Earl Aelfheah

It delivers their policy promises, if that's what you mean about suiting their agenda. Are you suggesting that councils are breaking the law then? Genuinely, I don't get this point. I agree with this. Consultations tend to gather feedback from a self selected, noisy minority, and massively amplify opposition to any change. When a more structured approach is taken, involving a representative sample of the community provided with high quality information on the relevant topic, you tend to get a much more nuanced and useful set of feedback. Southwark's 'citizen jury' is an excellent example of this in practice: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Southwark Report FINAL EDITS v0.5.pdf

Yes I do. The pedestrian space previously consisted of just a pavement. It has been expanded to create the square. The road has been filtered to only allow for bicycles to pass through, (so might be better describes as a cycle lane) and is clearly separate from the pedestrian area which it runs alongside. Whereas previously the road was wide and straight, it’s been narrowed and now curves (which actually encourages people to slow). There is clear separation between the road / cycle lane and the pedestrian area / square. I actually don’t know how one cannot tell the difference, but if some people are walking in the road, that may explain why they are claiming daily ‘near misses’. Try not doing that. @ArchieCarlos I absolutely agree with your post. It’s fairly pointless arguing, the square is here to stay. In my opinion it’s a much more pleasant and much safer space for having had the traffic removed. I think it will come into its own come the summer when the planting will also start to embed a bit.

@Rockets Your words are clear. You’ve stated that increased traffic and congestion bought order and made the roads safer. Where else would you like to see increased traffic and congestion in order to ‘improve road safety’?

Unbelievable. You have claimed until red in the face that there was no issue with traffic on Calton Road / that the LTN was unnecessary. Now you say the traffic and congestion was ‘awful’, but that it was also necessary to bring ‘order’ and increase safety?! 🤣 No wonder you oppose measures to reduce traffic and congestion - you’re in favour of it! 🤪

You don’t answer, because each of those statements are objectively, verifiably true. The claim that it is now more dangerous to cross the road, because the motor vehicles have been removed is therefore so obviously ridiculous, that you can’t even begin to justify it using logical reasoning. This is also nonsense. The road is where it’s always been, it’s just been narrowed to expand the pedestrian space. It is clearly marked and is dropped from the pavement. Suddenly however I think I may understand how you appear to be constantly experiencing ‘near misses’ / getting sworn at. Are you perhaps walking in the road? Right. So when addressing a claim that removing motor vehicles from a road has made said road more dangerous, it’s no good using statistics, logic, or those awful, verifiable facts. We just need anecdotes about cyclists? 🤔

@Rockets Perhaps you could clarify which of the following statements you want to take issue with: As a pedestrian you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than a bicycle. The number of collisions around the Calton Avenue junction have reduced since the introduction of the LTN Removing motor vehicles from an area always leads to reductions in road casualties Being hit by a car and a bicycle travelling at similar speeds does not pose the same (or comparable) risk of serious injury or death And assuming that you do accept these factual statements, could you explain why you think that in this case, opening the road to more through traffic from both bicycles and motor vehicles, makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists, than filtering out the motor vehicles?

Does he. So just to be clear, Penguin's argument is that if we banned bicycles from using the road, and opened it to just cars, vans and lorries (and despite the fact that as you've accepted it would mean more collisions), safety would increase because car drivers take a test? Is that what we're going with now? ...although that's not even the argument is it. Because effectively the position is that if you allow bicycles, motorcycles, vans and lorries to all pass through, it is safer.... because.. some of them have passed a test? No, you're right, I don't get it, because it makes literally no sense.

All irrelevant. We don’t have to speculate about whether removing motor vehicles from an area reduces casualties. It does. We have plenty of data to prove it. And the Square isn’t a shared space. Calton road has always been and still is, well, a road. The difference is that the road has been filtered and the pedestrian space expanded. There were always bicycles that used the road. There were also cars, motorcycles and vans. So how do more motor vehicles make it safer for pedestrians exactly? Would it be safer is we allowed motorcycles through, or do only cars reduce the risk to pedestrians? Are bigger vehicles better? Perhaps we should encourage more HGvs to drive through the area to ensure safer streets? Honestly, this is ridiculous.

No. I didn’t say this. You can tell because my words are written down for you to read. What I’m saying (and it’s not an opinion but a matter of fact), is that the forces involved in a car collision and a bicycle collision are wildly different, even when the bike is travelling faster. That’s not to say a bicycle cannot harm, or even kill someone, but that it’s much less likely. A bicycle is less dangerous by several orders of magnitude. If you remove car traffic, but the cycle traffic remains, the risk to pedestrians (and cyclists) reduces accordingly. I do not believe that you are incapable of understanding this. Suggesting the opposite is true, that reducing cars increases the danger, is literally ridiculous and you embarrass yourself doing so.

Are you suggesting that there weren’t bike’s passing through tagt junction previously? The thing that’s changed is that they’re no longer accompanied by motor vehicles. Are you therefore suggesting that introducing more motor vehicles into an area somehow protects / reduces the risk to pedestrians? Firstly, I have never once said that there is no risk of ever being hit by someone on a bicycle. On the second point, someone travelling on a bicycle would have to be travelling at 40x the speed of an average car to have anything close to the same kinetic energy (a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision) as a car. This constant false equivalence between the two demonstrates a wilful ignorance. The filtered Road that passes through / alongside the expanded pedestrian area, is not itself a pedestrian area…By definition. It’s interesting that you now accept that traffic previously queued through that area. You also seem to be hinting at the fact that perhaps the number of cyclists has increased. Some back-pedalling there (excuse the pun). …anyway, to answer your question - a bicycle would have to be travelling around 200 mph + in order to carry the same force into any potential collision as a car going at between 5-10mph. This is why every time you remove motor traffic from an area road casualties drop significantly.

I don’t know what you think you’ve ‘caught me red handed’ at. Apparently I can’t edit a post? You have never edited a post right? As I said, I couldn’t be bothered going down the usual rabbit hole of ‘how far from the junction’, ‘what counts as a serious accident’ etc. so decided not to get into discussing the data in detail. The point is that collisions have (not surprisingly) dropped significantly since motor vehicles were filtered out, as you’ve accepted. So explain how a reduction in collisions around that junction, a drop in traffic passing through, and the filtering out of motor vehicles, translates to an increased danger to people? I don’t want to be hit at all (and with less traffic passing through the junction it is less likely), but if I had to choose I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car. Obviously. The fact that you repeatedly suggest that there is no difference (or that the bicycle is more deadly in this scenario) is astounding. The impact forces involved are wildly different by many orders of magnitude. Your chances of walking away from one as opposed the other are not remotely comparable. When I’ve pointed this out before you seem to have struggled with the basic physics, but there is a significant difference.

I was editing my post when you responded. It was just a cross post. I took the stats out because I couldn’t be bothered going down that rabbit hole with you. Suffice to say there has been a fall in collisions around that junction since the LTN went in. Btw, the junction is still open to traffic. It’s not closed, merely filtered. What’s changed is that the traffic that passes through now is made up of people on bicycles, where before it was people on bicycles, and motorcycles, and in cars, vans and Lorries. Alongside the change in the type of traffic, the volume of traffic has also decreased massively. To think that reducing the amount of traffic and filtering out the motor vehicles increases the risk, one must assume that motor vehicles make pedestrians safer / protect them from potential harm.

You said the junction is more dangerous for pedestrians now that it’s closed to motor vehicles than it was before. No, the people on bikes represent a much greater danger to pedestrians than they did when they were accompanied by motor vehicles. Stuff like this last month, definitely not a risk to pedestrians. Because it’s just a car 🤷

All the evidence of course, suggests that this is absolute nonsense. As a pedestrian you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than a bicycle. if you doubt this, you just need to look at the statistics or understand basic physics. LTNs cut the number of road casualties by more than half.

So you do think it is a dangerous space… because of cyclists. More dangerous than when it was full of cars? This is just absolute nonsense and I suspect you know it. the idea that the pavements of Dulwich have been ‘taken over’ by cyclists, and that the Square is a dangerous space, is laughable. But maybe you should stay indoors clutching your pearls, just to safe. …you can’t spend even more time on Twitter getting red faced and railing against the ‘war on motorists’.

I don't know, but it's nice enough that people from Langley Park (wherever that is) spend time thinking about it apparently.

The designs do look awful.

No, it's now incredibly dangerous. You literally can't go there without being knocked over and sworn at. Although it does depend on which of the equally valid versions of reality you frequent, so you may be ok.

No. You implied that we should get just as angry by similar infringements whether committed by cars or bikes. Again and again weasel words and false equivalence. You take the car, I’ll take the bike. Let’s see who comes off worse. Does anyone actually believe that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space? Or that the area is more dangerous now than it was when it was dominated by motor vehicles and kids cycling to school had to battle with traffic? Research has shown road casualties to reduce by half in LTNs. There is hysteria and hyperbole, and then there is reality.

You think the two are comparable? A 2 ton motorised vehicle breaking the rules and a 10kg push bike powered by someone pedalling? There is the problem. He's not saying it's OK for people to break the rules on a bicycle, he is saying he is much more concerned by people in motor vehicles speeding, which. He is objectively right to be so. The latter leads to tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year and millions of pounds of property damage. It's a very odd person who doesn't see the difference, or a very cynical one who seeks to draw false equivalence. As I said, and issue of perspective, proportion and reality. And again, here is the problem. There is an objective verifiable reality. You just aren't interested in it. Dulwich Square is not dangerous. It's actually quite a pleasant space.

It depends what you mean by 'incidents with cyclists'. As I have said above, I have no doubt that some people wheel across the square on their bikes, when they should fully dismount. Those who argue issues of transport and safety largely through the prism of ‘car versus bike’, might suggest that people on ‘the other side’ as they see it (myself perhaps) are just as likely to be looking out for and placing more weight upon the bad behaviour of by those travelling by motor vehicle. But you’ll notice that I don’t relay endless anecdotes about things I've seen drivers doing. I don't assume my personal observations mean very much. We will all of seen people being inconsiderate, putting themselves or others at a degree of risk on our streets, whether travelling in a car, on a bicycle or by foot. But only one of those is likely to lead to very serious consequences for others. Neither the actions of people travelling by push bike, or foot lead to tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year, or millions of pounds of property damage. This is a primarily a matter of verifiable fact and of physics. So the point I make is one of perspective, proportion and reality. I didn't bring up bias, that was firstmate. But I will answer his quip. Whilst I have no doubt that you have noticed people cycling across the square, it stretches the bounds of probability that you have come close to being hit on multiple occasions. I suggest that your antipathy to 'cyclists' and the creation of the square may be leading you to be hyper vigilant when it comes to misdemeanours involving bicycles and prone to over interpreting inconsiderate behaviour, as regular, and dangerous 'near misses'.

This is probably true. I didn't bring up cognitive bias - you did. You do this all the time. Ask a question and then object that the answer is taking things off track. If you don't want to discuss cognitive bias', perhaps don't bring them up? Just a thought. How many near misses have you experienced and what constitutes a 'near miss' exactly? If this is a daily, or even weekly occurrence then you must be unbelievably unlucky (emphasis on 'unbelievable').

That is not what a cognitive bias is. I'm not saying that people have never experienced a near miss in their life. But individuals suggesting that they regularly experiencing such events, stretches the bounds of probability. It seems far more likely that their antipathy to 'cyclists' leads them to actively seeking out examples of people on bicycles breaking the rules and then to exaggerate those experiences, claiming constant 'near' misses are occurring. This actually is a classic example of confirmation bias. Despite the threads claiming that 'cyclists are taking over the paths', or that individuals are being mown down by people on push bikes all over Dulwich, there is no evidence of this being true. And I don't actually believe anyone genuinely thinks it's any more than hyperbole from the usual suspects, with an axe to grind.

I walk and run regularly. I cover. A lot of miles on foot each week. Not once have I had a cyclist nearly hit me on the pavement or swear at me. Yet some people claim it’s an almost daily occurrence. It somewhat stretches the boundaries of probability tbh.

Fair enough @Rockets, my bad. I read it as sarcasm. I can't imagine why I'd assume anything you post in relation to the square is having a go. 😉