Earl Aelfheah

“ …we know why you were saying”. We don’t. Why but be brave enough to spell out your accusation? And what’s the reference to me apropos of nothing? You come across as a little obsessed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m flattered, but I suspect you’re not my type.

I am following your lead and quoting your own response to a simple question. Here is a little reflection on ‘being grown up’. When I stated that: ”Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motorvehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude).” You mocked me, pretending it was a claim that: Quite obviously you can see the difference between the actual statement and the straw man one you invented and attacked, entirely in bad faith. I then asked a very straight forward question seeking to clarify your genuine view on this: “Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others? “ You responded: And then: This is some of the most blatant examples of gaslighting I think I’ve seen on the forum. When you’re willing to have a grown up conversation, and debate in good faith, let us know. If you don’t like people using your own ‘tactics’ against you, to illustrate how unhelpful they are, maybe reflect on that, instead of getting all indignant and resorting to insults.

This makes no sense. I can no longer decipher the riddles you set. 🤣

You’ve quoted the bit where I say there is misunderstanding and then cut the bit where I explain how. I could repost the whole thing, or you could scroll up a little and read it there. I hope that’s not too complex a riddle to decipher 😂

Oh dear. Is this ‘censorship’ ab29? 🤣 🤔

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Highway Code changes across this section. Of course cyclists should give way to pedestrians. Cars should do so also, stopping to let pedestrians cross at junctions (something that they almost never do). That does not mean that if you step out into the path of either a car or a bike that you may not be at fault. I took Mal’s post to be pointing out how you need to regulate appropriately and proportionately. Lots of people are hurt falling off ladders. It would probably save some lives it you made it a legal requirement to wear a hard hat whilst using one, but that fact alone doesn’t make such a regulation proportionate to the size of the issue necessarily. This is not a difficult concept. The fact that some of the same people who have suggested that we are already spending enough trying to reduce the tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicles each year, are balking at the idea that speeding bicycles probably aren’t a big enough issue to merit legislation and licensing? The issue of relative risk, proportionality, and opportunity cost are obviously hugely relevant here, as much as some would pretend not to grasp these concepts. This is not a ‘complex riddle’. If you don’t consider such things, you end up making poor, often counterproductive policy decisions.

Easy there Mal, that sounds like a call to think rationally and act proportionally.

How is Southwark Cyclist encouraging people to express their views on a consultation, different to ‘One Dulwich’ doing the same 🤔 Not a little hypocrisy going on today. Multiple threads and campaign literature on LTNs ok, but only if it’s from Rocks?

It is an incredibly complex riddle to decipher. 🤣😂 …or perhaps a very simple question you’re ducking 🤔

🤣 I’m drawing a direct parallel with your One Dulwich missives. Yup. That’s the point. Separate threads for all organisations campaigning on LTNs. It’s called satire

I think you missed the point. 😉

I would be interested in this too. Haven’t personally been down there since it went live. Has the signage changed?

What has rockets ‘revealed’ or ‘uncovered’ exactly? Is this some weird, desperate, stalky behaviour again? Honestly, talk deflection? Ether you think it’s ok to have multiple threads or you don’t. In case you missed it, I’m the one arguing for some etiquette and illustrating my point with a mildly silly post. I think we can see who is throwing a tantrum (“you’re abusing the forum… treating people with contempt”). So calm down I’m just having a bit of a laugh. It wasn’t me inviting and defending multiple threads 🤣

It’s so obvious why you won’t answer. Because you understand the implications for measures which might encourage people to swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car on road safety.

You don’t want to answer, because you fully understand the question. Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others?

It’s a question. You don’t understand it, or you don’t want to answer it? Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others?

I’m sorry? People have literally said that to even suggest it’s not cool to create multiple threads is censorship. You have created multiple threads on the LTN, and defended it.

Oh interesting. So you don’t approve of multiple threads? What happened to “We can create as many threads as we like - it's a free country after all” Think you’ve kind of proven my point

Oh I see. So you’re ducking the question? I can repeat it: You described the idea that if people swap out journeys made by bicycle for journeys made by car, that it increases the overall risk to others, as ‘claptrap’. So the clarification I have: do you really not believe that the same trip made by bike and by car pose different risks to others? That the motor vehicle carries more risk?

Any answer to this Rocks? I feel like we be close to a breakthrough 🤣

Really important to discuss this issue across multiple threads

A guide to the evidence around low-traffic neighbourhoods Understanding the evidence on the impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) on cities and communities is an important part of their successful delivery. This page provides a handy reference list of existing research on low-traffic neighbourhoods to meet the evidence needs of any practitioners implementing them. https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design-contents/8-a-guide-to-the-evidence-around-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/#overview

@ab29 and? Why does it bother you? We can create as many threads as we like - it's a free country after all 😗 To quote someone else 🤣😆

New data reveals huge success of Dulwich traffic measures Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, a genuinely cross party project – initiated by Conservative national government and implemented by a Labour local authority – are once again shown to be hugely successful, and clearly achieving their objectives. Here’s a quick summary of the newly released monitoring data. Motor traffic has reduced The top level figure is a 16% drop in traffic across all roads. That’s 24,000 fewer vehicles polluting our air. Breaking this down, there has been a massive drop on traffic on the roads where modal filters have been installed (81% on Calton Avenue; 68% on Court Lane, 88% on Melbourne Grove). Also, very significantly, there have been reductions in traffic on main roads: down 22% on Lordship Lane, down 14% on Croxted Road, and down 16% on Half Moon Lane. So don’t listen to the scare-mongers, as with many other schemes across London, LTNs lead to a reduction of traffic on main roads too. One road did see some growth, East Dulwich Grove South recorded 14,922 vehicles in April 2021 – an increase of 14% from September 2019. This is why we are calling for a joined up cycle network including cycle tracks on main roads like East Dulwich Grove. Not only is it important for safety, but it would also reduce traffic levels: A TFL analysis suggests 68% of car trips could be cycled. So while not everyone may be able to cycle, more than 14% of people currently driving could cycle, and thereby bring traffic back down to below 2019 levels. Staggering cycling growth As predicted, the story for cycling has also been incredible: a 74% increase across the area. A whopping 103% around Dulwich Village, 29% in East Dulwich and 19% on Champion Hill. More to do to achieve cycling potential While we should celebrate the success of the schemes, the data also shows another story: that cycling levels across the area are still far too low. Lordship Lane for example, with a densely populated residential area and key shopping destination is recorded as having only 325 people cycling, or less than 30 bikes per hour at peak times; similarly Turney Road, which has been identified as a strategic cycling route, only recorded 618 people cycling a day. Half Moon Lane, another natural high priority cycling route only had 611 people cycling (as of Sep 2019). East Dulwich Grove has even fewer, only 458 people cycling recorded on the Eastern Count, with only 369 by Townley Road. The potential to increase cycling in the area is phenomenal. The recent schemes have shown that if cycling interventions get built, people will use them. Southwark needs to build on the momentum, and introduce additional measures: more 24/7 modal filters, coupled with cycle tracks on main roads.

I mean I could say ‘so what?’ As others have so eloquently responded. Either it is OK to create multiple posts or it’s not. I don’t think it is, but who am I to swim against the tide?