exdulwicher

Gas works

To repeat what I said earlier, it depends what you are studying. The 2021 report looked at "Covid LTNs" so it's fairly obvious it's not looking at historic modal filters - a concept which by the way dates back way before 2015 and is still the mainstay of planning in new-build housing developments now in the form of cul-de-sacs. In fact to return to my plane crash analogy, if you were looking specifically at crashes caused by pilot error, it'd be a different dataset to crashes caused by engine failure, even though they are all "plane crashes" and there would undoubtedly be some overlap. Engine failure followed by pilot error for example.

If you read the methodology (I know, right?!) of the various studies, you'll see that it depends on exactly what they're studying and exactly when the LTN was put in. There was one about car ownership inside LTNs as well (slight decrease in general) which looked at a different number again because of how the data was collected and validated and cross referenced with census data. If you're doing a study in 2021 for example and it requires before and after data of a year then it stands to reason that you can ONLY look at LTNs installed at least a year ago (and even then, depending on exactly what data you're examining, not all LTNs will be suitable). If you then do a different study in 2024, requiring before and after data, you'll have a different set of LTNs to be looking at. It's like looking at aviation crashes in 2010 then again in 2020. You'll have a lot more data both in terms of the number of crashes but also the detail available to you since black box data now is way more advanced than it was in 2010. It's effectively a different subset of data. But all these studies require you to actually read what the study is looking at, what dataset is being used and how it was validated. I know you're trying desperately to find some kind of hook to latch your conspiracy theory onto but actually it's completely the opposite - the mark of excellent research.

I find myself in the wholly unfamiliar situation of agreeing 100% with something that Penguin has written! 😉 I think they're an answer to a largely non-existent problem but because politicians and big industry like answers that involve "technology" and especially the exciting sounding "AI", the trials are almost an inevitability. And the last thing London (or indeed most cities) needs is yet more cars cruising around and around waiting for fares.

Very much so. If you go and stand in a road and claim that - as a pedestrian - you have priority, you'll be arrested for causing an obstruction. Liability and "being in the right" also doesn't help much when you're dead. You can step onto a pedestrian crossing and get mown down by a truck or be cycling entirely legally and get taken out by a left-turning car going across you; the fact that you were technically in the right won't really make a lot of difference to your bereaved family. Sometimes, the world does actually rely on everyone looking out for themselves and each other.

In order of your questions: Chances are that the cyclist also falls off and is hurt. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, most cyclists do not ride around looking to run into anyone or anything. Liability - it depends. Are you dancing erratically down a cycle lane, wearing headphones? Have you dashed into the road from between parked cars without looking and straight into the path of a cyclist? If so, you could easily argue that you are much more to blame. On the other hand, are you walking carefully along a pavement when a cyclist hurtles (cyclists always "hurtle"...) around a corner and straight into you? If so, you could easily argue that the cyclist is 100% in the wrong. There will be any number of "shades of grey" around that, much the same as drivers seem to get off significant amounts of responsibility by claiming that they had nowhere to go or the sun was in their eyes. Insurance - this is a complete red herring. Anyone can make a (legitimate) claim for damages against anyone else. If someone in a supermarket car park smashes their trolley down the side of your car, if an uninsured driver is involved in an incident, if you bump into another pedestrian and you both fall over... You do the same as you would with any road traffic collision (witnesses, photos, look for CCTV and so on), you can go via any number of no-win-no-fee solicitors who specialise in personal accident and injury stuff, if the incident is severe enough to warrant medical care then that'll be reported via the appropriate channels. The police may or may not attend (and again, that would depend on the severity of the incident) but you can get a crime reference number (and let's face it, they won't attend the majority of burglaries or other "minor" crimes either). Chances are you'll find that the cyclist (and you as a pedestrian) has some form of insurance anyway - might be legal / liability cover bolted onto home insurance, something within a life insurance policy... Plus there is of course the Motor Insurance Bureau which is a fund paid into by insurers (and ultimately, us) to compensate victims of uninsured and hit-and-run drivers, it will also apply to a hit-and-run cycling incident. And a lot of cyclists will have cycle insurance for incidents as part of membership of any cycling organisation or included within theft cover on a bike. If they're on a Lime / Forest hire bike, they'll be on a blanket insurance policy via the hire company. But generally, the whole insurance thing is a complete distraction. Police - see above. Depends on the severity of the incident and what (if any) crime has been committed. I can't answer the last one because I can't speak for the cyclist in question.

Well the truth is that the two Tory candidates were standing on a specifically anti-LTN platform; it was (allegedly) the issue dividing Dulwich, the main concern for the poor residents. The Labour councillors were going to be sent running for the hills, the majority would speak. Then the result came in and the anti-LTNers were all left scrambling around for an explanation. It's like the data though. The data will come in, it'll show gridlock, smog, chaos on the roads... And then the data comes in and you're left scrambling around for an explanation (oh it's fixed, it's rigged, [personal attack on the researchers], it's not showing the true picture...) I'm not even sure if Rockets knows what arguments he's making or why. This has got to the point of conspiracy theory levels of argument. Doesn't matter how much data and evidence is presented, people will still argue that the Earth is flat / the moon landings didn't happen. It's like playing chess with a pigeon - you can explain the nuances of the game as much as you want but the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board then strut around like it's won.

Schroedinger's LTN. Simultaneously a dramatic drop in injuries and incidents because, in the words of One Dulwich's Senior Researcher, "it's bleeding obvious" Also a dramatic rise in the number of injuries and incidents because "cyclists". We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned researchers, peer-reviewed journals and award winning journalists...

I think this is where Wikipedia would use the term "citation needed". You seem to know about a vast swathe of incidents caused by cyclists in spite of them never being reported...

That's not how accident reporting works. If someone goes / is taken to hospital for an injury, they are asked how that injury was sustained. Could be falling off a ladder, hit and run (from a car), hit and run (from a bike), being in a car which crashed into something.... That's recorded. That's where the stats come from. It's cross-referenced with police reports if they attend a road traffic collision (they don't always, especially if it's just what the Americans term a "fender bender") and a picture is built up of locations, severity of incidents, frequency of incidents and so on. You can further correlate that with traffic data to look at delays and locations. Insurance has nothing to do with it by the way. Also, the public version of CrashMap only has data on it up until 2023. You have to go for the pro version available to councils to get more recent / in-depth than that.

So... LTNs are good then? You're SO nearly there Rockets... Come on, just that one little extra step...

It wasn't "given", it's freely available online. It's very common that people (in any professional walk of life) will keep an eye on relevant websites, publications etc. Most academics and journalists will be signed up to all sorts of mailing lists, access to journals, social media accounts and so on, literally anyone could have got that report and written about it if they were interested enough. Even you. Strangely, the Mail and Telegraph - in spite of their massive "interest" in LTNs - haven't picked up on it... Wonder why?!

Wheelchairs (manual or powered), mobility scooters, prams / buggies / pushchairs, skateboarding, scooters (nominally manual ones, can only apply to e-scooters when they're part of a hire scheme cos obviously private ones remain illegal on public land but that's a slight tangent to this). Even things like zimmer frames and shopping trolleys. A lot of "wheeled" devices are mobility aids for elderly / disabled so any features such as wider / smoother pavements, better crossing points, seating and so on is really beneficial. Same with a parent pushing a double buggy for example.

Very true. In some respects, "society" has created this issue with delivery drivers and riders (and Uber). Food delivery companies promise you'll get your takeaway within 30 minutes - that doesn't leave much time for the restaurant to receive your order, prepare and pack it and for the rider / driver to then get it to you. They're almost incentivised to break the law. With delivery riders (all of them on zero hours / "pay per drop" conditions), literally the only way they can do this all day every day is to buy a bunch of cheap knock-off batteries and a motor from some dodgy online retailer, strap them to some old mountain bike and blat around on that. Minimal expenditure (cos they can't afford proper legal electric bicycles) and minimal regulation (cos they're all working under dodgy conditions anyway, half of them are probably on the verge of slave labour / exploitation / no legal right to work) so they can't get UK driving licences as required for mopeds / motorbikes. Lime riders are mostly on pay-per-minute (Lime do offer the option to buy blocks of time as a "Day Pass", I don't have any figures on how many people use that option). Uber drivers are all rushing to the next fare, knowing that if they're late they'll get a bad review. The whole system has created a sub-group of road users who are incentivised to speed, use mobile phones (cos everything they're doing is app-based, all their orders are received that way) and jump red lights. I don't really have any suggestions of how to put that genie back in the bottle, I'm not justifying their behaviour, just explaining some aspects of it. There was a long discussion on road.cc a couple of years ago about a proposed law change (which never made it beyond talking about it) and notes a few examples from around the world where cyclists can (in certain circumstances) treat red lights as a Stop or Give Way: https://road.cc/content/news/should-cyclists-be-allowed-ride-through-red-lights-298809

It is very much in the interest of cab drivers to drive to the speed limit and stop at every red light, they earn more that way! Cabbies are normally worse on mobile phone offences though.