Earl Aelfheah

Yes, not a nice way to start a Friday

Would be interested in what ED's been listening to this year. What were your favourite music releases and best live performances in 2023?

An indoor, fried chicken, nail, DIY, skateboard mega church sounds good.

The ones on Lordship Lane have always been just 'OK'. My go to of the standard places, is probably Mirash, but imo they're all much of a muchness.

I do find it surprising that there isn't a public Christmas Tree somewhere in ED. Not sure where you'd put it mind, but passing through a number of areas yesterday, it was notable that many other nearby areas do. I'm sure we used to have one on Goose Green at this time of year.

Very close to Leyland as well.

Might just be the time of year (more drink driving).

There was talk (admittedly quite a few years ago now) about one of the many evangelical / mega church types wanting to take it over.

Royal Mail are completely unreliable. Items recorded as delivered when they have not been and the website just takes you round in circles.

How can you be sure it’s hard before you kick it? Sounds risky 😂

There are around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths involving motor vehicles each year. A person is around five times more likely to be killed when hit by a car travelling at 30mph than one travelling at 20mph. That’s why many feel that 20 mph is a more appropriate limit for motor vehicles in built up / residential areas. I agree. There has been an attempt to distract from a discussion of this, and change the conversation to whether laws should be introduced to treat push bikes and motor vehicles as if they were the same. I have illustrated how false an equivalence this is already, but simply, the more energy a road user is bringing into a collision, the more likely a pedestrian being struck is to be seriously injured or killed. An average car hits a pedestrian with perhaps 40 times the energy of a push bike travelling at a similar speed. The two are not remotely comparable. If you think impact force is irrelevant, you haven’t understood it. This is why I don’t like attempts to change the subject / distract from the very real issue of those 30,000 who are seriously injured or killed annually (by people in cars, vans and HGVs, not sitting on top of a bicycle) More generally: to those for whom the word ‘car’ triggers a Pavlovian rant about ‘cyclists’, your ‘football-ification’ of any discussion on transport or road safety is boring. You don’t have to blindly come out batting for ‘your team’. You’re not on a team, it’s all in your head. Most people drive, bus, walk and cycle at different times. The wicked ‘cyclist’ you rail against, is probably also your ‘brother driver’. Maybe take some time off from the ‘there’s a war on motorists’ Twitter holes and Daily Mail opinion pieces, and stop trying to turn everything into a misguided points scoring exercise. I hate to break it to you, but there isn’t a prize.

You mocked me for not ‘doing my research’ on the policy in wales, after I made the statement that: “There isn't a 20 mph limit for all '30 mph roads' in Wales. There is a default 20 mph limit in built up areas.” Well had you done a quick Google you would have pulled up this explanation from the BBC: “The 20mph limit has come into force for all restricted roads, which are defined as roads with lampposts placed not more than 200 yards (about 180m) apart…They are typically located in residential and built-up areas of high pedestrian activity… The Welsh government has acknowledged the new lower limit is not appropriate everywhere and has said local authorities can make exceptions” I would say that this aligns pretty clearly with the statement that “There isn't a 20 mph limit for all '30 mph roads' in Wales. There is a default 20 mph limit in built up areas.” Also, your claim that: “The ability of local authorities to determine the speed of 30 mph roads in their purview has been taken away from them by the Senned.” Is wrong. My response to your post asking: “Could you also concede perhaps that there are problems with retro-fitted e-bikes that allow riders to travel at over 20mph in London (popular amongst some delivery drivers)” Was: ”Yes, or course. These are illegal btw” It really couldn’t have be clearer. You referred specifically to “retro-fitted e-bikes that allow riders to travel at over 20mph” If you’re going to mock someone for not doing their research, it’s best to read what they’ve said first, and to do some rudimentary 'research' (or even just a quick Google) of the topic yourself.

BTW, you repeatedly asked why I don’t agree with you that push bikes and cars should be policed as if they’re the same. Yet when I’ve answered you, with an explanation of how they pose completely different levels of risk to pedestrian safety because of the impact forces involved, you’ve made a joke about it. It’s not a joke. 30,000 people are killed or seriously injured every year in collisions involving motor vehicles. And the impact force is very, very relevant. Why ask a question repeatedly if you’re not interested in a reasoned response? Did you just want a yes/ no answer? OK. Remember, you’ve asked it to be spelt out 🙄 In response to your claim that there was a 20mph limit in Wales for “all 30 mph roads”, I said; “There isn't a 20 mph limit for all '30 mph roads' in Wales. There is a default 20 mph limit in built up areas.” In response to your post asking: “Could you also concede perhaps that there are problems with retro-fitted e-bikes that allow riders to travel at over 20mph in London (popular amongst some delivery drivers)” I said: ”Yes, or course. These are illegal btw” You then wrote another post in a mocking tone, saying: ”Again, I suggest doing some better research before posting. This is what is actually happening.The ability of local authorities to determine the speed of 30 mph roads in their purview has been taken away from them by the Senned. [side note; you’re wrong about this bit, local authorities can make exceptions] It has been replaced by a default 20mph for restricted roads”; and; ”Again, more research needed on your part. Conversion kits are legal if they remain within the restrictions (of power output and top speed amongst other thingd). But of course some kits are not legal as they take you over the speed limit for such bikes (15.5 mph)” You literally confirmed both the points I had made (that there isn't a 20 mph limit for all '30 mph roads' in Wales. There is a default 20 mph limit in built up areas and retro-fitted e-bikes that allow riders to travel at over 20mph are illegal), yet you tried to portray it as some sort of ‘gotcha’ moment. Frankly it doesn’t suggest any kind of good faith enquiry, but just a slightly childish (and failed) attempt at point scoring. Generally, in any debate about road safety, or transport, you do appear to take an almost uncritical, reactionary and wholly tribal position. You’ve used a thread about 20mph limits for motor vehicles (which you oppose), to call for 20mph limits on push bikes. Why? It’s a total diversion.

Literally what I said, it’s illegal to have an e-bike that takes you above 20, and in Wales roads can have a 30mph limit, but are 20 bu default. Read what I said: Yes, or course. These are illegal btw. ☝🏻 It’s something when you think confirming what someone said is some sort of ‘gotacha’ moment 😂 … and again, you’ve claimed that your concern is safety - which is why you want a 20 mph speed limit applied to (non-electric) push bikes. Yet you oppose the same limit applying to motor vehicles in built up areas. Completely irrational, if your concern genuinely is safety.

Thank you. Yes, I did miss this question. There isn't a 20 mph limit for all '30 mph roads' in Wales. There is a default 20 mph limit in built up areas. This can be varied by the local authority where they feel it's appropriate. In other words, the presumption is that 20mph is more appropriate in built up areas. And yes I agree with this. I assume you don't? Yes, or course. These are illegal btw.

The only bits on this thread where I can see you remotely answer the question are when you say: We've already established that the speed limit is for motor vehicles. This is not an explanation as to why you think the same rules that apply to motor vehicles should also apply to horses, bicycles, etc. Unless you seriously think you've answered the question by saying "common sense". Is this perhaps your reason? If so, what other activities that are not danger free, do you think should be regulated as if they were an HGV? We all do. But you don't want people travelling by bicycle to follow the rules of the road, you want them to follow the rules that apply to motor vehicles. If I've missed where you have answered the question elsewhere, please enlighten me. To remind you, it's: Why, when you don't approve of a 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles in Southwark (the subject of the thread) you are calling for a new 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on a bicycle.? There are around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths involving motor vehicles each year. A person is around five times more likely to be killed when hit by a vehicle travelling at around 30mph than they are from a vehicle travelling around 20mph. To those who have lost people in road accidents, I assure you it is a subject that they feel both exorcised about, and consider to be a pressing matter. The fact that people think that it's a trifling matter and would try and minimise the impact by drawing false equivalence to push bikes, is exactly the problem. I think we can see who has tried to cause a 'heated debate' and derailed the thread, by both opposing the 20 mph limit for cars, whilst simultaneously calling for a new 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on bicycles.

You posed a question and I gave an answer, with reasoning. You say you're concerned about safety, but you think that any discussion of relative risk (which must involve thinking about impact forces) is irrelevant? I don't know what question you believe I haven't answered? You seem to be complaining both that I haven't answered questions and that I have. Which is it? You still haven't explained why, when you don't approve of a 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles in Southwark (the subject of the thread) you are calling for a new 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on a bicycle.

You seem to think that I've somewhere argued that people on bicycles should ride without care and should not abide by the rules of the road (as they apply to bicycles). I have absolutely not done that at any point. The question is whether laws which are designed for, and apply specifically to motor vehicles, should also apply to cyclists. I have explained why there is (appropriately) greater regulation of say and HGV, than there is a push bike. The fact that there are people on this thread who don't approve of a default 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles, but are calling for a new 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on bicycles, is quite bizarre. No. You asked if I was in favour of a 20mph speed limit for bicycles. I answered your question, and provided reasoned response. So please don't play that game. People can see the thread.

So you've taken a thread about a 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles (which you don't support) and turned it into a debate about imposing a 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on bicycles. *slow handclap* I've literally laid out in detail why it's a nonsense to impose the same speed limit to someone who is travelling on a bicycle as in an HGV. The risk posed by someone on a bicycle is not remotely comparable. You're calling for a much stricter safety standard to be applied to someone when they choose to travel by bicycle, for reasons that you don't seem able to explain. Police have the power to charge anyone acting dangerously whilst travelling by bike. They will already pull over people who are cycling too fast or behaving in a manner that is unsafe. What you are proposing would inevitably lead to calls for licencing, which would cause more people to switch to more dangerous forms of transport, making us all less safe.

They don’t go faster than the speed limit. There isn’t a speed limit. I imagine very few cyclists travel faster than the speed limit for motor vehicles either (certainly far fewer than those in cars do) But whilst you seem to accept that the risk of the two vehicles travelling at the same speed are not remotely comparable, you think they should be treated as if they are exactly the same ‘for safety reasons’. It makes no sense at all. What is more likely to seriously injure a pedestrian in a collision: a bicycle travelling at 20 mph, or a car at 10? So if you have a 20 mph speed limit for bikes, why not a 10 mph limit on cars? Because it’s about safety right? This is such an embarrassing and transparent distraction. Your posts on this thread seem to suggest you don’t even support a default 20 for cars, so why are you calling for it in the case of bikes?

It’s interesting that you claim to want people on bikes to be bound by a 20 mph speed limit, on ‘grounds of safety’, but seem on this thread, quite cool towards a default 20mph limits for motor vehicles. I’ve explained at length (above) how a bicyclist 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). The more energy, the more likely the pedestrian being struck will be seriously injured or killed. A commensurate limit for bicycles would be about 800mph. It’s a nonsense. May as well place a 1600 mph speed limit on pedestrians. If your interest was truly about improving safety, you’d be lobbying for restrictions on the continued growth in the size of SUVs with high bonnets and extra weight. Or any number of other causes. Or simply support blanket 20mph limits for cars in London. But of course that’s not your interest. Exactly. If a person travelling by bicycle is behaving recklessly or dangerously, the police already have powers to deal with it.

There isn’t a speed limit for people travelling by bicycle. You can’t ’adhere’ to a rule that doesn’t exist. You’re suggesting that people on bicycles should follow the same rules that apply (and have been designed for) motor vehicles. I’ve explained why that suggest a comparability that does not remotely exist above. Your argument, if accepted, would equally extend to having a test / licence, and an age restriction on use. But your argument is obviously based on a fatuous false equivalence.

You’ve described a co-ordinated and wide ranging effort to manipulate / falisfy data, involving independent consultants, multiple local authorities and academics. That’s not a ‘convenient oversight’. Why the constant dissembling? Say what you think

You say “cycle infrastructure is causing huge disruption to buses etc and the numbers of new cyclists are nowhere near the number needed to justify/mitigate the disruption.”. Without any evidence that this is the case (in fact I’m the face of evidence that says it is not. But you don’t want to remove this ‘failed infrastructure’? So what do you want exactly?

So you did support the removal of the pavement widening on Lordship Lane that was implemented as a Covid measure? Are there any real life interventions for pedestrians or cyclists that you support in practice, and not just theory.