Earl Aelfheah

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.

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.