Earl Aelfheah

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?

Several people vocal in their opposition to the Dulwich LTN have been arguing that we should have multiple threads on the topic. So here you go! You’re welcome

No worries. We can all start creating multiple threads on the same topic . Glad you support this tactic. 👍

My bad, just a mere 4 years, 7 months 🤣🤣 Give it another 5 months and it’ll all calm down

5 years 🤣

The example is the thread for ‘One Dulwich updates’, to rail against LTNs when there is already a thread on LTNs. If you want we can all keep creating different LTN threads in order to try and amplify a particular viewpoint, but I would argue it’s unhelpful.

So if you want to post views on the LTN, is there a reason not to do it in the LTN thread? I mean we can continue to create multiple ones of you want, but interested how you think it’s helpful? It feels a lot like an effort to push out different voices, ironically by those crying ‘censorship’ at the idea that it’s not ideal.

Yes, on any relevant thread. But someone has created an entirely separate one for whoever One Dulwich is, and their ‘updates’ nearly all of which are about the LTN. 🤦‍♂️

@Rockets I am fascinated by your belief that if people swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car, that it doesn’t increase the overall risk to others. Do you really not accept that every trip which is cycled rather than undertaken in a motor vehicle reduces the danger to other people?

There is absolutely no point in changing the law unless you can enforce it effectively, and that really means fitting all bicycles with speedometers and having a system of licencing. Ultimately, both of these things would disincentive cycling and if it leads to even a small fall in uptake / some journeys being swapped out for cars, would be entirely counterproductive. And again, it's the same people demanding more regulation for (objectively) one of the most benign forms of transport, whilst raging against enforcement of current traffic laws for one of the most dangerous. All feels very, very cynical.

I have not suggested that at all. I have stated a fact; That bicycles pose a far lower risk to others than a motor vehicle. So the more you incentivise people to swap a journey by bicycle for one in a car, you increase the risk to others. If you think that's 'claptrap', then I can't really help you. Perhaps look at the data, or think about the physics. According to the DfT almost 90% of drivers break the speed limit in 20mph residential areas.

Is this in principle or practice. How would you enforce it and would it apply to all age groups? Does it matter if it reduced uptake of cycling and made roads more dangerous? Or is it just a matter of principle?

It looks exactly as silly as it is. Glad you now agree that creating multiple threads on the same topic is ridiculous (does this make you guilty of ‘censorship’ though? 😉 ). Perhaps the anti LTN ‘updates’ can in future be posted to the LTN thread?

Wow. 🤣

Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motor vehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude). There is a well documented 'safety in numbers' effect for cyclists themselves too. In short, more people cycling leads to safer streets for everyone. There is strong evidence that stricter regulation of bicycles represents a barrier to cycling and reduces uptake. So if a whole new regime of regulation and enforcement reduced the popularity of cycling, even by small amounts, it would reduce road safety. And that's ignoring the time, energy, money and focus that implementing such a scheme would divert from tackling far more impactful interventions (although these are things you would object to as they would invariably involve tackling dangerous driving). So again, does it matter whether stricter regulation of bicycles leads to more dangerous roads in practice, or is it just a matter of high principle? How on earth do you come up with that What's in the pipe you are smoking? Edited 1 minute ago by Spartacus Great. Good to be clear. So if you believe that there should be one set of rules for all road users, does that include applying the same age limits, speed restrictions, requirements for formal training / testing, insurance, tax etc? And should the same rules be applied to HGVs, as cars, vans, motorbikes, bicycles and horse riders? You're the one wanting to test peoples logic apparently, so it would be good to be clear on yours.

Oh, so you don't think it "should be one set of rules for all road users"? Why is that?

@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.