Earl Aelfheah

@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.

There was extensive consultation.

Or maybe it’s just really time for you to move on. Literally no more than a handful of unhealthily obsessed individuals would have the square ripped out and replaced with a line of cars at this point. It’s been nearly 5 years! 🤣

imagine getting a fine for driving in a bus lane and being so unable to just accept your mistake / take it on the chin. 🤣 Why don’t you appeal it instead of moaning across multiple threads.

Absolutely amazing. You’ve gone back and edited a post hours later, to make it look like my response was related to something else. Considering your previous objections to minor edits to correct grammar and spelling, that really is quite special. The comment was related to your using a specific tragedy that you know little about, to push your monomaniacal agenda. General stats (like the ones you’ve added in with your edit) are obviously much more appropriate to the debate. Weaponising someone’s specific loss is just sad. Especially when you’re suggesting that the inquiry’s conclusions were wrong, based on nothing more than some newspaper headlines and your prejudice.

I’m not, but don’t see why it’s any of your business. I’m not posting updates on behalf of an organisation (and particularly one that is not transparent about its leadership, funding and constitution). Why do we have a specific thread for posting updates from a secretive group campaigning against LTNs nationwide (which feels a lot like an astroturfing effort)? Is there a reason that whoever is behind these ‘groups’ can’t share their views like everyone else in the LTN thread? What other organisations would you like to see promoting themselves and posting regular updates on this forum? Does it matter if they’re genuine organisations or just that they call themselves one?

Well there aren’t people posting regular updates from LCC on this forum. Would you disapprove if they were? At least the LCC are transparent. We know how they’re constituted, can see their accounts, who is on their executive, etc. no secrecy there. What other organisations would you like to see promoting themselves and posting regular updates on this forum? Does it matter if they’re genuine organisations or just that they call themselves one?

Just to be clear (because Rockets cherry picking and misinformation is going to cause more people to get tickets if we’re not careful). You are not allowed to enter a bus lane during hours of operation, (regardless of whether you’re turning left), unless there a broken white line and an arrow indicating that you can. This applies to all bus lanes, whether operated by Southwark or TFL. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-of-red-routes/bus-lanes “When you can enter a bus lane The times of operation and the type or types of permitted vehicle are indicated on a blue sign. The sign is located in advance of the bus lane and repeated if the bus lane is long. If you want to turn left across a bus lane, an arrow or a dotted white line on the carriageway will indicate if this is permitted.”

Just sad

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.

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.