Earl Aelfheah

...the same old claims that are demonstrably untrue. This bit was interesting though: "we fully support the Council’s policies of reducing car use, reducing carbon emissions, and making cycling and walking safer". Just not in any practical, or tangible way whatsoever. And certainly not if it means reallocating any space so as to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles.

Must try this, thanks Humdinger

I also went there on a freebie, so you may be right!

Geofencing / speed limiters should be standard on all new cars. Crazy that use such technology on electric scooters but not motor vehicles.

Wow, that's terrible.

We shouldn't accept dangerous driving just because it's a 'busy road'.

Who has said that riding a powered bike on a pavement is not inconsiderate? So why suggest that they have? This is, very clearly, a 'strawman' rhetorical device. So is using a title that suggests lot's of e-bikes driving on lot's of pavements, when relaying a tale of an electric bike being ridden on the pavement. In answer to the question, yes I live in ED and have done for several decades. I've never had someone ride passed me on the pavement endangering or alarming me, but perhaps I'm incredibly lucky? By all means criticise someone who is behaving dangerously. But I'm not interested in hearing yet more "cyclists running a mock - it' no longer safe to walk on the streets' type stuff, which is what the misleading title implies. If you look at this forum, one might be forgiven for thinking that bikes are causing significant harm to others, out of all proportion to say, private motor vehicles. If you believe that, then yes, there are some clear cognitive biases at play imo; because there is plenty of objective evidence that it is not the case.

No one thinks that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't inconsiderate and dangerous. But it's another good rhetorical device to ask about 'those that do', if you're looking to be divisive I guess. You may not have consciously constructed your post in this way, but I suspect you're just extremely accustomed to this framing of anything to do with 'cyclists' (aka people travelling on a bike) that it comes quite naturally. It's predictable, often repeated and tedious. Like saying: Title: Rollerbladers attacking park users I saw a fight in the park the other day. The instigator was a rollerblader. Is this a general problem? To those who think that it's ok for rollerbladers to attack park users... well, enough said!

I suspect that with the cost of living crisis, we may start to see crime rates trending up across the UK. Crime stats are a bit of a lagging indicator however, so I guess time will tell.

I think they have an 'air cooling' system - which isn't very good.

It's the interpretation of the academics who undertook the study actually. But I'm sure you are more qualified to interpret their findings than they are.

The original post relayed an anecdote about a careless individual behaving badly. Of course, that immediately got turned into a tribal debate about 'cyclists' and 'motorists' (who are most often the same people, at different times). So instead of a post being about inconsiderate behaviour, it becomes about 'us' versus 'them'. The title was constructed to encourage this, by suggesting that this single incident, was about something else - a widespread, regular and repeated problem. I can confidently say that I have never once come close to being hit by a cyclist whilst walking on the pavement in several decades living here. Sometimes people behave badly. No one should ride an e-bike on the pavement. But there are several, obvious and tedious rhetorical slights of hand and / or cognitive errors at play here. Group attribution error, alongside confirmation bias, leads many to notice and remember infringements by individuals travelling on bike and then ascribe it to a whole group of ‘bloody cyclists’ (often while ignoring, or quickly forgetting the myriad of regular and far more dangerous driving infringements, likely by the same individuals)... See also, fundamental attribution error, out-group bias and theories on 'othering' generally. So yes, 'a guy (who was travelling by bike) passed me on the pavement'. Great story. But not 'Electric bikes being ridden on pavements'. ...unless someone seriously wants to argue that this is a widespread, regular and repeated problem that is making walking in ED dangerous? I don't see evidence of it personally. Again great story though. Let's please have lot's more 'an incident annoyed me' posts.

It also measures all miles travelled. It includes journeys out of London (which likely are the longest journeys and one's that the LTN isn't going to impact). So for local journey's the effect is probably larger than the average 6% reduction. It's also only one study, which is part of a much bigger body of work, all of which suggest LTNs are effective.

For anyone interested, please read the research for yourself. Rockets conclusions are at odds with those undertaking the research. But he’s probably far more qualified than the academics who actually did the study right? It is of course just one piece or research, but one in an ever growing and consistent body of research showing that LTNs are being effective in cutting car use, journey mileage, increasing active travel and reducing road casualties. on the other side of the ‘debate’ there is no academic research I have seen supporting the arguments of the pro car dependency brigade. At this point if you still maintain that LTNs increase traffic or car use, or somehow reduce active travel, you have to dispute *all available evidence*, rely on anecdote, and / or believe in a vast conspiracy.

Great that you’re commenting on the methodology and findings without actually reading the research. You can read about it (if you feel there is any point) here: https://findingspress.org/article/75470-the-impact-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-levels-of-car-van-driving-among-residents-findings-from-lambeth-london-uk alternatively you can continue to refute the methodology and findings based purely on the fact that you don’t like LTNs so they mustn’t work. Either way, I’m sure it’ll confirm exactly what you already believed.

There is an ever growing and consistent body of research showing that LTNs are effective. There is no peer reviewed research I have seen supporting the now debunked arguments of the car dependency brigade. At this point if you still maintain that LTNs increase traffic or car use, or somehow reduce active travel, you have to dispute *all available evidence*, rely on anecdote, and / or believe in a vast conspiracy. Failing that, there is (the perhaps more honest) argument of ‘feck off, I like driving my car’.

I've had big problems with this in the past, but recently it seems to have improved a little where I am.

That's a total misrepresentation of the research again Rockets. Evidence suggests that LTNs lead to drops in number of journeys and (now also) vehicle miles driven. Separately there is data showing increases in walking and cycling and reductions in road casualties. For those interested... https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/ltn-study/ Here is the summary from the latest study (which adds to a growing and consistent body of evidence suggesting that LTNs work): "In summary, our findings suggest that residents in Lambeth started driving less once their area became an LTN. Notably, our outcome measure captures total past-year driving, including trips that the Lambeth LTNs are less likely to impact (e.g., inter-city trips, or travel outside London). It is plausible that for shorter and more local trips the relative decrease in LTN residents’ driving would be greater than the estimated 6% decrease in total past-year driving. This suggests that, in Lambeth and other similar inner-city areas, widespread roll-out of LTNs could make an important contribution towards reducing how much residents drive, and towards reducing local volumes of motor traffic."

Why the plural in the subject heading by the way? Were there multiple e-bikes being ridden on multiple pavements? Or did you just see a person behaving carelessly?

No one should be cycling on the pavement, especially on a (generally faster and heavier) e-bike. But "I saw an individual behaving carelessly" does not a thread make; So in comes the group attribution bias and the 'you can't criticise it, because 'they' will silence you' strawman. It's as predictable as it is boring. The individual probably behaves badly however he's travelling, or even when he's not. Great post though. Let's have more 'things I saw today' threads please.

Yes, a bike, or much more commonly, a car. Do write to them asking for the removal of more on-street car storage and wider pavements.

Maybe the new bays are starting to work? If we could also do something about all the wheelie bins and swap some of the free on street car storage for wider pavements, ED would be a lot more pedestrian friendly.

Some people park them inconsiderately. I tend to move them if I see this - just lift the back wheel and roll it off the pavement onto the road. Like said above, I think some of it is kids. The on road bays are a great improvement. If we could also address the bins and generally prioritise pavement widening over car storage, that would be even better.

I agree. They're great. You can get to Brixton tube in 10-15 minutes without braking a sweat.

'false flag' 🤪