LTN Discussion

[first mate]

Rockets said:

"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...."

This is so true and I had actually forgotten how surprised I was at the time that the issue was seemingly buried by Labour for the duration of the council elections, it seemed as though it was not mentioned by Labour Councillors at all.

[Rockets]

On 15/03/2023 at 19:22, Rockets said:

I just don't get the bleedingly obvious statement "cars kill more people" deflection techniques put out by the pro-cycle lobby - I don't know about them but I don't want to be hit by either a car or a bike - when cyclists do hit people or things do they say "well, could have been worse, I could have been in a car". Just because bikes killing people happens very infrequently I suspect the numbers of people injured by being hit by bikes is growing all the time. Especially given the instances of bad cycling you can see on a daily basis.

 

The bad cycling problem is so widespread now I think the police are having to take action and the quest for active travel has seemingly been taken by some cyclists to interpret that as they don't have follow the rules of the road. Of course, every accident involving a bike the natural position is to assume the vehicle or (or in Malumbu's suggestion above) the pedestrian is at fault but it's not always a simple as that and often the manner of the cycling has contributed to, if not caused, the accident.

 

Just look at the most recent video Barby posted in the last few days of some of Dulwich's finest cyclists doing their bit for bad cycling - some of it is innocuous and pretty harmless but a lot of it is downright dangerous (both for the cyclist and other road users). The guy on the cargo bike at 4.28 and, then again at, 5.49 (looks like he does this all the time) really demonstrates why police are proactively trying to get offending cyclists to follow the rules - a fine for him would probably help focus his mind before he causes a collision. One wonders where he needed to get to in such a hurry that he couldn't wait at the lights.

 

 

Here's what I said back in March to counter the "a bike once killed someone" nonsense we hear in defence of bad cycling.

 

Every few days Barby posts a rogue's gallery of bad parking and driving but also bad cycling and it shows the scale of the problem. And anytime any cyclists are involved in an accident the narrative is always how bad the car driver must be...but when you look at some of the cycling shown in his videos is it any surprise there are collisions and I do wonder how many of them are actual driver fault accidents?  Some of the usual suspects can be seen on the Dulwich roads acting like the rules of the road don't apply to them - what is it about cargo bikes that makes people think they are invincible? Those who say they never see this type of thing are obviously trying to convince themselves that this is not an issue - go grab a coffee in Au Ciel or grab a plate of cheese and a glass of wine at the cheesemongers and just sit and watch for a few minutes and ask yourself if cyclists at the DV junction are: 1) being mindful of pedestrians or 2) obeying the rules of the road. They're not but people are expected to turn a blind eye because...well they're cyclists.....and somehow the rules don't apply to them. And I like to consider myself a considerate cyclist and the majority are now giving us a bad name - it's no wonder people dislike us so much!

 

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, first mate said:

Rockets said:

"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...."

This is so true and I had actually forgotten how surprised I was at the time that the issue was seemingly buried by Labour for the duration of the council elections, it seemed as though it was not mentioned by Labour Councillors at all.

It wasn't - they went out of their way to make sure it wasn't as they were terrified they were going to lose their seats over it - not a single flyer that dropped through our door even made reference to it. Also do you remember when they did things like extend the consultation deadline and then sent hit squads to doors of Labour supporters around Dulwich to try to drum up support and remember when I overheard a councillor meeting in a cafe on Lordship Lane ahead of the elections and Cllr McAsh et al were hearing about a database they had access to to target "weak" Labour voters (they said they could break the database down by sex, ethnicity, annual income etc) who they could then "encourage" to get out and vote such was their concern. Nice to know that if you got the knock the party considered you weak! 😉 

[exdulwicher]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha someone is feeling the pressure - using election results rather than the consultation responses is so typical

To be fair, the first 40 pages of this thread contain numerous references to how the May '22 council elections would be a referendum on all things LTN, the undemocratic socialist dictators in Tooley Street would be sent running for the hills, the silent majority would rise up and give them what-for, it would decide once and for all the fate of LTNs...

Oh. Err... Guys? They've been voted back in...with an increased majority... How do we spin this?!

Quick, tell them it's an anti-Tory vote, everyone is is fed up of the Partygate lies,  but they still hate LTNs...

Whether it's an anti-Tory vote or a pro-LTN vote (or a combination) will probably never be answered but it's not unreasonable for an elected councillor to say that the policies promoted by them are ratified by the election results. Happens in every council and Government!

[Bic Basher]

Clearly sticking two fingers up to 13 years of Tory government was more important that getting Court Lane reopened.  But for Newens to spin it as an endorsement to their LTN scheme in the Village is stretching it a bit when the consultations for Calton and Turney were both against it.

 

[malumbu]

Thanks to Mr Chicken to responding to my points yesterday.  Rather than more tit for tat nonsense I am only going to post positive things on this site now, please avoid ludicrous comments as it can be quite challenging to resist.  Right over to another "Southwark is rubbish" thread to post positive things.

[first mate]

9 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

Clearly sticking two fingers up to 13 years of Tory government was more important that getting Court Lane reopened.  But for Newens to spin it as an endorsement to their LTN scheme in the Village is stretching it a bit when the consultations for Calton and Turney were both against it.

 

Yes, I think most people know what that result was about and that it was important to send a message to central Govt at the time. What it was not was a resounding mandate in support of LTNs. Interesting even Sadiq Khan can see there are problems with the way some have been implemented.

[mr.chicken]

It is not "rubbish" that bikes are less dangerous than cars, it's basic physics. Cars have vastly more kinetic energy and so collisions are more likely to cause larger amounts of damage. When it actually comes down to cold, hard numbers, not warm, soft anecdotes, cyclists are actually more law abiding than cars:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/

But hey, we all like anecdotes! When it comes to cars, any one here could make one of those videos of drivers doing illegal things. these are very, very common:

• Not giving way to people waiting to, or actively crossing a road.
• speeding
• passing a bicycle with insufficient distance (min 1.5 meters)
• driving partially on the wrong side of the road (e.g. due to parked cars) and not giving way to oncoming traffic especially bicycles.
• driving too close to the vehicle in front

The list is not exhaustive, those are just the routine, every day law breaking I see from cars  every single time I go out.

ETA: I want for a walk this morning and also saw:

• Not stopping at zebra crossing
• Illegal parking, blocking a crossing point and obscuring views.

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by mr.chicken
MOAR

[first mate]

17 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

It is not "rubbish" that bikes are less dangerous than cars, it's basic physics. Cars have vastly more kinetic energy and so collisions are more likely to cause larger amounts of damage. When it actually comes down to cold, hard numbers, not warm, soft anecdotes, cyclists are actually more law abiding than cars:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/

But hey, we all like anecdotes! When it comes to cars, any one here could make one of those videos of drivers doing illegal things. these are very, very common:

• Not giving way to people waiting to, or actively crossing a road.
• speeding
• passing a bicycle with insufficient distance (min 1.5 meters)
• driving partially on the wrong side of the road (e.g. due to parked cars) and not giving way to oncoming traffic especially bicycles.
• driving too close to the vehicle in front

The list is not exhaustive, those are just the routine, every day law breaking I see from cars  every single time I go out.

I don't think bicycles are as inherently dangerous as cars, for reasons of weight, as you say,  but I have had more near misses with other cyclists when cycling and it has made me wary. That is of course just my experience.

You also have to think about the potential impact of e-bikes, scooters and souped-up e-bikes (or illegal motorbikes as you prefer to call them). It is no good trying to separate off the powered variety of two wheeled transport because they are 'not really bicycles'. They are a central part of the council's stated aim to transition to micro mobility and active travel. 

Having witnessed some recent behaviour of those using e-bikes, as well as the carelessness with which the bikes are left lying around after use, I am not convinced this category of users will be more law abiding than car users.
 

 

 

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

scooters and souped-up e-bikes (or illegal motorbikes as you prefer to call them).

You mean as the government likes to call them. Here, let me post the same link again for you to not read:

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

And to save you the trouble of clicking: here is the relevant quote from the page:

Quote

Its electric motor:

• must have a maximum power output of 250 watts
• should not be able to propel the bike when it’s travelling more than 15.5mph

[...]

Any electric bike that does not meet the EAPC rules is classed as a motorcycle or moped and needs to be registered and taxed.

It's there in black and white from His Majesty's Government: souped up e-bikes are motorbikes.

 

Anyway you said I'd get to have the last word on that topic 😞

 

[first mate]

I think this article makes some of the points I have tried to touch on.  Obviously we are not in USA and speed limits, including for official e-bikes, are different but I still think there is food for thought.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/88q54x/america-has-an-e-bike-problem-that-cant-be-solved-with-more-e-bikes

Edited May 23, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

It is not "rubbish" that bikes are less dangerous than cars, it's basic physics. Cars have vastly more kinetic energy and so collisions are more likely to cause larger amounts of damage. When it actually comes down to cold, hard numbers, not warm, soft anecdotes, cyclists are actually more law abiding than cars:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/

But hey, we all like anecdotes! When it comes to cars, any one here could make one of those videos of drivers doing illegal things. these are very, very common:

• Not giving way to people waiting to, or actively crossing a road.
• speeding
• passing a bicycle with insufficient distance (min 1.5 meters)
• driving partially on the wrong side of the road (e.g. due to parked cars) and not giving way to oncoming traffic especially bicycles.
• driving too close to the vehicle in front

The list is not exhaustive, those are just the routine, every day law breaking I see from cars  every single time I go out.

ETA: I want for a walk this morning and also saw:

• Not stopping at zebra crossing
• Illegal parking, blocking a crossing point and obscuring views.

 

Just to clarify for you Danish cyclists have been found to be more law-abiding....you're quoting cold hard number from Denmark.....

Bottom-line is I don't to be hit by a car, lorry or bike. Just because being hit by a bike might not kill you as easy as it is for a car to do so doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to cyclists rule breaking and putting other road users (and themselves) at risk. It's a big problem right now.

I don't know about anyone else but I see far more cyclists breaking rules than I do drivers now and that is where I think Barby's videos really show the extent of the problem. Just go and spend 10 minutes at the DV junction on a Sunday morning to see for yourselves....the new Highway Code says cyclists need to give way to pedestrians yet the number of times I have seen lycra-clad Tour de France wannabes shouting at kids and adults to get out of the way at that junction is amazing.

 

[mr.chicken]

Oh just been out and about. I shall add to the list

• parking on the pavement
• Using a phone while driving

50 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Just to clarify for you Danish cyclists have been found to be more law-abiding....you're quoting cold hard number from Denmark.....

Indeed they are, and you have absolutely no cold hard numbers in the UK or at all. Without cold, hard numbers, all the claims that cyclists are a bunch of scofflaws are fanciful inventions pulled out of the air to lend false credibility to some claim.

 

50 minutes ago, Rockets said:

lycra-clad Tour de France wannabes 

You clearly have an axe to grind about cyclists, your weird obsession with Lycra (and wads? was that you?) is a dead giveaway here given that the majority of people puttering around Dulwich over the week are just wearing normal clothes.

As for lots and lots of yelling... well that has about as much credibility as, well... 😉

[Rockets]

....as much credibility as your claim that: When it actually comes down to cold, hard numbers, not warm, soft anecdotes, cyclists are actually more law abiding than cars.

 

How you try an turn your incorrect and unsubstantiated claim back onto me by saying I have no data to retort and disprove your false claim is laughable and demonstrates you seem to be here for an argument rather than to engage in any sot of dialogue. You're becoming ever so Manatee/LTNBooHoo'esque in some of your posts.

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

you seem to be here for an argument rather than to engage in any sot of dialogue.

Maybe I should change to complaining about lycra clad cyclists and their wads 😉

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

You're becoming ever so Manatee/LTNBooHoo'esque in some of your posts.

Flattery will get you everywhere 😉

[mr.chicken]

On a different note, it's not a question of just ragging on people as a group, that's unproductive. Cyclists aren't any or more of a felonious group than any others. There are always jerks of course: people who believe the road belongs to them and they can be in control of any vehicle (though they pose more of a danger if it's motorised).

Anyway, I like @malumbu's plan for positivity. So how about some positive suggestions?

I'll go: how about tackling speeding by changing the design speed of problematic roads to lower the natural speed most people drive at without needing excessive signage and fines?

[malumbu]

Well I have to disagree with much of the recent argument.  Cars aren't dangerous.  Bikes aren't dangerous.  Walking is not dangerous.  But it is the driver, cyclist, or walker than can be dangerous.  Every accident has a cause, virtually always a driver, cyclist, walker, or other road users (OK probably a bit difficult to blame a wild animal for causing a collision).  But due to the weight/speed/momentum the motor vehicle will normally cause far more harm than an impact with another type of road user.

But in my spirit of only posting positive things, thankfully most drivers, pedestrians and cyclists are competent and courteous.

 

[first mate]

Given cars ( for the most part) and bicycles don't drive themselves I think that everyone on here was really referring to human behaviour while acknowledging that the larger and heavier the vehicle the greater the potential for damage if travelling at the same speed.

As an aside, forced 'positivity' can actually be quite oppressive. Fine if being deliberately positive works for you, go for it, but maybe let others decide what they can and cannot post.

[Bic Basher]

It appears James McAsh is replacing Catherine Rose as cabinet member for clean air and streets.    Yet another Labour Dulwich Cllr responsible for LTNs.

[Rockets]

My,..who did he upset in Southwark Labour to get that poison-chalice!

 

All joking aside, and I might have this wrong, but wasn't he was a Green Party member before turning to Labour so probably aligned with his values?

[malumbu]

On 23/05/2023 at 20:45, mr.chicken said:

 

Anyway, I like @malumbu's plan for positivity. So how about some positive suggestions?

I'll go: how about tackling speeding by changing the design speed of problematic roads to lower the natural speed most people drive at without needing excessive signage and fines?

In deed, I like the cut of your jib, young fella me lad.  (something from Blackadder, feels like Lord Melchett).  Sadly the only way to do this is average speed cameras.  That sounds a little negative in that it involves fines and enforcement, but what you quickly see (from my experience on the M4, and in France) is that quickly you get much smoother flow with most vehicles doing similar speeds, reducing congestion (vehicles bunching due to slowing down and speeding up) improving road safety, reducing bus travel times and reducing emissions.

[Spartacus]

About a decade ago there were studies that looked at removing street signs and traffic lights where drivers felt less safe driving or approaching junctions.

As a result they drove slower.

Not sure what happened as a result of that study but it was an interesting idea.

 

[mr.chicken]

20 hours ago, Spartacus said:

About a decade ago there were studies that looked at removing street signs and traffic lights where drivers felt less safe driving or approaching junctions.

As a result they drove slower.

Not sure what happened as a result of that study but it was an interesting idea.

Specifically that one? I don't know. It does line up with the general idea of design speed, which is a well established traffic engineering principle. People won't on the whole drive faster than they feel safe driving. Speed is controlled down by adding complexity: obstacles on the sides of the road, such as trees, constrictions, curves and indeed junctions without a guaranteed right of way. Speed is controlled up with the opposite, which is why motorways are straight and smooth, with a hard shoulder and only merging.

I find those low signage places have a better kind of complexity compared to the ones where paint and signs are spammed with wild abandon. In the former, people kind of negotiate, in the latter many people are absolutely sure they're reading them right, except people don't agree and those feel somewhat worse. Also you end up spending more time looking at paint and signs and less looking at the road.

 

[heartblock]

It was always a Tory policy, just look what streets were closed.. Calton Ave, Court Lane....making nice leafy roads nicer and house prices higher. It certainly looks as though the Labour Mayor has looked at the data, spoken to Rosamund and understands that this was greenwashing the concept of roads for the rich and roads for the poor with a negative overall effect on idling traffic and bus routes. 

[Spartacus]

The Mayor's stance in that article reminds me of the classic American Road Sign 

"SLIPPERY WHEN WET"