Earl Aelfheah

.

I do think it's a no brainer, yes. But some (yourself included) have tried to suggest that the junction is now more dangerous. It isn't. If you think there has been an increase, why don't you say so. I've linked you to the data already. I get a bit bored with the constant insinuations / innuendo around this topic. Do the work, demonstrate your point. I've seen no evidence at all that the roads are now more dangerous, in fact the exact opposite. It does contain that info yes. And I've linked you to the data and even summarised it for you in this thread (last year in London there were 303 pedestrians injured by pedal bikes, 4,170 injured by motor vehicles.). Again, instead of the 'I'm just asking questions' tactic, why don't you actually say what you mean and provide some evidence to back up your argument?

Rockets (and others I believe) suggested that removing motor vehicles increased the danger, because congestion brings 'order and increases safety' But yes, I agree that removing motor vehicles reduces collisions, and the data confirms this.

Linked to it further up the thread. It's taken from the tfl data Microsoft Power BI I emailed them to ask if they had records of collisions with pedestrians involving bicycles and they linked me to their dashboard, which has loads of really detailed / interesting data on it. Re. Calton avenue, I looked at the three years leading up to the introduction of the filters in March 2020 and the three years afterwards. I think the crashmap data is specifically related to insurance claims, whereas tfl is reported accidents involving casualties (at least I believe that's the case).

Claims that the junction is somehow more dangerous now, are not reflected in the number of recorded collisions / casualties (as anyone sensible might reasonably expect).

I took a look at the road causality and collision data around the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

Just took a look at the data covering the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

The other worrying thing, is that Southwark had the highest rates of serious injuries and deaths on our roads of any borough except Westminster.

The data on cycle induced injuries is here: Microsoft Power BI (turns out it is being collated, and you just need to email TfL, who will link you straight to it). Last year in London there were 303 pedestrians injured by pedal bikes, 4,170 injured by motor vehicles. Obviously that is only pedestrian casualties. Motor vehicles were also involved in thousands of other collisions with cyclists, motorcyclists, other cars etc. Across London in the last year, there were 26,603 casualties - nearly all the result of collisions that involved a motor vehicle.

For those interested in the data, this dashboard is worth spending some time looking at Microsoft Power BI

Annual concentrations of roadside nitrogen dioxide (NO2) almost halved in London between 2016 and 2023. And preliminary figures indicate London’s annual NO2 levels were lowest on record in 2023 – lower even than first year of COVID-19 lockdowns. So it's fairly clear that the mayors policies are having a significant impact on air quality.

I popped in there the other day. It was fairly chaotic and the staff were rude. Never used to be like that. I appreciate it's a difficult job, but still..

Is this the 'West Dulwich action group' action, you're referring to? Or is there some sort of challenge to LTNs in South London generally? Assuming it's the former, as the WD LTN is only a trial, I can't really see that their action has any prospect of success, but I maybe I'm missing something. Best thing that could be done to speed up buses down lordship lane would be 24 hour bus lanes (most of the time there are cars parked in them at the moment). Also removing some of the free parking so that buses can pass each other without having to constantly pull over would help. So they do reduce pollution, just on side roads? The combination of policies introduced by TFL over the last few years (including ULEZ), do appear to be improving air quality in London As already pointed out, lot's of new and successful businesses have actually opened on that section of MG.

.

Thames water and the whole system of privatised water is a disaster.

Thames water seem to be slow at responding to a number of these types of leaks locally.

Yep, the bit of road around the junction of Lordship Lane and Heber fails and is redone every few months. They've just finished the latest repairs a week or two ago and you can already see the cracks appearing. It'll be getting dug up again in a month or two.

The lack of self awareness in this sentence 🙄

I saw this on Sunday. Unfortunately this type of thing is fairly common place (although the car being balanced on top of a wall is pretty stark). Really hope no one was seriously hurt.

So what’s your point? Are you suggesting that bicycles should be regulated as if they are electric mopeds / illegal e-bikes?

Still avoiding answering the question. You say a push bike and a 70mph electric motor driven bike are the same, so do you think they should be regulated in the same way? Because if not, and if you don’t agree with my calls for mod kits to be banned and existing rules to be more strictly enforced, I’ve no idea what your point is.

They are illegal mopeds. This is a matter of legal fact, not opinion. Nope, you’re just refusing to answer a straightforward question

So just to be clear @rockets (let’s pretend you haven’t deliberately ignored a very simple question several times and genuinely struggle with comprehension).. in a discussion about regulating bicycles, after you suggest illegal mopeds that travel at 70mph and push bikes are the same ‘walks like a duck etc’, I asked the question: “Are you're seriously suggesting that a push bike is the same as an electric moped capable of travelling at 70 mph, and that they should be regulated in the same way?” You responded: “A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?” (Great bit of deflection) Were you suggesting that they are the same, but not that they should be regulated in the same way? Because it doesn’t read like that. I answered your question btw, and repeated my own several times. And as usual you ran away from it and then feigned incomprehension. We see what you’re doing. The corollary of your argument (that you think the two are in the same category), is that they should be regulated in the same way. You refuse to answer a straightforward question, because if the answer is no, they shouldn’t be treated the same, it exposes the false equivalence you have drawn. If it’s yes, then it implies regulation of push bikes in ways you understand to be ridiculous.

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?

Earl - you're meandering and losing me again.....what I was arguing about was that push bikes with an electric conversion kit are not identified as mopeds by those pedestrians that they are causing huge problems for Nope you’re try trying to deflect, by ducking a question long enough that you can pretend it’s related to something else you’ve said since it was asked. You very clearly stated that a moped capable of travelling at 70mph was still a bicycle and strongly implied that they should therefore be regulated in the same way. If you’re saying that they shouldn’t be treated the same, then what exactly are you arguing for? And we’re talking about your comparison between a moped and a bicycle to be clear.