TfL: huge increase in walk & cycle casualties in ED

[rollflick]

The area around East Dulwich has had one of the biggest increases in walking and cycling casualties, according to new data from TfL (see attached). SThe area between Barry Road and Lordship Lane saw over a 400% increase (dark crimson) between 2007-9 and 2016-18 (i.e. between two three year periods). Generally the part of the borough south of Camberwell Church Street and north of Court Lane plus east of Peckham Rye (the road) saw one of the worst increases in London. NB areas shown in white such as Peckham Rye park had insufficient data to show a statistically significant trend.

This doesn't *necessarily* mean it has become riskier, as there has been a big increase in cycling and an increase in population too, though there certainly has been a big increase in driving through minor roads at the same time as less motor traffic on Church Street / Peckham Road.

It does mean the council hasn't been doing enough, indeed it's done hardly anything in this area other than a 20mph speed limit and the gesture engineering of its stupid Spine cycle route. Next time the council says it wants "More walking and cycling", maybe time to ask them how it plans to meet its targets of radically reducing casualties on our streets. All the objective evidence points to reducing the domination of these streets by motor traffic and parked vehicles.

Source: p209 in Travel in London report (link at end of page)

https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/tfl-press-release-new-tfl-data-shows-significant-increase-in-walking-and-cycling-since-the-pandemic-started

[teetomthomas]

.

[slarti b]

rollflick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The area around East Dulwich has had one of the biggest increases in walking and cycling casualties

Edited to add, ok i see it now. A bit difficult to decipher tge map !

[Wil72]

Traffic sitting in endless queues due to LTN's, narrowed roads, ridiculously wide cycle & bus lanes- spewing out more pollution than they would be if they could just drive.

It is no surprise that people are getting irritated and there are more accidents. What ever happened to designing roads so that people could actually get somewhere on them?

Or is that an old fashioned idea?...

[KidKruger]

20mph zone means nothing if not enforced (with harsh penalty).

[malumbu]

WTF do the keyboard warriors have to yet again equate everything with making the world more cycle friendly with pollution. Also do your research, the most modern cars emit much less pollution than in previous years and decades. Yes KK 20mph zones, lower harm to both pedestrians and to cyclists when 2 tonnes of metal hit you. Can you imagine the squealing if the 20mph was enforced?

Back to the subject, I've looked at casualty maps over the years and on some of the hotspots eg E&C and Blackfriars Bridge I've never had problems. I expect an awful lot would be to do with familiarity of routes. I've always thought London roads were designed for me to get to places. By push bike.

If you were frightened of accidents you'd never go anywhere, walk, push bike and motor bike. One reason I stopped motorcycling was that I found cycling far less dangerous. I used to come in from almost Essex to central London, 15 miles of fighting the traffic, get to Gants Hill and wind it up on the dual carriageway.

I seem to be repeating myself on various threads so I need to refine and standardise the message, until it gets into your braiiiiins - four wheels good, two wheels better (with credit to George Orwell). Good night.

[h3+]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 20mph zone means nothing if not enforced (with

> harsh penalty).

Completely agree. The only time drivers do below 20mph is when they are in traffic

[KidKruger]

Malumbu - what do you mean ?Yes KK 20mph zones? ?!

The zones exist (good), are not enforced (defeats the purpose), are ignored by most drivers who get the opportunity to go faster.

[redpost]

Your idea is certainly old fashioned and pretty disgusting TBH, that is justifying road deaths and injuries on the basis of driver frustration

Wil72 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Traffic sitting in endless queues due to LTN's,

> narrowed roads, ridiculously wide cycle & bus

> lanes- spewing out more pollution than they would

> be if they could just drive.

>

> It is no surprise that people are getting

> irritated and there are more accidents. What ever

> happened to designing roads so that people could

> actually get somewhere on them?

>

> Or is that an old fashioned idea?...

[KidKruger]

redpost - I don?t know how you managed to extrapolate wil72?s comments to that conclusion, must have taken some effort !

Would be intrigued to see the working on that.

[malumbu]

Agreeing with your points KK, wasn't intended to be facetious. Pees me off the lack of impact that they have. Elsewhere the comment on a William Rose Low Pedestrian Network was facetious. Getting worried now that I am confusing my readers. Redpost I was looking for somebody posting under the name 'TBH' - it's been a long day. And only 6.30

[garages2018]

Maybe someone should look at lighting in the streets. Over hanging trees that need cutting with lights

covered by most of these tree's. Cycles that don't have lights this I see on every trip, People walking along

with mobiles stuck to there ears and to engrossed in conversation walk into the road hence accident.

So please don't keep going on about it being all cars are the problem look at the third party and educate them

[Nigello]

I agree with garages ? so many cyclists have no lights or bells. I?ve seen a mother/child pairing at night with no lights and just SMH. Yummy mummies and dishy daddies ? v?lo love to teach kutie kiddies by cycling on the pavement at rush hour (though some allow the children to ride on the footpath as they stick to the road, which is how it ought to be). Dulwich Village is the epicentre of this entitled behaviour in my experience. Safety is for all, not just those murderous motorists.

[Bicknell]

moved to right thread.

[Ruskin]

I thought I'd walk and not drive through ED for the 7am shop queues, but almost collided with an electric unicycle and its rider on the pavement at the bottom of DKH early this morning. Dressed head to foot in black and no lights - he was most indignant that I hadn't seen him come behind me, on the pavement, in the dark. Had it ended differently, it would have been better to drive.

[malumbu]

Excellent post by garages about wider problems and the need to educate.

Knee jerk by Nigello that all cyclists need birching

Keep up the constructive posts. But Malumbu quit stirring.

[tedfudge]

The road behind peckham police station is closed to traffic now aswell went to work last night and had to go towards old Kent road as a couple of other streets around the back of peckham police station are closed to traffic aswell it's gotten crazy.

[Nigello]

Malumbu - I refer to those people I see that break the law and endanger themselves and others, not all cyclists who have ever cycled or plan to. It is that simple. I am pro-pedestrian rights because councils put us below*** those that choose to cycle and drive more. Anything that stops people losing life, limb or livelihood is surely a good thing. Bad things happen all the time so why tilt the odds even more against you by ignoring basic safety tenets?

*** Eg. Have you seen/experienced the crooked, often water-filled path dips on LL, opposite the cinema, and approximately half of all the dipped, wheelchair-friendlier crossing points on local roads? Been like it for ages and ages, despite complaints. Walking (and I mean walking/wheeling) is seen as the default, so if there are no spendy, splashy plans to boast and tweet about, councils are not that bothered.

[tigerranks]

Have you noticed the fact that there are so many people zombie walking

Which is known as having both headphones on while walking or riding with out knowing what's going on around you the amount of times people just walk out into the road because of this...

[JohnL]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Malumbu - what do you mean ?Yes KK 20mph zones?

> ?!

>

> The zones exist (good), are not enforced (defeats

> the purpose), are ignored by most drivers who get

> the opportunity to go faster.

If you injured or killed someone going 30 in a 20mph area you're likely to face a large jail sentence (even if it wasn't your fault the book will be thrown as you are going 50% over the speed limit)

[KidKruger]

JohnL - I wasn't arguing the need for the 20 zones, I just wasn't clear what mal was on about !

When I work with community Speedwatch on Goose Green, I'd say 40% are doing over 20mph, it would be higher if we didn't have to wear high-vis jackets and they had no knowledge we are stood there with cameras.

Of the 40% who speed I'd estimate about 1/3 are on their phones in varying levels of concentration.

[kford]

More phone use too