, far greater impact on road safety. The opportunity cost is ridiculous. No one has a problem with it in theory. Just in practice.

You may not agree with their actions, but we know who our councillors are, minutes of decisions are all published. You can discuss the issues with them and they are elected and accountable. It hardly the same as someone anonymously setting up a website and sending out emails under a pseudonym claiming to speak for thousands of people.

It’s actually a serious point (albeit illustrated a little tongue in cheek. ‘One Dulwich’ is just a pseudonym for who knows who (is it you Rockets, or a local Conservative MP perhaps)? There is no transparency whatsoever. I could set up a website called ‘one Dulwich’ tomorrow and start posting updates and there would be zero recourse because that is all this ‘organisation’ has done. It has no constitution or formal governance and no accountability. Until we have an idea who is behind these ‘updates’ they may just as well be coming from anyone, even me. When you Rockets, regularly posts updates from ‘One Dulwich’ you are effectively doing what I have done above. That’s the point. You should read the latest campaign update above. It makes the arguments very clearly. …arguably more thoughtfully and rationally than the other One Dulwich

Thank you Rockets. I’ll try and post regular campaign updates, alongside any other anonymous individuals who wish to adopt the pseudonym One Dulwich.

Campaign Update | 16 Jan Why does Southwark need low traffic neighbourhoods? A low traffic neighbourhood is a network of streets from which “through” motor traffic has been removed – this means traffic travelling through an area, not accessing a residence inside it. It is usually a whole area, bordered by A-roads, railways or other boundaries, rather than one or two streets. Every street is still accessible by vehicle, but barriers like bollards, planters or ‘camera gates’ prevent vehicles taking a short cut across the area. Low traffic neighbourhoods, LTNs for short, have been found to increase walking and cycling, make streets safer, and reduce driving and car ownership. Why do we need low traffic neighbourhoods? Four reasons 1. Too many motor vehicles dominate our roads In 2019 there were over 30,000 injuries reported due to road traffic collisions in London. Of those 3,780 were serious and there were 125 deaths due to road violence. Motor vehicle traffic is also a major contributor to air pollution which results in an estimated 9,500 early deaths per year in London. Transport accounts for 25% of carbon emissions in Southwark. Southwark Council has declared a Climate Emergency and must reduce the number of motor vehicles on our streets urgently. We are already seeing impacts due to climate change so radical change is needed. Due to their high carbon cost, electric vehicles can only be a small part of the solution. In Southwark, 60% of households do not have access to a car, which is skewed towards people on lower incomes, yet groups that do not have access to a car are most likely to be harmed by them. Disabled people and those with health conditions make 32% fewer car trips in London, yet as pedestrians, disabled people are five times as likely to be injured by a driver than non-disabled people. Motor traffic has risen steeply in the last ten years across the country, and Southwark is no exception. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of miles driven on Southwark’s roads rose by 68.8 million miles or 15%. 2. Traffic has risen most on minor roads While the number of miles driven on A and B roads in London has actually fallen slightly in the last ten years, on C or unclassified roads it’s risen by a massive 72% – most likely due to sat navs directing drivers away from main roads. 3. Too much traffic on minor roads is dangerous Minor streets aren’t designed to carry lots of traffic. Blind corners and few crossings means speeding in particular has a great impact. Minor roads are more dangerous for main roads, particularly for children. Each mile driven on a minor urban road, results in 17% more killed or seriously injured pedestrians than a mile driven on an urban A road. Specifically, on urban roads, driving a mile on a minor urban road is twice as likely to kill or seriously injure a child pedestrian, and three times more likely to kill or seriously injure a child cyclist, compared to driving a mile on an urban A road. TfL has recently found that while overall road casualties have decreased, there has been an increase for people walking and cycling and this increase is increasing at almost double the rate on minor roads. 4. Too much traffic on minor roads stops people walking & cycling Our traffic-heavy streets put people off walking or cycling, especially more vulnerable groups like children and the elderly. Road danger and too much traffic are cited as the greatest barrier to people cycling more. The solution to this is either protected space for cycling or reducing motor traffic volume. TfL and the DfT have guidance that suggests traffic needs to be below certain levels for people to cycling without protected space. It would not be practical to build protected cycling lanes on every minor road in Southwark and this would not benefit people walking, since traffic volume impacts those trips as well. A third of Londoner’s car journeys are 2km or less, a distance that could be walked in 25 minutes. Two-thirds of trips are less than 5km and can be cycled in under 20 minutes. Distance is not what prevents most Londoners from walking and cycling. This lack of physical activity is having a catastrophic effect on the nation’s health – cancer, heart disease and depression are all linked to sedentary lifestyles. Southwark is no different – our children have one of the worst rates of childhood obesity in the UK. These problems can be solved by low traffic neighbourhoods Low traffic neighbourhoods have three outcomes, 1) they stop rat running motor vehicles, returning through traffic to the strategic road network (unless they are accessing the neighbourhood, 2) they reduce short car trips made by local residents, and they 3) create space for walking, cycling, scooting and wheeling. LTNs can can reduce vehicles inside the area by 50-90%, creating a quiet network of streets where anyone can walk, cycle or use their wheelchair in the middle of the road. They enable active travel, healthy lifestyles, less car use, fewer injuries and deaths, cleaner air and fewer carbon emissions. They are not a substitute for other measures including pollution and speed control measures, and main road interventions including protected cycleways and bus lanes, but with 91% of people in London living on minor roads (this varies little by age, gender, income, disability and ethnicity), LTNs will play a key role in transforming Southwark. Read on to find out more. What does research and data show? People walk and cycle more in LTNs By providing a safer environment LTNs enable more people to walk and cycle. Waltham Forest’s first low traffic neighbourhoods were implemented in 2015 so there has been time to study them in detail. Residents within an LTN walked 115 minutes more per week and cycled 20 minutes more. This was much larger than in areas that received other walking and cycling schemes without LTNs. King’s College London also found that increased active travel leads to longer life expectancy for residents in Waltham Forest. Hackney saw similar results in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 when it implemented low traffic neighbourhoods and installed modal filters. Cycling trips more than tripled in this time. Manual counts were taken to gauge the impact of the Dulwich Village modal filters on cycling levels. The estimated number of school children cycling increased by seven times compared to a much smaller increase in a control site. There was also a higher proportion of women cycling compared to the control site. Lambeth found that cycling increased by 51% within the Railton LTN and 32% across the area. Additionally it increased by 65% and 84% on Railton Road and Shakespeare Road, two through roads that are now filtered. Many NHS Trusts in London have come out in support of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods due to the numerous health benefits they bring. Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity is funding 3 LTNs in Southwark, in Brunswick Park, North Peckham and East Faraday. These schemes benefit schools in the area with goals to promote active travel among pupils. LTNs reduce traffic volume and car ownership Evidence from Hackney and Waltham Forest shows that low traffic neighbourhoods reduce car journeys and car ownership. Traffic is not just displaced and overall traffic in the area drops. This may take some time as when new schemes go in it takes time for them to bed in. People get used to the changes and GPS apps update. Over time some people also change their mode of travel and switch car trips to walking and cycling ones. While some car journeys will take alternative routes this must be viewed in the context of traffic only increasing on minor roads in the last decade as shown above. From a traffic management standpoint it is also much more difficult to manage traffic if it avoids signalised crossings by taking back routes. There are some claims that LTN trials have increased congestion on boundary roads. It’s important to note that traffic has increased all across London since Covid-19 due to less people taking public transportation, but while we wait for Southwark to release monitoring data, we’ve heard from residents that traffic near these schemes is no worse than it was prior to them being implemented. Both Lambeth and Hackney have released monitoring on LTNs as part of their Covid-19 transport response. They found LTNs did not increase overall traffic on surrounding main roads. Additional monitoring in Lambeth has shown a 31% decrease in traffic and 23% decrease in HGVs in and around the Railton LTN. In addition to cycling tripling in Hackney, car journeys also halved in the 10 years the council implemented LTNs and modal filters. In Waltham Forest traffic levels fell by 56% on roads within the LTN with a 16% drop overall resulting in 10,000 motor car journeys disappearing. This is due to traffic evaporation. By reducing road capacity for motor vehicles, traffic decreases. This has been seen in many places around the world. When walking and cycling are made more safe and convenient, and driving slightly less convenient for short trips, fewer people choose to get in their cars. Some people will stop making particular trips, combine multiple trips into one, change destination, travel at a less congested time, or switch to public transport, walking or cycling. King’s College London also found that Waltham Forest’s low traffic neighbourhoods reduced air pollution. Another study showed a dramatic drop in illegal air quality levels, including on main roads. It was also found that car ownership within LTNs dropped 6% after two years. This was much larger than other areas where other walking and cycling schemes were implemented. Surveys have also been done that also show evidence of lower car ownership after an LTN is implemented. LTNs improve road safety By reducing traffic volume, road safety within an LTN improves. As mentioned above, motor traffic on minor roads is more dangerous than main roads, and collisions on minor roads have been increasing at a much higher rate than on major roads according to TfL. In Waltham Forest there was a 70% reduction in road traffic injury per trip on roads within the LTN for people walking, cycling and in motor vehicles. There was also no negative impact on boundary roads. Many main road collisions occur at junctions with minor roads. Removing rat running traffic reduces these junction movements making them safer. Modal filters placed at junctions with main roads eliminate all motor traffic movements. LTNs see reductions in street crime Waltham Forest saw a 10% reduction in street crime within their LTNs and a larger decrease in violent crime. No displacement to other areas was found. This could perhaps be due to more eyes on the street, an idea Jane Jacobs popularised in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. This requires neighbourhoods that encourage people to be out on the street, not ones that just have passing cars. All About LTNs | Better Streets For Southwark I’m sorry, who exactly am I masquerading as?

That’s true. But also, to clarify, as the leader and official spokesperson for the ‘One’ group, which includes One Dulwich, as of this afternoon we do support LTNs.

We don’t know whether they’re a political Trojan horse or not. Don’t you think that’s a problem? You say ‘they’ keep fighting, but who exactly are ‘they’. Who runs ‘One London’? The lack of transparency is really quite remarkable What’s to stop me calling myself a spokesperson for One London, seeing as it has no constitution, governance or declared structure? In fact I am the leader of One Dulwich. We are now strongly in favour of LTNs after a road to Damascus conversion