Earl Aelfheah

This is not true. People have been prosecuted and imprisoned in the exceptionally rare cases where they have caused serious harm to others whilst on a bicycle. The police also regularly hand out penalty notices for rule breaking. It is true that there are fewer regulations applied to use of bicycles, but that is because they pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car or HGV.

Not a direct quote, but for someone who has made over 40 posts criticising them, and talks about 'rabid' active travel ideologues, it's fairly clear that there is no love lost. So back to my question. Why do you repeatedly criticise and insult someone for highlighting examples of road behaviour that have caused major damage and destruction, but gleefully share share someone elses posts about much lower level examples of nuisance or inconsiderate road behaviour best described as potentially dangerous, (mainly to the individuals themselves, referred to by the videographer as 'retards'). What is the difference I wonder?

@Rockets We get it. Car good, bike bad. Hundreds of car crashes each year = rare and unavoidable accidents. People on bikes being inconsiderate = a massive danger to everyone requiring multiple threads and lot's of angry attacks on rabid, secretive cabals of dangerous activists. Can the rest of us talk about road safety / policy in a more objective and nuanced way now.

So you absolutely hate 'Dulwich roads', for highlighting examples of road behaviour that have caused major damage and destruction. But you love to share someone else posting about much lower level examples of nuisance or inconsiderate road behaviour best described as potentially dangerous, (mainly to the individuals themselves, referred to by the videographer as 'retards'). What is the difference I wonder?

This is untrue, and also weirdly irrelevant. Everyone can see the whole history of this thread, you do know that right? on Tuesday at 14:34 I pointed out that were 273 crashes in an area approximately 5km by 2km. Then at 16:25 you responded by posting a screenshot of a different area, centred on a 1.1km by 2.8km section of lordship lane. At 12:01 yesterday I posted Rather than get into a debate about it, I decided to simply make the case on your terms. Every bit of back and forth between you and I following that post was discussing that area, the one you chose and screen shot. The one that still sees a crash almost every week on average (a ridiculously high number considering the tiny area). You seem to want to keep narrowing the area down and down, to where we're no longer discussing what happens at a level which could meaningfully be described as 'the local area', but is just one tiny bit of one street. This is from someone claiming not to be trying to minimise how many crashes there are locally. There are in fact 5 recorded crashes a week on average across the local area of 5km by 2km. There is almost 1 a week if you look at a very small area 1.1km by 2.8km (which excludes all major junctions). You can cut it anyway you like, but that is far too regular. The rest is just your usual noise, conspiracy and ham fisted attempts at misdirection (and you talk about people who "allow their own rabid ideology cloud their judgement and what they claim.”?!). It's embarrassing Just tell us. What’s the area you want to pick, and argue that the number of car crashes aren’t regular enough to be concerened?

There has been a real problem with dangerous driving and illegal parking along that stretch, and a lot of kids cycle to the schools along that road, so something definitely needed to be changed; But I agree that (from the picture) it looks like a really poor design. I can see people getting 'doored' for sure. There is also room to play with along that stretch / it's quite wide, so I would have thought there is a lot of opportunity to have designed something safe / high quality. If they just put some wands in, it would be an improvement; discouraging people exiting their cars on that side and providing a degree of separation.

I’m sorry, but I think you’ve lost it. I haven’t made any ‘post accusation edits’. Instead of vague insinuation, why don’t you clarify what you are accusing me of? What are you actually claiming I have changed? No, I am not ‘the person behind Dulwich Roads’. This is embarrassing. When you have lost the argument, you just resort to tin foil hat stuff.

Probably a rollerblader.

Well it was posted 4 hours ago and edited 4 hours ago, so I imagine a typo. What are you claiming I changed? Are you OK?

I repeatedly referred to the area you highlighted / took a screenshot of and that covers a 1.1 by 2.8 km space centred around a small stretch of Lordship lane (avoiding the major junctions). In one instance in back and forth I’ve used shorthand and referred to ‘the 1.1km stretch of Lordship Lane’. It is absolutely clear what we are talking about. You set the area, designed as it was to minimise the incidence of collisions. And still you try to dissemble, obsfucate and move the goalposts. You minimise the regular, weekly incidence of cars driving into something or someone locally, whilst dedicating pages and pages to the ‘dangers’ of people travelling on push bikes. You talk about rabid ideology and people wearing blinkers: the lack of awareness is breathtaking. And of course now you’re falsely claiming I’ve been editing the meaning of my posts, rather than just engage sensibly. Its embarrassing

What post, when? Any edits are usually due to typos (fat fingers). I’ve not been changing my posts. Is it perhaps that you’re just reading back and realising you look silly.

Let's not get into conspiracy nonsense. You chose a very small and very partial area, and I decided to discuss it on your terms. The reference area you chose, that excludes local hotspots / junctions, and is only 2.8km wide by 1.1 km long, sees a crash almost every week (46 incidents over the year). That is a common / regular occurrence. I'm not playing your game of shifting the goalposts, or trying to get into debates around semantics; It's like the 'does 30,000 represent a number in the tens of thousands nonsense. Despite what you say it is very, very clear that you are trying to minimise what is a serious problem/.

I was crystal clear that I was referring to the 2.8km by 1.1km reference area that you chose. [note: Originally, I suggested a much more relevant reference area of 5km by 2km where there were more than 5 reported crashes a week on average in 2022), but I decided to discuss the issue on your terms, even though your reference area is tiny, and excludes the major junctions / crash sites locally, to try and escape from your tedious, often deployed tactic, to dissemble on process, rather than substance]. So again, taking the area you highlighted. Do you accept that a crash almost every week in such a tiny area is problematic?

This is ridiculous. Let’s stick to your second attempt to minimise the issue of regular car crashes locally instead of constantly jumping around / kicking up dust as you always do. 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. Almost one a week, across a tiny area, that excludes the key junctions. Why don’t you explain how that is not a problem worthy of discussion?

Rather than to take the bait and allow you to distract further. Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it). A collision almost weekly. Would you accept they are therefore a regular occurrence locally, or not? (Bare in mind this doesn't include the junctions of LL and goose green, LL and Barry road, East Dulwich Road and Barry Road, or LL and the S. Circular, and is only for those collisions recorded) Do you think that's a problem worthy of discussion? Or that to to suggest it's a problem is 'hyperbole' and an example of 'rabid ideology'? You have said that you're not trying to minimise the issue of collisions. I think people can make their own judgement on that.

You’ve taken a 1km stretch of Lordship Lane (walkable in 10 minutes), which excludes all major junctions, in an attempt to minimise the number of car crashes happening regularly. Still, even then there is a reportable collision almost weekly. And you’re suggesting that to consider that a problem is hyperbolic and just an example of ‘rabid ideology’? What is ‘rabid ideology’ is an individual obsessed with the supposed ‘menace’ of push bikes and the dangers they pose, yet at the same time determined to minimise / downplay the demonstrable impact of regular car collisions.

You're now saying 46? It's going down! Feels very much like there is some minimising going on here tbh. The screenshot above has been selected to exclude four of the main junctions (and major crash sites) locally - at the plough, goose green, lordship Lane / S Circular and Peckham Rye / E Dulwich Grove. Obviously the number of crashes reported depends on the area you look at, which is why I've been specific about it. In an area 5km by 2km, centred on SE22 there were 273 crashes in 2022. What is the size of the area that you have included that has 89, or 46 crashes, or whatever number it is you've tried to get as low as possible? [Edited to add] I used the google maps measurement tool; The area you’ve looked at is tiny, about 2.8km wide (which includes a couple of parks) and just 1.1km long; covering a tiny stretch of Lordship Lane chosen to exclude all major junctions (where it meets E Dulwich Road at Goose Green, Barry Road at the Plough, and the South Circular). You walk that in about 10 minutes. Despite this, and despite the fact that the map already displays only a subset of all crashes, there is still almost 1 a week. There is no possible way one could not describe that as a regular occurrence. If you had milk delivered 46 weeks of the year, you would describe it as a regular delivery.

The area you’re examining looks quite small from the screenshot. I think the area displayed may depend on the resolution / settings of your monitor. I measured the area I looked at using Google map tool. In an area 5km by 2km centred on SE22 there were 273 crashes recorded in 2022, with the caveat that (as exdulwicher notes), this is only a small number of recorded accidents. In reality there are more. Any way you cut it, and anyway one may try to minimise it, there are clearly regular collisions happening locally.

No I haven't. A car crash was reported to have occurred more than 5 times a week (on average) in a local area of 5km by 2km in 2022. That is not speculation, it is a fact. A car crash involves a car hitting something or someone. The data shows that this is a common occurrence locally.

Well yes, that's correct. But if you are addressing a question of how common car crashes are locally (in response to a suggestion that it's not really a problem), then it's instructive to look at the number of reported crashes. Also, I didn't just look at a marker on a map, I used the google measurement tool. The fact is that in an area of just 5km by 2km there were more than 5 reported crashes a week on average in 2022. I think that shows that driving a car into something or someone is a common (weekly... almost daily) occurrence locally.

Well that's one or two every week. I would say that if people are driving a car into someone or something every week in the immediate area, that's a pretty common occurrence, yes. And those serious accidents often end in deaths or serious injuries, which have a catastrophic impact. Even one is too many. [edited to add] I just checked this. I don't know where you got a figure of 89 from. If you do a search for 'SE22' and filter for '2022', there are 273 crashes. That's only those that are reported of course and is still more than 5 a week That covers an area approximately 5km x 2km. If you think that 5 people driving a car into something or someone every week is not enough to say that it's a common occurrence, I think you are wrong and that yes, you are minimising it.

For anyone who doubts that people driving cars into things and people is not an issue locally (as has been implied on this thread already), you can search the crash map here and see just how common it is: https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

🤔 How would one come to the conclusion that people are trying to minimise 30,000 ksi's and then suggesting the real problem is push bikes. How would one do that? 🤨

These statistics are truly shocking and should immediately give people drawing false equivalence with the ‘menace’ of push bikes pause for thought. It won’t of course.

Imagine actually trying to minimise 30,000 deaths and serious injuries. And then suggesting that the ‘real’ problem is people on push bikes. What is wrong with you? The degree of tribalism that makes this possible is almost pathological.