Earl Aelfheah

Again, no link to that quote. I suspect it's related specifically to vehicle classifications. Any chance you could share it? MetroCount says that their counters are "very accurate for traffic volumes, even in slow and congested traffic conditions". Absolutely nowhere do they say that they do not count vehicles travelling under 10mph. In fact quite the opposite - they claim 99% accuracy. You can't just state things that aren't true and then say 'agree to disagree'.

You have pasted a line with no context, and no link. I would love to know how long you had to search to try and find a single sentence which you could misrepresent as supporting your claim. They don't have a filter for sub-10km/h readings. You can set a lower limit (because you may want to count the number of vehicles travelling over a certain speed). It is defaulted to 10km/h, but can be adjusted. Absolutely no where do they state that they can't measure vehicles travelling at a lower speed. Their website claims 99% accuracy and links to independent tests from which they draw this conclusion. When asked about the false claims that you've repeated, The Times reported that "MetroCount says that their counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even in slow and congested traffic conditions, and that accuracy routinely approaches 99% or higher under normal free-flow circumstances". Your claims that pneumatic counters are wildly inaccurate and count high traffic as low traffic (sounds ridiculous even as I type that), are nonsense.

... Ogmios School of Zen Motoring -

You claimed that: and that: Metrocounts website states that: You have linked to a document which does not in any way state that they can't count vehicles that travel under 10mph. This claim has been widely debunked. It is not true. To state that an increase in vehicle counts is an increase, but that a decrease in vehicle counts is also an increase in traffic is ridiculous. Even you must be able to see just how ridiculous.

Right. So absolutely no evidence evidence of the manufacturer saying that they can’t monitor vehicles travelling under 10mph. Is that perhaps because it's not true?

Claims that they can't count vehicles which are travelling less than 10mph aren’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. This anti LTN ‘talking point’ started (like many of these things’ with a kernel of truth. In Enfield, there was an error made because they forgot to reset the default speed minimum (which was set to 10mph). This was spotted and the data re-analysed / corrected, but of course, it was used by those looking to undermine any and all data on the impacts of LTNs (a reaction which itself tells you something). If you have evidence of the manufacturer saying that they can’t monitor vehicles travelling under 10mph let’s see the sources please.

Of course… if the data shows an increase in the vehicles counted, it’s an increase. If it shows a decrease in the vehicles counted, it’s because they’re moving slower and also an increase 🙄

This is nonsense. As previously discussed

I've been wondering the same thing. The works seem to have taken a very long time. Found this just now on the Southwark website: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/highways-defects-and-improvement-maintenance/bridges-subways-and-walls?chapter=3 ... so sounds like another month at least.

We are also missing some birthday cards that we know were sent and never turned up. I 100% do not trust our local postal service

Just received a first class letter that’s stamped 13th September 🙄

The absolute state of this thread.

You may notice infractions by people travelling on bicycle more readily than the endemic law breaking by people driving cars, but this is partly because the latter has become so normalised and partly because of your obvious confirmation bias / inability to reflect rationally for even a minute. There are numerous studies which look at this objectively and all conclude that there is no difference in the instances of rule breaking (in fact most show that people are generally more compliant on bicycles). For example, the DfT believes that 85% of drivers regularly break the speed limit in 20 mph zones. Phone use behind the wheel is common place, as are many other offences. And most relevant of all, is the impact of bad behaviours on others. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that cycling (as I've said above, one of the most benign forms of transport) is some sort of unique menace on our roads. If you genuinely believe this, then you are really not paying attention to road traffic accident statistics. There are tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries every year on our roads. They are not caused by bicycles.

To suggest that the majority of people are uniquely anti-social when they travel by bicycle is nonsense (you don't have to believe me, there is plenty of research which shows people are no more likely to break the rules when they are travelling on a bike than by car). Using a bike is one of the most benign choices you could possibly make when it comes to getting around, bar walking. It creates minimal pollution, takes up little space, doesn't cause the thousands of deaths and serious injuries that motor vehicles do each year, and improves ones fitness / general health (which collectively reduces strain on the health service). Your post perfectly demonstrates what is so tedious about all the 'anti-bicylce' threads; full of basic prejudice and poor thinking (confirmation bias and group attribution errors).

Great post Malumbu. Agree with your points. There are people who are anti-social and we need to address anti-social behaviour, which includes times when it takes place by someone travelling on a bicycle. I don't subscribe to the 'cyclists are a scourge' narrative. For one thing it's patently nonsense (if we're talking the dangers posed to others in terms of ones choice of transport, cycling is about the most benign choice possible, after walking) and for another it's a classic case of group attribution error. You just wouldn't say there are people on foot who are mugging people in the street, therefore we need to crack down on pedestrians. It's so obviously ridiculous - and yet that's the logic that many of these really basic, 'bicycles bad' threads adopt.

What's 'recommended'?

Thanks, that's interesting. I had a feeling it must have been late 60's / early 70's.

They've also lost the pool table, which is a shame. Still the cheapest beer locally though!

With all this talk of the bygone days of ED... I just noticed on my profile that I joined the forum on this day - 26th September 2007! A lot has changed in the that time. Trying to think what hasn't... The EDT perhaps?

I suspect the through traffic ceased in the 60's or 70's speaking to my dad, but not sure.

This is interesting, I've struggled to find exactly when they stopped through traffic. It looks like you could still drive around the park up to 2004, but (I think) only by entering from the Old College Gate: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20040622/Agenda/Item 07 - Limitations onAccess to Dulwich Park for Motor Vehicles a Report.pdf

I'm not ignoring it. I literally posted a picture above which shows the amount of room it takes to transport the same number of people by private car, bicycle and bus.

No one is being stopped using a car. Southwark have not said that they aim to ensure people 'cannot use a car'. You are correct that it is often quicker to use a bike, but that is simply due to congestion caused by too many cars. More bikes = less congestion. In terms of more people getting about by bike meaning more people cycling carelessly - it also means fewer people getting about by car and driving carelessly. Whilst neither is desirable, the former is substantially less problematic than the latter. To answer what one should do about poor / dangerous road behaviour - it should be policed effectively. And yet, still there are substantially more road accidents, serious injuries and deaths caused by cars. So even with those extra measures, the danger posed to others is significantly higher by several orders of magnitude (which obviously explains why we apply stricter standards in the first place).

Lime bikes have a top assisted speed of 14.8mph, at that point the motor switches off. You can obviously go faster than that, but the motor doesn't help you (and the weight of it actively works against you). I apologise, that was not you, but Heartblock. My error.

As DogKennelhillbilly says, this is absolute nonsense. SUVs are much more dangerous, most notably because the high bonnet height leads to more head and upper body injuries. Some studies suggest that they are eight times more likely to kill a child in a collision (compared to a passenger car) and more than twice as likely to kill an adult. They are also much more likely to mount a kerb and smash through barriers etc (they were originally designed to be 'off road' vehicles after all). We saw the tragic consequences of that in the Wimbledon nursery crash. Their growth in popularity is nothing to do with safety regs and all to do with marketing.