Earl Aelfheah

I mean, I disagree with all of that (except for the COVID boost) and it's not what the data shows. I believe the money invested in cycling is worthwhile. It's a fraction of what is invested in the tube and the bus networks and yet constitutes around a third or a quarter of the journeys respectively. But good to be clear about your position. So I assume from what you have said that you are advocating the removal of existing cycle infrastructure?

It is absolutely ridiculous, I agree.

So just to be clear, you do not believe there has been an increase in cycling in London in recent years, and you don't believe the latest Tfl report?

Oh I see. It's a conspiracy, involving multiple independent consultants, local authorities, and academics.

There aren't speed limits for bikes using the road. So you don't just want people travelling by bicycle to follow the rules of the road, you want them to follow the rules that apply to motor vehicles. You haven't explained why, beyond the fact that they are not 'danger free'. What other activities that are not 'danger free' would you look to regulate? Running?

No method is perfect. But they're considered to be around 99% accurate when using daily averages. The more interesting question to me is, why you're desperately looking for reasons to discount all and any objective monitoring data (because there is no 100% accurate way of monitoring traffic flows)? I mean I can guess, but interested in your self reflections.

So it's nothing to do with the degree of danger posed, that's irrelevant? There is no calculation about impact, or proportionality? It's really only going to be relevant in a 20mph zone. So you want a whole system of licencing which puts up barriers to entry on bicycling, in order to enforce an edge case, with very little real world impact on safety? Would you also have age limits on who can use a bike? What other activities that are not 'danger free' would you look to regulate?

To be clear, I am referring to London, (when the bit you've quoted is not shorn of the context of the previous sentence this is already clear). There has objectively been a massive increase in the number of people cycling in London over the last couple of decades and it continues to rise. There isn't evidence to the contrary. Are you again disputing TFL data? It would be good for you to explain why?

And of course, you're correct. As that article I linked to above explains, it is clear that a bicycle poses no where near the same danger as a motor vehicle, because the forces involved are just not comparable. "There are many complicated ways to calculate the force impact of various collisions, but a simpler calculation is to compare the kinetic energy of a car vs. a bike. That’s a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision, the more energy, the more likely the pedestrian being struck will be seriously injured or killed." "..Kinetic energy is calculated as mass x velocity² / 2. The unit is Joules. An average sized car (1814 kg) going 30 mph (13.4 m/s) goes into the collision with 162,860 Joules of kinetic energy. An average sized cyclist (plus the weight of the bike) 100 kg going 20 mph (8.94 m/s), would mean that the cyclist comes in with 3,996 Joules. These aren’t remotely similar. Sure, brakes and engineering can limit the force delivered by the car to the pedestrian, but it enters the equation with 40 times the energy that it has to somehow divert away from the pedestrian’s body." So if we wanted to apply a speed limit that is remotely relevant to the relative risk posed by a person on a bike, we’d want to set it at tens of times the speed limit for a motor car. Let’s be generous and just call it a single 10 times the limit. That would put the speed limit in a 20mph zone at 200mph for a bicycle. As it’s unlikely that anyone could achieve that speed under their own power, setting aside the not insubstantial question of how you would enforce it without a licencing system, my answer has to be ‘no’. There are already laws in place to charge people who are cycling in ways that endanger others.

This is one of those often repeated, but roundly debunked talking points on 'anti-LTN Twitter'. There are, inevitably some drawbacks involved in tube counters (as there are for all monitoring methods), but they are generally accepted as being pretty accurate. There is a reason why they are the preferred way of monitoring traffic flows. For instance, a study by McGowen and Sanderson (who described themselves as ‘suspicious’ of pneumatic tube data) found that when using short counting periods (e.g. 15 minutes), error rates were much higher than manufacturer claims of around 1%. Errors would sometimes involve over- and sometimes under-counting. However, these errors are cancelled out over longer periods such that ‘for daily counts, the road tubes have small error rates consistent with those reported by the vendors.’. There can be issues with parked cars (parked on the tubes), which is why they often don't extend to the curb. The monitoring data available however, uses daily averages based on longer counting periods. There has also been claims that they can't count vehicles which are travelling less than 10mph. This isn't true. You can set a minimum speed default, as well as defaults for the class of vehicle you want to count etc. It all depends on what you're measuring and happens at the software level. In Enfield, there was and error made because they forgot to reset the default speed minimum (which was set to 10mph). This was spotted and the data re-analysed, but of course, it was used by those looking to undermine any and all data on the impacts of LTNs (a reaction which itself is instructive). This has now become a 'fact' amongst those stuck in the 'war on cars' twitter rabbit hole. No traffic count data can be 100% accurate and of course that is not the bar. Pneumatic tubes are thought to be around 99% accurate, so the data is generally reliable and the sample big enough to give an accurate picture of what has happened to traffic flows. The peer review process ensures that the data will be poured over, the methods of collection and analysis interrogated and critiqued. It is not equivalent to people on Twitter and a few right wing opinion pieces desperately looking for ways to sow doubt in data and research conclusions they just don't 'like'.

Do you?

With respect Rocks I don't your point has been 'that encouraging cycling is a good thing but it is not the only thing you can do to reduce car use'. If it were, this would be a short thread as there is absolutely no one who would disagree. You tried to claim that cycling was falling in London. I think that there has been a massive increase in cycling and it continues to grow. That's a good thing and yes, I believe the money invested in it is worthwhile. It's a fraction of what is invested in the tube and the bus networks and yet constitutes around a third or a quarter of the journeys respectively. I take the safety of those travelling by foot and bicycle very seriously. It's exactly why I don't appreciate silly attempts by some to draw equivalence between the risk posed by those on a bicycle and those in a car, van or HGV. It's obvious nonsense and demonstrably so.

At absolutely no point have I said that people shouldn't act more safely. But all of those things that I have summarised (obviously slightly paraphrased for comic effect) come from comments that have been made by others. The whole thread started with a claim that cycling in London was falling. The comment "blink in a car and you end up with a fine" was shortly followed by claims that it is not those in motor vehicles who break the rules (the two things seem somewhat at odds), and the question posed (apparently seriously) "how many of these [30,000] deaths and injured were caused by cyclists not adhering to the rules" followed that. It's weird you think that the above comments are not facetious (especially the last one), but my pointing out how they are are highly dubious and at odds with all available data, in a slightly wry way, is.

....aaaaaand here it comes. "There is a decrease"; "Oh there is 'only' a 20% increase" (in the context of all others modes being down). What's your point Rocks? What do you think TFL should be doing to encourage more people to cycle? Or do you think they simply shouldn't be trying to increase cycling? The stats suggest that most road collisions are the fault of driver error. If you really think logically, you will realise that most of those 30,000 serious injuries and deaths are not the result of poor cycling. Most don't even involve a bicycle (around 26,000 odd). In 2011, British police officers attended 118,404 road traffic collisions (figures from the Department of Transport). In 42% of these crashes, the most frequently reported factor was that the driver ‘failed to look properly’. The second most commonly listed factor for 21% of the crashes was the driver ‘failing to judge the other person’s path or speed’. The third most common contributing factor was the driver being actually ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and this accounted for 16% of the crashes. Other reasons were: loss of control, poor manoeuvre or turn, a pedestrian didn’t look properly, slippery road surfaces due to weather conditions, sudden braking, driving too fast for the road conditions or following another vehicle too closely. All of these ‘driver errors’ are ones that could be avoided.

So to summarise the comments on this thread: cycling is definitely declining in London. If it is increasing it’s obviously because it’s impossible to drive without getting a fine nowadays… But motorists don’t regularly break the rules. And although there are 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year caused by motor vehicles, a lot we think, may actually be caused by cyclists (which makes sense if you consider, you know.. physics). All data we’re ignoring. Seems about right 😂

Yes, but when those travelling on a bicycle break the law it often is easier to see. The fact is speeding is endemic, the use of mobile devices at the wheel is common, and some drive without valid insurance, MOT or tax. Then you can add drink driving, illegal parking, idling etc.. Studies have shown that law breaking by those using a motor vehicle is more prevalent than when travelling by bicycle (probably not that surprising as motorists have more laws that apply to them). There is good reason why driving is more regulated (see above), they are exponentially more dangerous to others. I am aware that there is a common belief that when people travel by bicycle they break more laws and are more dangerous, but it’s demonstrably (and when you think about it, obviously) false

Yes, around 30K as I said. And yes, far too many. Doesn't suggest that motor vehicles are being overpoliced. Now just waiting for the usual suspects to explain how the TFL report actually shows the opposite of what it says it does and that cycling is falling / the methodology is flawed / it's been manipulated by shadowy anti-car forces etc... ...in 3, 2, 1...

Didn’t know about this local, artisan business until I saw this video: Parris Cues in Forest Hill https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGe8J4rvp/ Nice to know that there is still a place for these types of specialist, high end, craft businesses.

Yeh, motor vehicles are over policed, despite killing or seriously injuring around 30,000 people every year in the UK. War on motorists isn't it 🙄 BTW, there is plenty of evidence that people travelling by bicycle are much less likely to break the rules. Probably because you're more vulnerable on a bike.

Cycling has grown pretty impressively the past few years and especially the past couple of decades. It's the only form of transport that's increased above pre-pandemic levels in London. The number of cycling journeys on any day adds up to around a third of all Tube journeys (imagine if all those people were to switch). Probably making up a far bigger proportion in central / inner London, but couldn't see if they've differentiated.

Yes, I'm part of a shadowy organisation

The speed limits don't apply to bicycles, because cars are exponentially more dangerous than bicycles. This article contains an instructive graph showing the difference in kinetic energy between the two: https://georgetownmetropolitan.com/2018/04/26/reminder-cars-are-exponentially-more-dangerous-than-bikes/#:~:text=The unit is Joules.,cyclist comes in with 3%2C996.

The Travel in London report for 2023 is out. https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s21482/board-20231213-item08b-TiL 2023 Overview Report.pdf Daily cycling journeys increased to 1.26 million in 2023. Up 6.2% since 2022, up 20% since 2019.

Finally got to visit Joseph's the other day. Excellent Fish and Chips! Highly recommended.

We have a lot of data gathered from across London and a number of different schemes. Of course you can pick out imperfections and question individual data points, or interventions. But it's difficult to ignore the macro picture imo. Unless you are absolutely determined to confirm your preconceptions.