exdulwicher

The RLJ is a separate issue so I didn't mention it because as far as I can tell it's not related to the use (or otherwise) of the faded lines of paint masquerading as a cycle lane. In the past on other threads I've explained why some cyclists might jump lights some of the time but I've never condoned it.

You can't really have the first part without the last part. The reason that so many bus routes got shortened a few years ago was that longer routes are far more prone to delays. A 5 min delay at the start can be magnified into a 20 min delay by the end on a 2-3hr journey from the suburbs up into central London which also starts impacting driver working hours and forcing driver changeovers which further delays the service. You also end up with a huge crush of buses all trying to go to Strand, Oxford Circus, Piccadilly etc. It's far more efficient to run shorter services, you need fewer buses (since they're being turned around quicker) which means you free up buses to increase the frequency, either on that route or a connecting route. The Hopper fare means you're still paying the same flat rate, you're not being charged twice but you simply can't have bus routes from everywhere to everywhere else, chances are you're going to have to change somewhere. If you want faster, more reliable services, you need the 24/7 bus lanes and bus priority lights. If you want more pleasant services (less crowded / more comfortable etc) you need fewer people per bus so higher frequency (therefore shorter routes) and nice safe waiting shelters with good quality info, lighting, CCTV etc. That is invariably more important to more people than having a bus that goes door-to-door for every possible destination. If you just add more buses to the mix, you end up with more buses stuck in traffic.

And as I said, regardless of the existence (or otherwise) of the appalling pretend cycle lane along there, no traffic can overtake him anyway without pulling clear into the opposite lane in order to give the required 1.5m space. Rule 213 On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 1 metre from parked cars for their own safety. On narrow sections of road, horse riders may ride in the centre of the lane. Allow them to do so for their own safety to ensure they can see and be seen. Motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make. Just because you can't see any debris, potholes, drainage grids etc from your vantage point behind the wheel of a car doesn't mean it's not there.

24/7 bus lanes. Bus clearways and bus priority measures.

You mean along here? Google Streetview That not-remotely-compliant-with-modern-standards, barely-a line-of-paint, worse-than-useless "cycle lane"? The one that stops and starts at intermittent points and is barely wide enough for a set of handlebars...? That was put in years ago as a tickbox exercise way before there were any standards around these things. The weaving in and out will be because it'll be full of glass, grit and other debris that could cause a puncture (plus probably the odd parked car, vehicle trying to turn out, pulled-in bus etc). It's one of those no-win situations. If the cyclist had ridden just to the right of it, you'd have complained he wasn't using the lane. If he rides in it, he's too close to the kerb (cos the lane is stupidly narrow and rubbish) and he's in all the debris. Plus a couple of other factors: To overtake, according to the Highway Code (and I know how much everyone on here quotes that when it suits...), you need to give 1.5m of space so basically you need to be pulling into the opposite lane. The existence of the apparent "cycle lane" doesn't change that. Also, the speed limit along there is 30mph, the cyclist (from your description a club cyclist on a decent road bike) was probably doing near enough 20 so there's not a big speed differential. Actually to ride along there, the position I'd take is pretty much wheels ON the line of paint, that's as close to the kerb as the Highway Code advises (my bold in the quoted text below). Rule 72 Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation. 1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you 2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads. So what you witnessed along there in terms of riding position was a total failure of cycle infrastructure (and I use that word in it's loosest sense) rather than a failure of cycling.

Also applies to dropping food on the floor and picking it up again. Or is that 5 seconds?

They've been updated a few times, I'd have to look to see the latest incarnation. It's not that "lights are a legal requirement but no-one cares". I think even the dumbest chav knows that they *should* have lights. Whether they care or not is another matter and (in true stereotypical fashion), if said chav is using said bike to go out and mug someone for their phone, the lights aren't really the issue! It's that lights are a legal requirement (and frankly ANY light so long as it's white at the front, red at the rear would be a win) but that the actual legalities of lights in terms of what British Standard they're supposed to meet, quoted lumens or wattage or whatever is a complete minefield. Personally, I don't know or care if my lights fulfil some British Standard from 20 years ago, I always have them on even in daylight.

Amber pedal reflectors. A wildly outdated piece of legislation that fails to recognise that many pedals (especially the clipless ones but also most modern MTB pedals) simply don't have them and won't accept them (there's nowhere to mount them). Arguably they're worse than useless anyway because reflective ankle bands or shoe detailing is just as effective. I assume you mean sunset and sunrise...? The problem is that the lighting regulations have not kept up with lighting tech, there's a variety of British Standard regulations that lights are supposed to adhere to which are so out of date that pretty much nothing actually falls within it and the police neither know nor care about the details. There have been police operations over the years (often around this time of year when the clocks go back) where the police have handed out cheap light sets to cyclists without lights along with an instruction to get some better ones ASAP.

Presumably at the same point the person doesn't feel any sympathy for a female victim of assault cos well, that skirt she was wearing, she doesn't deserve any sympathy. Same with that kid who got mugged cos well what was he doing walking through there at that time of night, doesn't deserve any sympathy. You left a window open, of course you got burgled, you don't deserve any sympathy. Maybe everyone in Gaza being shelled to bits could just have upped and left, they probably don't deserve any sympathy either. It's a horrible phrase and frankly anyone using it - whether it's for a cyclist being knocked off or the more extreme examples I've cited above - really needs a long hard look in the mirror because victim blaming doesn't solve anything, in fact it often marginalises or makes excuses for criminal behaviour.

The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to. Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..." Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation. To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere...

So... you saw them then? In spite of them having no lights (and presumably being dressed in all black / coming out of nowhere / insert any other standard anti-cyclist trope here). I've long thought that the best way of being visible as a cyclist is to wear all black, have no lights and to ride on the pavement (or jump red lights). Not only does literally *everyone* see you, they pop onto the local forum to complain about you! On the other hand if you dress in all yellow and get T-boned, the driver will still manage to say "sorry mate, I didn't see you". 😉

The northern end (Townley up to Goose Green) is actually not too badly served, average distance of about 180m between crossing points (they're closer further north, a bit further apart at the southern end up to Townley). After that though, there's no provision at all until you get to The Plough which is over 500m away. It's more residential at that end so more people coming out of a house and needing to cross to the adjacent bus stop for example. There's a day care centre, a church, then up towards The Plough is Sainsburys and various other busy shops. There's always people running out from behind parked cars and pulled-in buses along that stretch. And from the Library, there's nothing else until you get to Overhill Road, another 500+ metres of wide road, mostly residential so people wanting / needing to cross at regular intervals. Same again from there to the South Circ junction, that's 300+ metres of no provision. I'd argue that from Goose Green to Townley, it's not too bad but from there on heading south, it's a disaster and needs at least another 4 crossings.

From the first line in that article you linked to: A record-high of nearly 10 million fines were issued to London drivers last year in what experts claim to be a “money-making exercise”. What experts? Who are they? There's no indication there as to who these "experts" actually are, who they work for... Surely that fails the very first part of your transparency test? In other threads, you're arguing that much more should be done to fine cyclists for these same offences, but when it comes to drivers, you're outraged at this apparent cash cow. Tad hypocritical don't you think? 42,000 fines in 23/24, 48,000 fines in 24/25 - as you care so much about safety on the roads, surely you should be outraged that there's that number of people breaking the rules? Or more to the point, that number of people being caught, it'll be a tiny fraction of those that commit the same offences and aren't caught. It's not a pile-on, don't be so melodramatic. The thing is, there's actually some useful, constructive and positive debate to be had here but you insist on turning everything into a conspiracy. It's like trying to "debate" with a Flat Earther. Every time you debunk their nonsense, they go further down the line of "you're must be in on it, you're a paid NASA shill, you're ideologically obsessed with the globe model..." Same here, you've accused several people (including me I believe) of being paid council shills, we're ideologically obsessed with cycling, we're anti-car... And yet you never see that same aspect (from the other side of the coin) in yourself. Although actually on a revived thread a little while ago I did find this (see below) and I thought: Rockets and I agree on something! I was going to add that you must prefer it because it's right on the lovely Dulwich Square and then thought that your blood pressure might not take such accusations! 😉

Maybe look in the mirror Rockets. It's always you that starts these threads - a link to a headline, a tenuous link to Dulwich / Southwark and a "conclusion" that happens to match your exact opinions on the subject. I'm willing to bet that if we did a posts by author count on the Transport board, your name would account for at least 1/3rd of the input. THAT is relentless... This ^^ - Earl comes along and fact-checks you, you double down on it and drag out complexities and exhausting details - in this case stuff about exactly where your car wheel can cross a bus lane, but you've done it before with the exact positioning of a traffic counter on a road or the timing of roadworks for example. Southwark's Conspiracy Department must really have their hands full dealing with all this! No wonder they need all the money from poor hard-working drivers, it's to pay the wages of the "where shall we put a traffic counter today?" team and the "where should we paint a bus lane to cause maximum distress to Rockets?" crew and the "no, wait a week until we start those roadworks to inconvenience as many people as possible" department... 😉

The problem this year is that 5th November falls on a Wednesday. So some places will be bringing their "bonfire night" forward to Saturday 1st and some will be knocking it back to Saturday 8th and there'll probably be a few that just go with Wednesday 5th anyway. If you're doing a public display, having it on a weekend gets more crowds. Which basically means a solid week of fireworks.

Individual crashes - unlikely. Not a lot can stop someone who's determined to drive at 50mph while drunk at 3am. Collectively (when driving in normal traffic conditions) - yes. All it needs is one car doing 20mph and everyone else behind is forced to drive at 20. Medical episodes - statistically, medical issues are a factor in about 7% of crashes so it's pretty rare (certainly rare enough to usually not immediately leap to that as a "well the driver could have had a medical episode!" excuse that gets trotted out here as soon as a car ends up in a wall) but if the speed limit is 20, assuming the driver is doing 20-ish at the time they have this incredible coincidence heart attack, the out of control car is going to do less damage than one doing 30mph.

It's right there Rockets, you've said that slowing traffic has an economic impact. I'm assuming something something people sitting in their car for longer instead of being at their desk Doing Important Work...? The flipside is that there's an economic impact to collisions as well. A vehicle / pedestrian crash at 30mph is about 8x more severe (8x higher likelihood of death) than a crash at 20mph. https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/speed/speed-and-injury At 20mph you're less likely to crash, if you do crash the consequences are much less severe. You've seen the pics on here of cars on their roofs, cars in central reservations (usually playing them down with the inevitable "we don't know what happened!!") - what about the economic impact of clearing up all that, the delays, the impact on the NHS, the cost to insurance (and ultimately the customer)? There's an economic impact to congestion as well. At 20mph, traffic flows more smoothly (it's right there in the CIHT report I linked to), journey times are more reliable. There's another (very in depth) report here about driving styles, pollution, journey times and so on also looking at the type of vehicle. https://futuretransport.info/urban-traffic-research/ Towards the bottom of that page, there is a link to a computer simulation model looking at vehicle sizes, normal stop/go urban traffic and speed limits and the conclusion was that if everyone drove golf cart vehicles at 15mph, everyone would get to the destination faster based on a combination of smaller vehicles being more space-efficient (you can fit more of them through a set of green lights) with lower speed limits reducing congestion and smoothing traffic flow. These kind of threads are always entertaining. 20mph in a car is far too slow, inefficient, "economic impact", it's too difficult to drive at 20mph, it's not appropriate on this road blah blah. 20mph on a bike is reckless and foolhardy and hooligan and lycra lout and "what if they hit someone?!" Standard motorcentric attitude...

Page 3, a post you made on Oct 23rd:

That ^^ from the previous page asking about links to studies on 20mph and effect on journey times... https://www.ciht.org.uk/news/20mph-speed-limits-mean-more-reliable-journeys/ CIHT is Chartered Institute of HIghways and Transportation. Click on the link above and read the report then there are other links taking you to who they are, what they do etc. Your critical point of failure in this argument is assuming that a 30mph limit means people drive at a steady and consistent 30. No-one, in the entire history of the universe, has ever driven along the South Circular at a consistent 30mph. You might get up to 30 (or even 40, although naturally no-one on here has ever exceeded the speed limit at all) but then you'll get to lights, traffic, junctions, a herd of irresponsible cyclists who think they own the road, a badly parked lorry, the front of a school at 3pm.. It is impossible to do a steady 30, you just arrive at the next pinch point or congestion fractionally sooner. As the report shows, if you smooth the flow out by doing lower speeds, more cars can fit onto the same amount of road, there's less gas / brake / gas / brake that causes so much variance in speed and less wear and tear on your car and the road. And less vibration going through the road means fewer burst water mains too. Your journey time *might* be fractionally slower at 20mph (although this is highly dependent on how far you're going and on what roads at what time of day) but the variance in journey time (the difference between the slowest journey and the fastest) is less so it's more consistent. And consistency / reliability of journey time is a bigger factor for most people than actual time taken.

It's usually a combination of "nearly Halloween", "nearly Bonfire Night", "weekend" and "dickheads". You can adjust the sliding scale on each of those factors most nights for the next 3-4 weeks.

And you then quote an extensive section of the report outlining 20mph zones and why it's a bit more difficult to analyse them but it's all still valid data... ??? And it's still got nothing to do with cyclists (or drivers) jumping red lights. Edit: I've also explained on another thread about the issues of "free-flow" and why it's really quite a nebulous concept in urban environments.

That's a bit rich coming from you Rockets! The forum is full of your selective use of stats, cherry picking of data, misreading / misunderstanding of articles, unfounded accusations against Southwark / Rachel Aldred / Peter Walker / the "active travel lobby" and numerous threads where you rail against cyclists and cycle lanes in general. And any time there's anything about a vehicle collision or incident, you'll look to minimise it, have a go at anyone criticising it and then it just becomes like this thread has, an increasingly tiresome tit-for-tat where you'll post some general nonsense, Earl will step in to correct it and you accuse him (her/it?) of doing exactly what you're doing. This thread has long since stopped being about cyclists jumping lights (one of at least 2 threads on the front page on that subject, see also https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/365768-why-do-cyclists-flaunt-the-rules-note-this-is-not-a-bashing-thread-and-should-not-be-turned-in-to-a-but-what-about-drivers-thread/ ) and just relapsed into the same old same old. Much like how the traffic drops noticeably during school holidays, it was very noticeable how the traffic on this section of the forum dropped significantly when you were on your little enforced "holiday"...

Agreed - it's already noted in the LTN 1/20 guidance (LTN in this case means Local Transport Note, not Low Traffic Neighbourhood!). Basically it's the guidance setting out how infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling should be designed and built, and it covers shared space and segregated space but it notes that the old days where a council could paint a line down the middle of a pavement for a bit then put a blue "Cyclists Dismount" sign at the end of it is nowhere close to acceptable any more. This obviously applies double for any form of adapted bike, trike, cargo bike etc which are far bigger and far less manoeuvrable than "traditional" bikes which is largely what has been accommodated so far. Thankfully there are an increasing number of parking bays, cycle hangers etc designed for e-bikes, cargo bikes, adapted bikes etc now. Give over Rockets. Funny how pedantry is really your strong point when it suits you but now you're just going "they're all e-bikes!" They're not, at all. Even the law says they're not so your statement is simply wrong. "e-bike" (in the colloquial term) refers to EAPC - Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle. These are the legal bikes sold by reputable manufacturers and it also includes Lime, Dott etc. No throttle, the motor can only assist when pedalling, the motor cuts out at 25kph blah blah. It's all enshrined in law. You can even read about it here cos I know how much you'll want references and data points and "where did you get this info from?" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs-in-great-britain-information-sheet However "e-bike" is also used colloquially (and incorrectly) to refer to any sort of electrically-powered 2-wheel bike-shaped thing, usually by people who don't know or care about the differences and sometimes by media seeking some clickbait. If it has a throttle, it's regarded in law as a moped or motorbike. That can actually be legal if it's registered, insured, taxed, has a number plate and so on. But you can buy them from any number of websites including Amazon, sold under the guise of "they're legal if they're only used on private land" disclaimer which as we all know is a total get-out clause. Whatever "crackdown" has to happen needs to be from a mix of angles. Confiscate the illegal bikes, absolutely. But then the Uber Eat / Deliveroo lot simply beg, borrow, buy or steal another one and they're back on the road in 24hrs - mostly because the whole system of gig economy basically demands that they use the cheapest fastest mode of transport possible. You also need to go after the online sellers saturating the market with illegal bikes, the back-street "workshops" that work on them or modify them (most reputable bike shops won't touch them) and the people selling crap quality batteries. All those battery fires are from illegally modified bikes, often being used with aftermarket batteries and incompatible chargers. Actual EAPCs from reputable manufacturers aren't a problem. And in law, EAPC is regarded as "a bike". Same as any other normal road-legal bike. Allowed to use the same trails, paths, infrastructure as any other normal road-legal bike.

Not easily. Firstly, they're called Civil Enforcement Officers and, in England, they simply don't have the legal powers to be stopping people. There is an option, which I've mentioned before, where a council can create a Public Spaces Protection Order - this is a measure used to control anti-social behaviour so you have to state the issue being addressed (eg drinking in a public place) and the area that it is applied to, so it can't just be "everywhere", you'd have to state (eg) "Lordship Lane between Goose Green and North Cross Road" and that can be enforced by police & PCSO's and delegated council officials (who must carry ID). They're a bit of a blunt instrument and they can't just be put in any old how; there has to be a reason and a consultation on if it's the right approach in the right place. The more serious traffic offences (RLJ, mobile phone use, speeding etc) are prosecuted by the police (or by cameras) and (usually) a fine issued unless it really is serious (like causing injury or death) in which case it'll go to court. This also picks up on a point made a few weeks back: This is just not true. Fines, as issued by the police or automatically by camera for the offences I mentioned, go to central government. They're not ringfenced, they don't affect future police funding (or lack thereof). The only exception is when a driver gets offered something like a speed awareness course where the fine is used to pay for the venue, the trainers and the training material. The council can only enforce existing traffic regulations in their area so stuff like parking (which was specifically given to councils to free up police time for more serious crimes), and infringement of local restrictions like driving in a bus lane or through an LTN. The funds from that do go to the council but are ringfenced for Highways use, usually road safety stuff. As usual, pretty much all the legislation for dealing with this is already in place. Police can (and do) stop cyclists for RLJ and there's been a noticeable crackdown on use of illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, especially up around City of London. But ultimately, there has to be a sense of proportion around it. Same as you can't catch every speeding driver, you focus on the areas where that speeding is definitely dangerous like outside a school at 3.30pm.

Not removed as such - there are raised tables (like flattened speed bumps) installed which help both to slow down drivers and to provide a level crossing surface for wheelchair users / buggies etc. Better than dropped kerbs, it essentially raises the road to kerb level so it's a lot easier for pedestrians to negotiate while also providing a clearer visual aspect to drivers. And kerbs have never stopped drivers going onto the pavement. If you want to actually stop that you need bollards or guardrails.