exdulwicher

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.

Not really - turn right on red has been A Thing for motorists in many US states for years now, it's basically accepting that there are situations where a filter would be appropriate but for whatever reason it's too expensive / time consuming to put them in as a formal set of lights. A lot of US states have something similar for cyclists called the Idaho Stop - Idaho as the state that introduced it. Basically says that cyclists can treat a red light as a STOP sign and a STOP sign as a Give Way. So if you get to a red light, stop, can see that the way for a bike is clear and it's safe for everyone, you can make the turn. It;s a tacit admission that bikes are not cars and sometimes measures designed for cars are not entirely necessary for bikes. On the other hand, if you blow through a red light, mowing down pedestrians every which way, you can expect to be severely punished for it, there are traffic cops everywhere in the US. As a result, the road laws are generally complied with. Same in Australia where there are routine stop and search operations, regular speed checks and the fines (for drivers and cyclists) are eye-wateringly expensive and heavily enforced. The issues the Government is having with taxes and the welfare bill could be solved in a couple of weeks by actually doing some proper traffic enforcement (and to be clear, I mean on both drivers and cyclists). An issue mostly created by the pricing structure that Lime use which charges by the minute. People don't want to pay 25p to sit there at a red light for 2 minutes. Santander mostly avoids this by charging in "blocks" of time which largely removes the time pressure element because it doesn't matter if you ride for 5 minutes or 20, you still pay the same amount.

It's still a factually correct definition and given that Stonehenge, and every other significant henge, were built around astronomy, you could argue that it's the original one. You must be furious that the schools haven't started summer holidays given that we are (apparently) in "the height of summer". To be fair, for once the complaint wasn't about road closures or disruption but the much more important definition of "summer"... 😉

Meteorological summer starts on 1st June: June / July / August is meteorological summer, autumn starts 1st September. Astronomical summer, which is connected to Earth's tilt & rotation around the sun, begins on 21st June and ends on 22nd September. Summer solstice, the longest day of the year is today, 21st June. So he's right, even if it's a sentence that doesn't really sound correct.

Buy one shop, get 824 shops free. But I only went in for some shampoo!

Did it look like this? 😉

Back in about 2016 there was a rewrite of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives (it's not exactly a fascinating read, I warn you now...) that required certain signs - things like "New Road Layout Ahead" or "Changed Priorities Ahead" - to have a yellow sticker on the back with a note that they were temporary signs and they should be removed by [date]. And to have a contact number for the council on there. So any of those can easily be reported. IN theory, councils are supposed to have a record of this stuff but in practice, most no longer have the resources to manage small scale highways assets effectively. Thanks, austerity.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a consultation is. The question is not "should be do X, yes or no?" The question is "we are doing X [because - state reasons], do you want version 1 or version 2?". That's perfectly normal and legal and above board and if you think about it, I bet we all do the same in day-to-day life. You don't say to your young kids "what do you want for dinner?" because that's too open-ended and can result in impossible requests. You present two options that you can actually deliver. Pizza or lasagne (for example). You might then get a bit more creative with pizza toppings but you're essentially offering two options that you have in the house (or can quickly order), it's not going to result in an impossible request that you can't deliver. Nor does it easily allow for the option of not having dinner. We are having a meal, here are your options. The council have done the same. We are putting some minor restrictions on traffic because [road danger, pollution, congestion, parking etc], should we do it via this method or that? Now in theory, everyone wants less road danger, pollution and congestion (much the same as everyone wants dinner), the mystery is how it generates such howls of outrage given the wealth of evidence that says LTNs, School Streets, pedestrianisation, more walking and cycling, less vehicle use etc are all good things. I mean you're basically complaining that the council are making the area a bit nicer.

Well it was only open to adult free males - no women, children or slaves allowed to have a say. So I'm not entirely sure that's the best argument in favour...

There have been Judicial Reviews done on many (if not most) of these schemes including one brought against Southwark by One Dulwich. Up until now, they've all been thrown out in their entirety and even this one only scraped by on one of the three counts. Besides, as explained, it does not automatically render the scheme unlawful. It examines the process, not the outcome.

Over the course of about 10 years there were at least 4 consultations on Dulwich Square which finally ended with the only design that could actually meet the original brief. One of the early reports (2016? 2017?) gave 3 options: what the council went with something about multiple roundabouts which I think actually referenced a scheme in Poynton (a village near Manchester which, again after extensive back and forth, finally installed (sorry, "imposed"...) a weird double roundabout system which, depending on your point of view is either a brilliantly innovative success or a total disaster - absolute proof that you will NEVER achieve any sort of consensus). a couple of other vague half-way-house type options In 2018, after all of that consultation, a bunch of re-prioritisation, new road markings, some buildouts etc went in - a scheme which failed all of TfL's route guidance but which apparently satisfied some of the NIMBY issues. Back to the drawing board for yet more consultations, in 2019 there were 3 phases of consultations over about 18 months which then ran up against Covid and the change of plans anyway but did allow Southwark (and numerous other councils around the country) to rapidly deliver on Streetspace plans which all had live feedback consultation. Out of Covid and in 2021 there was yet more consultation, the scheme finally made permanent but with watered-down aspects to appease the Onesies. Then it was council elections - remember that, where the Tory boy standing on a specific "rip out the LTNs on Day 1" was going to annihilate the "Socialist Labour Clowncil", send them running for the hills? Just remind me how that went will you? Cos it was hilarious. And then miraculously, he turned up an a council meeting, this time as the "spokesperson for One Dulwich" - well I never. Claiming to "represent the community" And he got his arse handed to him on a plate when it was pointed out that the actual community representative was - gosh - the elected councillor, not him. More hilarity. That should have been the end of it but Southwark then embarked on another 18 months of consultation around final design which One Dulwich did everything possible to disrupt and water down before finally, there's a completed scheme. So yes - you have been endlessly consulted. Repeated extra consultations. You cannot argue that you have not been consulted. You can get upset that the majority did not agree with you but not about the consultation.

The council were voted in on a manifesto. That means they've been given tacit support for at least the broad brush promises made in that manifesto, they should not then need to seek yes/no answers to everything they do. Consultations are a tricky one. Done well, they can engage and bring the community along on a journey. Done badly, they're a major source of distrust, anger and misunderstanding. Part of it is down to the questions you ask. Asking people who are not policy experts questions such as "what would you like to see?" is painful - people don't know that or they can't imagine that. Steve Jobs famously said that he never asked the customers what they wanted because most people don't know. If he'd have asked people what they wanted before they invented the iPhone, the answer would have been "a phone with a longer cord". If he'd have asked people what they wanted before they invented the iPod, the answer would have been "a Walkman with longer battery life". They're pointless questions that can only ever give worthless answers. And when you don't deliver a Walkman with longer battery life, people go "what is this, I didn't ask for this" and get angry and frustrated that they've wasted their time on engagement but not been given the solution they wanted - even though an iPod is a vast improvement on a Walkman with longer battery life. And what the council should be doing is designing the borough equivalent of an iPod.

They're turtle-y different. 😉 They hibernate, burying themselves under mud or at the bottom of the pond. There have been regular sightings in there (and in Dulwich Park) for years and terrapins can live for 15-20 years in the wild, 30+ years in captivity. They are however an invasive species - whether or not the RSPCA or a local wildlife charity would come out to try and trap / remove them is another matter.