LTN Discussion

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam

proliferation of E bikes. See the "E2 in there. This is not, as you claimed "bicycles are a nuisance", this is about what are effectively unlicensed motorcycles. Parleying that into "bicycles are a nuisance" is disingenuous to say the least. The other link does also not say what you seem to think it says.

 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

In terms of the e-bikes, I think it is only a matter of time before we get the same issue here.

Souped up e-bikes are not functionally different from motorbikes, and are treated as such in law, but I think there's something of a lack of enforcement of existing laws on unregistered motor vehicles.

 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

We live in a 'fast' city. Our 'communities' are fragmented, we don't have everything we need within walking distance; that is just the way our western lifestyle has evolved. You cannot undo all that in the blink of an eye.

You're always pushing things to wild extremes. You don't need "everything" in walking distance and no one's trying to undo it instantly. The best time to start undoing it was 50 years ago. The second best time is right now. If we do nothing now, we'll keep having transport that stinks forever.

 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

As we know, the cycling pressure groups are not keen on the Dulwich Village junction ('square') being pedestrian only, as they would have to dismount and cannot walk in cycling shoes!

So?

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I do for the most part cycle. I am much more fearful of large vehicles like buses but also of cars, however other cyclists can also be a problem, especially those cycling at top speed (in early threads a cycling propagandist castigated me for suggesting mobility scooters be allowed on cycleways, as this would slow cyclists like him down).

Again, what's your point?

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, heartblock said:

trams would be great, and owned by the public and not for private profit.

Hey, something we agree on! Trams are great.

 

[first mate]

Mr C

"proliferation of E bikes. See the "E2 in there. This is not, as you claimed "bicycles are a nuisance", this is about what are effectively unlicensed motorcycles. Parleying that into "bicycles are a nuisance" is disingenuous to say the least. The other link does also not say what you seem to think it says".

Another wilful misrepresentation of a post by the feathered one- at least I don't accuse you of putting words into my mouth! 

To correct you, I mentioned both bicycles and e-bikes and supplied a link for each.

Are you really suggesting that speeding e-bikes and souped up e-bikes are not likely to become an issue over here too? 

I think the link about the increasing tension between cyclists and pedestrians  in inner Amsterdam says exactly what I think it says.

My point about the Dulwich Village square was to show a small scale version of that same tension.

Unlike you, I do cycle... a lot. My point was that, in my experience, other more reckless and speed orientated cyclists can present as much of a hazard as cars.

Perhaps when you start cycling you will find the same.

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

"proliferation of E bikes. See the "E2 in there.

Yes but that's not what you wrote. You supported something you wrote about bicycles in general with an article specifically about (illegal?) e-bikes. It's not "misrepresentation" for me to accurately read what you write and respond as such. It's fine to talk about either. It's not fine for you to accuse me of misrepresentation when I go by the words on the screen not what's in your head.

And speaking of... glass houses... stones... etc

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Are you really suggesting that speeding e-bikes and souped up e-bikes are not likely to become an issue over here too? 

Why on earth do you think I'm suggesting that?

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

My point about the Dulwich Village square was to show a small scale version of that same tension.

I think you're somewhat overstating the tension. One group want it pedestrian only. Another group want a bike path. Many people don't feel strongly between those two and a third group want it ripped up and reverted to a line of idling cars stuck in traffic, i.e. what it was before.

People are always going to disagree about use of space.

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Unlike you, I do cycle... a lot. My point was that, in my experience, other more reckless and speed orientated cyclists can present as much of a hazard as cars.

There are also reckless and speed oriented drivers. I'll take my chance with 80Kg at 20 miles an hour over 2000 Kg at 45 miles an hour.

[first mate]

22 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Yes but that's not what you wrote. You supported something you wrote about bicycles in general with an article specifically about (illegal?) e-bikes. It's not "misrepresentation" for me to accurately read what you write and respond as such. It's fine to talk about either. It's not fine for you to accuse me of misrepresentation when I go by the words on the screen not what's in your head.

 

What I actually said:

"Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam"
 

As you well know, I posted two links:

1. about issues with bicycles/ cycling and pedestrians in Amsterdam

2. a second link specifically about issues with souped up e-bikes in Amsterdam

Hope that helps.

 

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

What I actually said:

"Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam"

This is what you actually said first and what I initially replied to:

Quote

Moreover, there are moves to now ban cycling from large sections of the Dutch city, as bicycles too are deemed a nuisance and safety issue. Is this what you envisage here?

Nothing about e-bikes.

3 hours ago, first mate said:

2. a second link specifically about issues with souped up e-bikes in Amsterdam

Which you posted in defence of your original point which had nothing to do with (illegal?) e-bikes.

It's very hard to have anything approaching a sensible conversation when you keep moving the goalposts so fast.

[first mate]

Hmm, nice try Mr C.

I was not defending points but using links to elaborate and illustrate. 
The first link was to illustrate my first point - that in the inner sections of Amsterdam bicycles are becoming a problem ("nuisance") and there are tensions between the needs of pedestrians and those of cyclists.

The second link illustrated a further issue to do with souped up e-bikes.

I think the only person trying to move goalposts is you. I agree impossible to even attempt a sensible conversation, but I am really not convinced you want one. 

 

[mr.chicken]

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

Hmm, nice try Mr C.

Oh, thanks!

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

I was not defending points but using links to elaborate and illustrate. 
The first link was to illustrate my first point - that in the inner sections of Amsterdam bicycles are becoming a problem ("nuisance") and

The link doesn't support that claim.

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

there are tensions between the needs of pedestrians and those of cyclists.

That's kind of trivially true anywhere that's sufficiently busy. Ultimately if space is getting short it needs to be dedicated towards the most efficient use of space, which means more or less  cars < bikes < mass transit < pedestrians.

But we're talking about the city centre here, more like Oxford Street levels of business, which still has people crammed on slow moving pavements while inexplicably small numbers of people in motor vehicles are given an outrageous amount of space.

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

The second link illustrated a further issue to do with souped up e-bikes.

But what is your point? That's got nothing to do with bikes in general. It's a problem of essentially unlicensed motorbikes.

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

 but I am really not convinced you want one.

As far as I can tell, the main reason why you think this is that I don't agree with you.

Edited May 20, 2023 by mr.chicken
garbled sentence

[first mate]

41 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Oh, thanks!

The link doesn't support that claim.

That's kind of trivially true anywhere that's sufficiently busy. Ultimately if space is getting short it needs to be dedicated towards the most efficient use of space, which means more or less  cars < bikes < mass transit < pedestrians.

But we're talking about the city centre here, more like Oxford Street levels of business, which still has people crammed on slow moving pavements while inexplicably small numbers of people in motor vehicles are given an outrageous amount of space.

But what is your point? That's got nothing to do with bikes in general. It's a problem of essentially unlicensed motorbikes.

As far as I can tell, the main reason why you think this is that I don't agree with you.

1st para: I disagree.

2nd para: Not sure what point you are trying to make? The issue is about the potential for tension between cyclists and pedestrians, as demonstrated in Amsterdam and on a smaller scale in Dulwich Village Square.

3rd para: The issue is about the tension between cyclists and pedestrians; you have shifted the goalposts by making it about cars.

4th para: souped up e-bikes are e-bikes, nonetheless. Does the article I linked to call them illegal motorbikes? No.  The relevance is that our council want to increase both bike and e-bike use. As I said earlier, are you really so sure we won't get similar problems over here? Today I saw someone on an e-bike on Barry Road going like the clappers. I doubt he is unique and imagine we'll see more of this sort of behaviour as more people take to e-bikes. 

Carry on twisting and turning. I'll leave you to it and leave you to have the last word too, as I am fairly sure you'll be unable to resist 😉

[Bic Basher]

I've been on a rental e-bike going up the hilly bit of LL by Townley Road and one of those e-bikes with the souped up e-assists was bolting it up the hill, while the regulated ones are restricted to 15mph.

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

don't bike at the moment (don't believe everything @Rockets says like his weird and untrue claim about me owning a cargo bike),

My goodness Mr C - surely you’re smart enough to realise that was a joke…….?

 

For the benefit of doubt in that regard, let me also state that had you managed to prove you had posted on this forum something other than one set of subject matter then I would not have expected you to tie me to the back of the cargo bike (that you have kindly clarified you don’t own) and drag me around Dulwich as my apology to you…..just in case you didn’t get the joke….

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

I think you're somewhat overstating the tension. One group want it pedestrian only. Another group want a bike path. Many people don't feel strongly between those two and a third group want it ripped up and reverted to a line of idling cars stuck in traffic, i.e. what it was before.

Given the hierarchy of road users pedestrians should be given priority at that junction and cyclists should be made to dismount. The speed at which some come down Calton and negotiate the S before the traffic lights is shocking. Shared cycle and pedestrian space rarely works in practice and way too much priority has been given to cyclists by the council at that junction and it is poorly designed.

[malumbu]

Do you really spend all your time at Dulwich beach Rocks noting down all the near misses between pedestrians and cyclists?  I've used it numerous times both on foot and on bike, but not seen anything untoward as yet.  Not even sure how you would police cyclists dismounting.  I'd spend money on average speed cameras on Brenchley Gardens instead.

[heartblock]

I’ve nearly been hit by bikes when walking through there as they do not stick to the cycle lane, it’s just a fact.

[Rockets]

Malumbu, I do spend a lot of time around that junction so perhaps you'll just have to take my word for it that many cyclists there are very intimidating. So maybe instead of being critical of people who actually live in the area pop down to Dulwich Village junction this morning and take a look for yourself - they'll be a load of lycra full kit wallies flying down Calton without a care in the world for any of the pedestrians using the junction.

[Spartacus]

Who needs to police cyclists dismounting as Mal asked. Simply put large chicaine type bike gates at each end of the square so cyclists are forced to slow down when entering and leaving the square. Pedestrians and wheel chair users can get through the gates but cyclists can't just barrel through without slowing down to negotiate them.

Any cyclists feel like object to an idea like this based simply on slowing them down for safety ? 

 

[mr.chicken]

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

 that was a joke…….?

Oh thanks for clarifying! I'll definitely calibrate down in future. Er, so for the avoidance of doubt, are your dubious and sometimes invented facts about traffic volumes also jokes? They didn't seem funny (in the humerus sense) but now I think I ought to check.

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

For the benefit of doubt in that regard, let me also state that had you managed to prove you had posted on

Oh alright, Rockets, I'll bite an give in to your inverted burden of proof! Tell you what if anyone that doesn't have an outstanding apology for spreading misinformation about me still open, and an account older than, say, right now wants to DM me for the link I'll be happy to oblige!

18 hours ago, first mate said:

4th para: souped up e-bikes are e-bikes, nonetheless. Does the article I linked to call them illegal motorbikes? No.

Nice of you to let me have the last word. I agree with you that it's important that correct information should be the most prominent. You don't appear to realise that souped ebikes are legally motorbikes here and are illegal without a license and registration, and illegal to ride on bike paths.

https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

If you have any evidence that the council is encouraging reckless lawlessness in this regard, please do share!

It doesn't help that Amazon for example sell huge numbers of conversion kits for illegal e-bikes through a load of dodgy fly-by-night vendors, which they disclaim all knowledge of

5 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Who needs to police cyclists dismounting as Mal asked. Simply put large chicaine type bike gates at each end of the square so cyclists are forced to slow down when entering and leaving the square

It's a good idea to reduce the design speed of a road if people are going too fast, however, the road needs to be wide enough to let emergency vehicles through (this was the result of the consultation).

 

[first mate]

19 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

I've been on a rental e-bike going up the hilly bit of LL by Townley Road and one of those e-bikes with the souped up e-assists was bolting it up the hill, while the regulated ones are restricted to 15mph.

I thought this was quite interesting, in terms of souping up an e-bike.

 

How are people getting around this limit?

In the real world, there are a lot of ways around the speed limit and some tricks that people are using that don’t stick within the laws. So what are some ways people are getting around the UK e-bike speed laws?

• Hacking the speed controller – One thing that a lot of e-bike owners do is to use some kind of hack to get their bike to exceed the speed limit.
• Going faster outside of busy city roads – Another common thing you’ll read on the e-bike forums and places like Reddit is that riders stick to the speed in cities but exceed it once they’re out on roads.
• Ride normally and avoiding attention – One common opinion is that if you ride sensibly, as you would on any bike, it’s highly unlikely you will be pulled over.
• Using a Cycle Analyst – With this device you can have a really powerful e-bike of say 1000 Watts but set a limit to it of 250 Watts. At the press of a button, you can quickly reduce your output from the illegal (but speedy) 1000 down to the legally allowed 250.
• Overclocking the motor to get more out of it – A little-known secret about e-bike motors is that they can actually push out a lot more power than what they’re intended for. Most of the 250 Watt motors built in China can actually give out 500 Watts if you know how to do it. What the motor is officially ‘rated’ as is often far less than what it’s capable of.

Do the police know what to look for?

Another hot and controversial topic is the question as to whether or not a regular police officer would be able to tell the difference between a legal e-bike and one that was 500 Watts instead of 250 Watts. Or even be able to spot a power-assisted bike at all (some are not as obvious as others).

Many believe that they would need special training and knowledge to be able to tell if an e-biker was breaking the law or not. During our research for this article, it was hard to find many examples of people being pulled over and asked anything by the police about their e-bike.

Realistically, the police have a lot on their plates and e-bikes are probably not a priority. And it’s not likely they would know what to look for without training.

That being said, you might get unlucky and be pulled over by someone whose hobby is e-bikes and they’d know straight away if you were using one of the above tricks to get over the legal limits.

[IlonaM]

Just came across this re: Southwark backing down on Dulwich Village LTN:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/southwark-council-dulwich-village-low-traffic-neighbourhood-plans-scrapped-b1082607.html

'Southwark council has been forced to scrap plans to introduce a new low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) following a backlash from residents.

Council chiefs had planned to add an LTN in Dulwich Village in a bid to close a busy junction near Turney Road.

The Labour authority said the proposal would help make the area the “safest, most accessible space for people walking and using mobility aids, and cyclists” and “create more of a village feel”, The Daily Telegraph reported.

However, the council faced a backlash from local disabled groups as blue badge holders and disabled motorists were not due to be exempted.

The council has been forced to scrap the idea after residents bombarded them with angry responses.

An official survey of 1,242 residents found “limited support for all three objectives” behind the closure, with just 33 per cent showing support.

Richard Aldwinckle, co-founder of One Dulwich which helped lead the campaign to oppose the LTN, told the newspaper: “This is a victory for common sense, although Southwark council continue to ignore the wishes of the majority of people in Dulwich who voted for the other side of this junction to be reopened.

“It’s time the council stopped telling residents it’s for our own good and, instead, come up with a better and fairer scheme that doesn’t displace traffic, doesn’t discriminate against vulnerable, vehicle-dependent road users, and doesn’t damage local shops and businesses.”

...'

 

[mr.chicken]

12 minutes ago, first mate said:

How are people getting around this limit?

You can also just flat out buy the kits. Google for "500W ebike" and let it complete "conversion kit" for you. The "legitimate" vendors sell them "for use on private land", the less legitimate ones don't even bother with that disclaimer.

[malumbu]

What is the fairer scheme?  I'd really like to know.  Serious question.  One that could be delivered.

"It’s time the council stopped telling residents it’s for our own good and, instead, come up with a better and fairer scheme that doesn’t displace traffic, doesn’t discriminate against vulnerable, vehicle-dependent road users, and doesn’t damage local shops and businesses"

On the posts about cyclists and the Court Lane junction, dangerous cycling has been discussed in other threads, but to repeat myself (a) this is a country wide issue (b) serious accidents between cycles and pedestrians are low in number (particularly compared with collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians [our personal experience tends to exaggerate this - "I had a near miss therefore all cyclists are riding dangerously) and (c) electric scooters, fully electric bikes and delivery cyclists will become a much bigger menace*

*maybe we should all boycott deliveroo etc until they employ their riders, make sure they are trained, properly equipped and carry out due diligence on this.  And pay them more! - It may cost you more for your takeaway but the roads and pavements would be safer.

[first mate]

12 hours ago, IlonaM said:

Just came across this re: Southwark backing down on Dulwich Village LTN:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/southwark-council-dulwich-village-low-traffic-neighbourhood-plans-scrapped-b1082607.html

'Southwark council has been forced to scrap plans to introduce a new low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) following a backlash from residents.

Council chiefs had planned to add an LTN in Dulwich Village in a bid to close a busy junction near Turney Road.

The Labour authority said the proposal would help make the area the “safest, most accessible space for people walking and using mobility aids, and cyclists” and “create more of a village feel”, The Daily Telegraph reported.

However, the council faced a backlash from local disabled groups as blue badge holders and disabled motorists were not due to be exempted.

The council has been forced to scrap the idea after residents bombarded them with angry responses.

An official survey of 1,242 residents found “limited support for all three objectives” behind the closure, with just 33 per cent showing support.

Richard Aldwinckle, co-founder of One Dulwich which helped lead the campaign to oppose the LTN, told the newspaper: “This is a victory for common sense, although Southwark council continue to ignore the wishes of the majority of people in Dulwich who voted for the other side of this junction to be reopened.

“It’s time the council stopped telling residents it’s for our own good and, instead, come up with a better and fairer scheme that doesn’t displace traffic, doesn’t discriminate against vulnerable, vehicle-dependent road users, and doesn’t damage local shops and businesses.”

...'

 

Yes, we can only hope that the Nunhead campaign is emboldened by this.

[Bic Basher]

Margy Newens posting more nonsense on social media when in both LTN consultations her constituents didn't want either LTN. 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Bic Basher

[Rockets]

Ha ha someone is feeling the pressure - using election results rather than the consultation responses is so typical - but as Cllr Rose (who also gets a grilling in the Mail) told us the consultation for the first-round of LTNs wasn't a referendum - this time it appears it might have been. Obviously Cllr Newens doesn't like the accusation that she has overseen the first ever Labour U-turn on an LTN! 😉 Shame the Tories and Lib Dems didn't think take a leaf out of Labour's books and engage in a bit of tactical voting and one set of councillors withdraw!

 

I feel a bit dirty doing this but here's the link to the Mail article which did make me chuckle....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12107823/Labour-run-Southwark-council-scraps-plan-SIXTH-low-traffic-neighbourhood.html

 

Funny how Cllr Newens goes on to say: "In reality, the 2022 election results give southwarklabour a strong mandate to improve active travel infrastructure + reduce traffic in our borough"....a little bit rich and someone ought to remind her how she, and her other councillors and party, went out of their way not to mention anything about active travel during the run-up to the election, choosing to pretend it wasn't a local issue at all....her U-turn on that is almost as impressive as the U-turn on the Turney Road closures.....but as I have said time and time again admitting you're wrong is often the hardest thing for many hard left-wing thinkers!

[mr.chicken]

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

What is the fairer scheme?  I'd really like to know.  Serious question.  One that could be delivered.

This is what I'd like to know. I've not seen a single one which is (a) workable and  (b) supported by decades of traffic engineering experience. And why not add on (c) perfect in that it causes no inconvenience at all to anyone under any circumstances.

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

 "I had a near miss therefore all cyclists are riding dangerously) and (c) electric scooters, fully electric bikes and delivery cyclists will become a much bigger menace*

Well quite: there seems to be this thing that's come up here before: a bike once killed someone therefore bikes are as dangerous as cars. While it's true that you're just as dead either way if you're dead it seems to greatly ignore the relative probabilities of ending up that way in either case!

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

*maybe we should all boycott deliveroo etc until they employ their riders, make sure they are trained, properly equipped and carry out due diligence on this.  And pay them more! - It may cost you more for your takeaway but the roads and pavements would be safer.

I do think the gig economy is a menace in this regards. It's generally taken to be responsible for the quite large number of tipper truck accidents. If you pay people more to make more deliveries, you're giving people an incentive to push the limits. And that causes accidents.