Earl Aelfheah

You spent pages trying to present different cuts of local collision data all designed to minimise the number of accidents recorded locally. You provided a screen shot centred on an area covering a 1.1km stretch of lordship lane, stretching roughly from the junction of East Dulwich Grove down to the junction with Landells road (missing all the major junctions) and 2.8km across (approximately 1.5 km to either side of it. You pointed out that there were ‘only’ 46 recorded crashes over the course of the year.This is minimising the seriousness of real world collisions. i pointed out that bicycles and motor vehicles do not pose the same risk. Which is a matter of fact, and you accused me of minimising a specific collision involving Moovarts neighbour which I had made no reference to. People can make there own judgments about you and your behaviour Here is a petition that has been started following just the latest local collision in which a van destroyed a traffic island and rolled itself last week, should anyone wish to sign it: https://www.change.org/p/implement-a-zebra-crossing-on-dulwich-common-for-pedestrian-safety

I do need to correct an earlier mistake. I misremembered research I’d read on the impact of introducing mandatory helmet laws, with mandatory registration. Should have checked that first. I believe the same outcome is very likely however; a disincentive to cycle. Meaning fewer people exercising (with associated reductions in all cause mortality), and a decrease in the safety that comes with numbers. I have deleted the personal comment. People can see that I was not commenting on Moovarts neighbour.

You spent pages minimising crash data for the local area because it involves motor vehicles. l have never once said that an actual collision was not serious (whatever the vehicle involved). What I have said is that bicycles and motor vehicles do not pose the same risk. Which is a matter of fact. I do not want to see people behaving in ways that endanger others. You are not interested in a good faith discussion. It’s shameful. Classic. No comment because it doesn’t say what you are insinuating. I have never minimised a real life collision. You downplayed hundreds reflected in local crash data.

Authorities already have powers to issue fines and on extreme cases do prosecute those cycling dangerously. I am questioning your second point though. Would forcing bikes to have a number plate / ‘identifying mark’ make people safer? I believe it would be hugely expensive and complicated to administer and I doubt very much that it would improve safety. It could very well reduce safety if it led to fewer people cycling, as well as having other negative societal impacts on health and the environment. It’s not whataboutery to question whether the opportunity cost is way too high. Why prioritise this measure over many others which would do much more to achieve your stated aim? I have never minimised a real world collision, unlike yourself, arguing over how many car crashes were too many on a previous thread.

Do anyone really believe that a bicycle poses an equivalent risk to others as a car? Anyone? So why would you treat them as equivalent? Do you think that licencing bicycles and treating them as if they are cars, is the most important thing we could do to reduce the thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our streets each year? Is it in the top 10 even? I nearly mentioned it and then decided not to 🤣

...BTW, would people also restrict the age of those allowed to cycle to match cars?

...and here we go again. Let's not talk about the thousands of casualties last year in Southwark who were involved in collisions involving motor vehicles. Norway and Japan, plus quite a few US state have introduced it. Obviously stupid and does anyone believe it wouldn't lead to a drop in the number of people cycling? Really? This pretty much sums up my view on it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston

Of course, bicycles should not be ridden on the pavement. If you're caught doing this, you will be issued with a penalty as things stand. It is an issue of enforcement, not regulation. And of course, you are still much more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a pedestrian even on a pavement, by a motor vehicles than a bicycle (just to inject some perspective). Where ever barriers to cycling have been introduced it has reduced the number of people cycling and increased all cause mortality.

E-bikes are regulated already. Those with throttles are classed as motorbikes and must be licenced. There are too many illegal, unlicensed electric motorbikes on the roads for sure. But this is a different issue to pedal bikes being classed and / or treated as motor vehicles (which they are not).

Even if it led to an decrease in the number of cyclists, an increase in all cause mortality, pollution and road injuries?

This still ignores basic physics. A bicycle travelling at 10 mph doesn't remotely pose the same threat as a motor vehicle travelling at the same speed. And without licencing, there is no way I can see of enforcing speed limits. But my biggest objection (as with these threads generally) is that it's displacement activity. It's focussing on a minor issue, whilst ignoring the really serious issue of people killed and seriously injured on our streets and the increasing incidence of hit and runs.

Because it would be entirely disproportionate and would require a system of licencing, which would do more harm than good. Would you also apply the same rules that apply to HGVs to cars and motorbikes? By ensuring that bicycles had to be registered, licenced and insured (which is what this would mean in practice). you would discourage cycling. That would cost health and the environment and make it more dangerous for those who continued to cycle as they would be fewer in number. The only argument for it, is one of false equivalence. It's not remotely based on decreasing actual road danger on improving the environment, health outcomes, congestion, or the economy, or any other objective argument one could (conversely) make for wanting to encourage cycling. And again, why focus your efforts on reducing the number of cyclists, instead of measures to address the thousands of killed and seriously injured on our streets?

It's not actually. It is a thread making a specific comparison between cars and bicycles. ... some would say drawing an entirely false equivalence. That's the point.

non sequitur much?

But we aren't talking about all the people on our streets getting hit. We've got people minimising thousands of actual road collisions, and KSIs, and instead, endlessly relaying anecdotes about how someone saw a cyclist on a pavement and they had the gall to say thanks as they wheeled past etc. If we flipped the focus, so that we had as many threads complaining about all the actual collisions, the property damage, the injuries and deaths which are a feature of our roads as we do the 'I saw a cyclist do something they shouldn't' ones, no one would complain about also having one dedicated to 'bicycle anecdotes'. We're endlessly moaning about what a nuisance the mouse is, whilst ignoring the massive angry elephant.

And what 'pre-emptive action' would you propose for speeding motorists jumping the lights, those on their phones, or who drive under the influence of drink or drugs. Why this vitriol against road users only when they're behaving badly on a self propelled, 10 kg bicycle, but not when they're in a 2 ton, fast moving motor vehicle? It's the latter causing tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths. Again, the focus of your outrage is completely disproportionate / misplaced. These pages - obsessed as they are with low level nuisance behaviour, whilst shutting down any examination of the main cause of road deaths and injuries, are depressing. The discussion feels like classic culture war nonsense; A really obvious form of deflection that loudly points the finger / vilifies a minority of relatively vulnerable road users, to stop any serious examination of the where the real danger is.

Yeah, I agree. If I were to take a guess, I would assume the numbers in the Southwark report are probably the right ones (as opposed to the FOI response). If so it's a lot of people getting fined every school day, like you say.

Possibly. Or the response to foi was incorrect (or reported incorrectly) 🤷‍♂️ All a bit weird.

Visited Dynamic Wines over the weekend. Great place, and good value!

...this explains the cross rail business supplement https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/transport/rail-and-underground/elizabeth-line/paying-crossrail-business-rate-supplement

Ah yes, you're right. Sorry, quick maths on my phone, not working out for me. I think it's more than 26,000 though and there are 29 school streets, not 24 (that was my mistake originally, apologies). Either way, it's a lot! [edited to add] A quick google picked up this from Direct Line https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2023/03022023.html Suggests a very different figure for school street fines issued by Southwark. According to an FOI, there were only 275 PCNs issued in Southwark in relation to School Streets for 2022. Something doesn't add up!

It's detailed month by month spending so probably not. Why don't you just email your councillor and ask them?

Yeh, I agree. This does seem ridiculously high. Perhaps the increased enforcement will help (probably not)?! Living near a local primary I do see some appalling behaviour in the mornings by drivers - a real lack of care for children's safety sometimes. ...no idea why we're having this discussion in the (latest) LTN section.

Just read this back and I have definitely not done the maths right 🤣 Assuming that there were around 39K PCNs related to school streets (this isn't totally clear - the report says the increase is 'mostly' down to SS), there are actually 29 school streets in Southwark. So it's around 1,345 issued per SS. So that's around 3.7 a day on average. Does seem high!

I read that as a 39% increase from the school streets programme - roughly 39K? I think there are around 24 school streets in Southwark, so that's around 1,625 fines per street over the course of a year - so a couple a week on average per school street? Have I done the maths right there? Does seem like quite a lot. OK, that's a fairer comparison. Does this 'look worse' though? If you read the Council's own narrative, it appears that the increases are down to better enforcement (more cameras installed to stop people driving in bus lanes), more enforcement officers employed to ticket those who have parked illegally and the introduction (and subsequent enforcement of) School Streets. If you're not going to enforce bus lanes or parking restrictions, then what's the point of having them? And if you do want to argue against them, make that case (rather than supporting them in principle, but not in practice). There are 430 million miles travelled on Southwark roads each year. If there are only 264,259 PCNs being issued, that suggests that the vast majority of drivers manage without getting caught in bus lanes, driving through a school street, or parking illegally. Don't think it's hypothecated in this way. Any surplus from PCNs generally goes into a fund that can be allocated for (amongst other things) improvements to roads and the public realm. I suspect that some of that budget was used to landscape the square / improve the layout. Any answer to this? Are there other organisations who's subscription email updates we want to start regularly posting on the forum?