Earl Aelfheah

This is nonsense. A person on an illegal moped doesn't behave 'exactly like cyclists'. Your perception is irrelevant (and objectively wrong in terms of the legal framework and I would argue, any type of common sense). This is also, completely irrelevant to the discussion. As usual Rockets, with nothing constructive to add and having been caught out making a series of false statements, has again deflected. It's very tedious.

It's not a grey area though is it. There is a clear legal framework. "in the UK, an electric bike (e-bike) that doesn't meet the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) regulations is legally classified as a moped or motorcycle. This occurs if the e-bike's motor provides assistance above 15.5 mph (25 km/h), has a maximum power output over 250 watts, or has a throttle that can be used without pedalling. " I don't really care what you chose to call it. Both legally, and in common sense terms, it is a nonsense to claim that a motor powered, throttle operated bike, capable of doing speeds perhaps as high as 70mph, is a bicycle.

Where have I claimed that "a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping."? This is rubbish. I actually pointed out that data shows around 16% of people on bikes don't stop. I did suggest that you could do something targeted, to disincentive people travelling by Lime bike specifically, from jumping the lights (amending the charging model). This is not to say that they're 'the ones causing the problem'. I also pointed out in the same post that in many ways pedal assist bikes generally, do less to discourage stopping, because the loss of hard gained momentum is not an issue in the same way as it may be on a conventional push bike. I've suggested other, more general interventions you could make, that taken together might help reduce red light hopping. From what I can tell, you've contributed nothing constructive at all, as usual. Firstly, your constant reference to anyone who disagrees with you as 'the cycle lobby' is getting increasingly embarrassing. Are you 'the car lobby'? The only one who constantly takes irrational, binary positions, based on a dumb 'car vs bicycle' position, is you. Most people are thankfully capable of looking at evidence and applying their critical faculties in order to form nuanced opinions. Concerning cycling numbers, they have consistently been on the rise for around two decades now. Boosted by the investments in cycle infrastructure you regularly complain about and claim to be ineffective. There is plenty of data on this, which of course you've (predictably) tried to minimise or misrepresent on numerous occasions. On the classification of different two wheeled vehicles, this has been discussed many times with you (so it's not like you don't know this): Trying to suggest that someone travelling on an illegal, throttle powered, electric motorbike (which may be capable to travelling of speeds up to 70 mph) is a 'cyclist', is self evidently ridiculous / desperate. You really are not engaging in good faith debate. It's just a constant stream of nonsense.

@Rockets are you disputing the fact that cycling has increased. The number of daily cycle journeys in London has risen 26% since 2019.

What ‘case’? I’ve quoted a report on speeding directly, which you have then claimed doesn’t say things you’ve gone on to quote it as saying. I’ve also pointed out why KSI numbers have fallen (notably in London, having plateaued elsewhere) because of targeted and successful interventions you’ve argued against. Meanwhile you’ve done nothing but try to kick up dust and deflect with your usual nonsense, because we can’t discuss speeding in relation to motor vehicles (only bicycles bizarrely), or what has actually been effective in improving road safety (because it involves things you’ve argued against). It’s embarrassing. And if you had any shame, you'd apologise for repeatedly making stuff up and stating that I've said things I self evidently have not.

Who's that?

Yes, agree about the headline, but the fact that air pollution has dropped so dramatically is fantastic. It will save many lives.

@Rockets the quote you’ve used was a response to the above, in which I explain the interventions that have led to a drop in KSI numbers. Read it again: ‘Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 You can read about it here https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london So no, it's nothing to do with a random, contorted context you're trying to desperately apply, to prove... something - I've no idea what? Your 'case' may have some holes in it.

This is just nonsense. You’re spiralling. Show me where I’ve said this, show the quotes. Have you actually bothered reading anything I’ve said before responding? Not long ago you were saying that they didn’t look at 20mph zones. Now you say they were. It’s all of course irrelevant to the point being made (that speeding is commonplace and contributes to serious injuries and deaths), but you love to kick up dust, and deflect to obscure facts you don’t want discussed.

@Rockets Wow that’s some Olympic level nonsense and deflection. You know that everything that is said is recorded? You seem to forget. Go back and read what I’ve written.

Well then you haven't read what I said, because this is not true. And you've just changed your argument - a minute ago you were claiming that your issue was the report didn’t mention 20mph roads?! You’re all over the place. It's just the usual noise and deflection It's very, very, tedious.

I really don't get your point, or how you think you've shown me to be wrong? I originally said: The point was simply that speeding is common place. As usual, you ignored the point and tried minimise the prevalence of speeding, claiming that those roads aren't relevant (although there are still plenty of motorways and 30mph roads in London). So I pointed out that the same report also looked at 20 mph roads, where the number of people speeding is even higher. But again, the point of course is not the numbers per se - it's that speeding is commonplace and is a significant problem. It's a factor in more than half the collisions that result in serious injury and death in London each year. But rather than talk about that fact, you obviously, predictably, tried to kick up dust. Because ultimately, although it is unequivocally true that people speeding whilst using cars kill a lot of people, you weirdly see them as 'your team', so you knee jerk deflect. Its' ridiculous. Getting back to that. There is definitely something around the pricing model for Lime bikes that could make a difference. When you're on a bicycle, getting started from a stop is the hardest part, so there is some incentive to maintain momentum where possible (which may be why some people are reluctant to come to a full stop if they think they can get away which not doing so). The beauty of pedal assist bikes is that they reduce the 'cost' of lost momentum, with that electric boost to get going again. Lime's pay per minute model works against this, encouraging people to keep moving despite the electric assist. If they had a pay for distance model, then you might see more people happy to stop and start.

Wow, that's amazing! Great news.

This is just untrue. From said report: This by the way is absolute gold: In an attempt to minimise the high numbers of 'killed and seriously injured' on London streets, you suggest that we don't need to overly concern ourselves about it because there is already very effective, but unknown, action happening... Well that action is laid out clearly in the mayor's Vision Zero strategy - they're the interventions that you have opposed vocally - 20mph schemes, LTNs, traffic filters, segregated bike lanes, camera enforcement for traffic offences etc. And there is it. No interest in even discussing the evidence on road safety in a serious way. No interest in anything practical. No interest in directing resources towards the most impactful interventions. Just a constant kneejerk instinct to attack 'cyclists' and defend 'drivers', as if they're not the same people just travelling in different ways at different times. It's so, so boring. ...said with a straight face after trying to minimise how widespread speeding is and it's clear role in serious road injuries and deaths.

The report says: Yes, it offers caveats around the available data, but it's not true that it does not study 20 mph zones as you claimed above. And this sits in the context of a number of studies and surveys, all of which point to speeding being common place. We know that there are literally thousands of serious injuries and deaths in London every year, where speeding is recorded as being a significant factor. This report from the BBC also give some additional context, on the reasons people gave for speeding to both the RAC and the BBC themselves: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62gz9261xgo And yes, as well as minimising the issue of speeding, you have repeatedly tried to minimise collision data, as well as the seriousness of specific crashes (see the thread Upturned Car on Adys Road, or Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished, your constant attacks on 'Dulwich Roads', or in fact any thread where serious accidents that have involved motor vehicles have been discussed). You have objected to 20mph schemes, LTNs, traffic filters, segregated bike lanes, in fact almost all of the measures that have contributed to recent reductions in road casualties across London (the same reductions you cite as a reason not to be worry about speeding drivers incredibly). The pattern is very clearly one of you attacking 'cyclists' and jumping to minimise or defend 'drivers'. This and your constant references to anyone who doesn't follow the same binary pattern as the 'active travel lobby' just illustrates how you seem to view the issue of road safety as a game with two opposing sides (as does your weird insistence that I condemn dangerous behaviour by people travelling by bicycle, as if I haven't regularly done so, or would for some reason not want to). It's really very sad. So you know, interpret that as you wish 🤷‍♂️

Yes, for the thousands of people every year who are seriously injured or killed, for their friends and families, it is a disaster. But I also consider it a disaster for the community who would object to action to address it. Those reductions in deaths that have been achieved in London as a result of targeted interventions, do you think that they weren't really worth it? Even though they've saved a significant number of lives? If 30,000 UK citizens were killed every year as the result of plane crashes, we would demand urgent action. Regardless of it being fewer deaths per 'person miles travelled'.

But, unfortunately for you, not the study from which you cited You either haven't read it, or you've just resorted to your usual tactic of making stuff up, doubling down and deflecting. I'm not going to get into it. If you want to claim that people don't regularly break the speed limit, or that speeding isn't a significant contributory factor in a large number of collisions resulting in serious injuries and deaths, fill your boots. It's sad how you regularly try to defend dangerous road behaviour where it involves a motor vehicle. @Penguin68 as pointed out by Rockets, there have been significant reductions in serious injuries and deaths in London already as a result of many of the interventions that he has objected to. The idea that there is nothing that can be done is demonstrably not true. The idea that we shouldn't try to do anything is pretty awful imo. Read the Vision Zero strategy and how it's already made a massive difference.

You regularly minimise serious collisions where they involve motor vehicles: I can point to several examples if you want. In dismissing the need to take stronger action to reduce the thousands of serious injuries and deaths on our roads on grounds that there have been improvements, you've ignored the fact that numbers are falling because of the policies you object to - LTNs, 20mph limits, segregated bike lanes, speed cameras, etc. The fact is that despite this, there are still around 4,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the Capital. Speed plays a part in more than half of them. So I would suggest that speeding is still a significant problem. I didn't initially bring cars into anything btw, I responded to Penguin68's comment where he suggested only cars ever have to 'slam on the breaks'. I actually pointed to what is already being done to address red light hopping and suggested how else you might improve that issue (more than you've done). But regardless, it is obviously relevant when people start talking about road safety interventions, to discuss how to direct resources in ways that will have the biggest impact. This assumes of course that one is actually interested in improving safety, and not just in a silly game of car vs bike, where you blindly defend 'your team'. This is perhaps where you are struggling to see the relevance. And on that, I have never once defended bad road behaviour. Regardless of whether the person behaving badly is travelling by foot, by bicycle or motor vehicle. You won't find me complaining across multiple threads about how unfair it is to be fined for breaking the rules, like some people I could mention. It's instructive that you project this on to me, by asking silly questions, like 'do you think it's OK to jump a red light', when I've clearly said it isn't more than once - it says a lot about your mindset. With regards to speeding on 20mph roads - there have been many different studies and surveys done. I'm not really interested in your usual tactic of tying to kick as much dust as possible to try and obscure something you don't want to admit, but which is undeniably true - it's common place for people to speed, and is a factor in thousands of collisions in London annually. P.S. Please learn how to format your 'cut and paste' posts so they're not in bold font 48.

That kids are able to play outside in a residential area without fear of being run over? I hope so. It used to be considered quite normal.

Haven’t avoided it, I answered it before it was asked… the question wasn’t serious, it was a very poor / transparent attempt to deflect, which is why I’ve ignored it. Obviously I don’t agree with cyclists jumping red lights, I described it as a problem, pointed out current attempts to address it and suggested some other things you might do. Rockets on the other hand, clearly doesn't think that 4,000 serious injuries and deaths in London each year is a problem. Mainly (from what I can tell), because despite the continued high numbers, there have been recent improvements as a result of interventions he vocally disagrees with 🤷‍♂️.

They found that three-quarters of drivers exceed the speed limit on "free-flowing" 20mph roads. So when not stuck in traffic, most people break the speed limit. There are around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the UK. In London it's around 4,000, with speed playing a role in more than half of them. You have naturally tried to minimise these stating that: "whatever they're doing the numbers are going down". Well I've told you what they're doing, it's clearly articulated in the 'vision zero' document. It's all the things you've objected to repeatedly.

‘Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 You can read about it here https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london

...a conversation about how to stop red light jumping, in the context of road safety. I've offered suggestions for the former and suggested that it's important to direct resources for maximum impact in terms of reducing serious injuries and deaths. So, so boring. Are you 'the car lobby'? Grow up. As usual, you're offering no solutions, just playing silly games.

This is my main objection. I don't like the rhetoric. In terms of a 'digital ID', we already have one effectively, they're just formalising it / giving it a name.

I'm not using any 'strategy'. I don't' believe in this constant 'footballification' that you love to indulge in, where everything must be seen through a lens of cars v's bikes, where you fight for your 'team'. Most people travel around by different modes at different times, and many of the people who demonstrate bad road behaviour do so whether they're in the car, or on a bike. I'm pointing out that there are issues of road safety that need addressing, and that interventions should be proportionate to maximise their impact on safety. I don't believe this is anything a rational person could argue with - but then if you insist on seeing it as a competition with sides, then of course you're not being rational. That's good, but it still leaves a significant problem; we tolerate around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the UK. In London it's around 4,000, with speed playing a role in more than half of them. Amazing that you would imply that's not such an issue, but then you were also trying to minimise a car on it's roof on another thread, so I probably shouldn't be surprised. In terms of red light hopping by those travelling by bicycle, I think we should look at legal reforms to allow safe progression through red lights at some junctions. Exdulwicher mentioned the 'Idaho stop' previously, which alongside stricter penalties and enforcement, sounds eminently sensible. Other than that, more dedicated infrastructure to separate bicycles and cars would help, but you've generally opposed that.