Southwark consultation on Peckham gyratory

[Listen up]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

@Listen upAs a cyclist how would you improve things?  It's always dreadful at peak commute.  I did that for over 15 years.

Thanks Malumbu and similar views on this point.  Either agreed with cycle proposals or agreed and stated the concerns such as around the floating bus stops dependant on how much space will be available for pedestrians around what is usually an extremely busy bus stop

[first mate]

4 hours ago, ArchieCarlos said:

The red sign which points to a prohibition / warning seems much more appropriate in order to inform the behaviour of drivers of cars and motorcycles.

It occurs to me that perhaps there might also need to be an icon included for illegal e-bikes on that sign, given they are very much on the rise. That may be difficult because although they are classified as motorbikes they look like a bicycle. Also what about powered scooters🤔 Anyway, we probably agree that any vehicle that can exceed 15 mph should not be allowed.

[malumbu]

That's a national issue and should be for government to take a lead.  Not really relevant/specific to the gyratory

[first mate]

I thought there was a desire to keep motorbikes off that road at certain times? Aren't you always pointing out that illegal e-bikes are actually classed in law as motorbikes? So if they are motorbikes they must be included, surely.

Otherwise, it looks like you are arguing they count as motorbikes when it suits and they do not count as motorbikes when it doesn't. 

Edited March 12 by first mate

[snowy]

I don't think you have thought that through.

[Penguin68]

As regards signage, surely you realise that the more confusing and apparently contradictory it is, the more chance of penalty fines. I'm not suggesting that this is an intentional ploy on behalf of Southwark (yeah, really?) - but you will note the lack of speed in their response to complaints about misleading or badly positioned or difficult to read signage.

[first mate]

Undoubtedly that is the case. Nothing like a bit of confusing and contradictory signage to get the penalty cash register pinging.

Additionally, it seems access times will apply to some types of motorbike but not to others (illegal e-bikes, which we are told are actually motorbikes in law) can come and go as they please, because people think they are e-bikes. This is a gift to food delivery outfits.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Many of us manage to navigate the streets perfectly well without inadvertently driving through bus gates, in bus lanes etc. I don't think there is any great conspiracy by the council to trick people. That said, I agree with the points about signage in this case. If you do too, respond to the consultation and raise it?

Generally, I think these proposals look decent. They make is safer for cyclists, quicker for buses, give more space to pedestrians and make it easier to cross the road. 

On 18/02/2025 at 07:19, first mate said:

Not if cyclists whizz through them, as many seem to do. Similarly, the widened pavements will only be a win for pedestrians if cyclists stay off them. 

And the idea that there is no point in new pedestrian crossings, or widened pavements because of cyclists, is just silly. 

Edited March 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

As regards signage, surely you realise that the more confusing and apparently contradictory it is, the more chance of penalty fines. I'm not suggesting that this is an intentional ploy on behalf of Southwark (yeah, really?) - but you will note the lack of speed in their response to complaints about misleading or badly positioned or difficult to read signage.

A prerequisite of being licensed to drive a vehicle on the road is knowing what road signs mean. it's rule 1 of the highway code. 

[first mate]

We are told the main reason for widening pavements is to make everything 'nicer' and 'safer' for pedestrians. If there is a way to keep cyclists off the pedestrianised 'safer' areas then all well and good. If not, and especially if those spaces are also ridden through by illegal e-bikes/motorbikes as well as other cyclists, then 'safer' becomes empty rhetoric. 
 

As for crossings and floating bus stops; I am sure you will have seen the video of cyclists dangerously speeding through one of these outside St Thomases.

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

We are told the main reason for widening pavements is to make everything 'nicer' and 'safer' for pedestrians. If the
 

As for crossings and floating bus stops; I am sure you will have seen the video of cyclists dangerously speeding through one of these outside St Thomases.

Fortunately this side of the pond the powers that be look at all the evidence, rather than isolated incidents.  Intuitively floating bus stops sound a bad concept.  In reality there are relatively few incidents.  That is not saying their are no incidents, and things can always be improved.

Reminds me of when motorbikes were permitted in bus lanes.  On paper seemed risky but in reality it is fine.  Of course I'm talking legal motorcycles, generally ridden responsibly not illegal e bike's which il is often the opposite 

Edited March 12 by malumbu

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, snowy said:

A prerequisite of being licensed to drive a vehicle on the road is knowing what road signs mean. it's rule 1 of the highway code. 

And you know that my comments had nothing to do with being able to recognise Highway Code signs properly displayed, but to be able to see (based on where the signs are) and read (based on the amount of information contained on those signs and the size of the type and the level to which it is illuminated) those signs - where information includes non-standard hours of operation etc. 

It is not unusual for local authorities to be found to have produced signage which does not met standards, or which is conflicting.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 12/03/2025 at 11:21, first mate said:

We are told the main reason for widening pavements is to make everything 'nicer' and 'safer' for pedestrians. If there is a way to keep cyclists off the pedestrianised 'safer' areas then all well and good. If not, and especially if those spaces are also ridden through by illegal e-bikes/motorbikes as well as other cyclists, then 'safer' becomes empty rhetoric. 
 

As for crossings and floating bus stops; I am sure you will have seen the video of cyclists dangerously speeding through one of these outside St Thomases.

This insistence that there is a huge danger to people walking on the pavement posed by cyclists just isn't born out in the data. There is however, a significant risk of being injured or killed by a motor vehicle. Your previous suggestion that there is no point widening pavements or improving road crossings because of dangerous cyclists is just ridiculous. You've railed against cyclists over many, many threads. We get it. But this is not a reason to lobby against improvements to pedestrian areas as well. Unless you're arguing that we should only invest in car infrastructure / schemes encourage more motor vehicles? We can't all drive everywhere. Some of us want to be able to walk or cycle in reasonable comfort and safety.

Edited March 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

These proposals make is safer for people when travelling by bike, (arguably) quicker for people when travelling by bus, give more space to those on foot and make it easier to cross the road. They make very little difference to drivers. Seem sensible. 

Edited March 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 14/03/2025 at 08:34, Earl Aelfheah said:

This insistence that there is a huge danger to people walking on the pavement posed by cyclists just isn't born out in the data.

To what data do you refer? I thought the main issue was that these are not categorised/collated unless police are called to the incident - and the vast majority of cycle incidents are not sufficiently serious to warrant police presence. Is anyone collating a definitive list of cycle vs pedestrian incidents - I know hospitals are seeing a lot of Lime bike induced accidents (many of which are caused to the rider by the bikes themselves) which may well lead to better monitoring to see how widespread the issue is - the same happened with e-scooters which ultimately led to changes in the approach to e-scooters?

[Earl Aelfheah]

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I thought the main issue was that these are not categorised/collated unless police are called to the incident

You did think that yes (although you'd apparently made no effort at all to check for yourself before making the assertion)... And then you were linked directly to the data you claimed wasn't collected. 

The intriguing thing is why you still think that data isn't collected having been spoon fed it.

Edited March 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

So the link to Crash Map you shared? Perhaps then you might finally answer the question on how that data is collected - what triggers the data on Crash Map - or should I say how does the DfT collate the data as Crash Map aggregates that - what is the trigger for the DfT to add it to the database - is it a police report, an ambulance report, insurance, self-reporting, eye witness - do you know?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

So the link to Crash Map you shared? Perhaps then you might finally answer the question on how that data is collected - what triggers the data on Crash Map - or should I say how does the DfT collate the data as Crash Map aggregates that - what is the trigger for the DfT to add it to the database - is it a police report, an ambulance report, insurance, self-reporting, eye witness - do you know?

After you loudly claimed the data didn't exist without the remotest attempt to look for it, I linked you to a BI dashboard that gives detailed description of how the data is gathered. Why don't you look at it.

[Rockets]

I have - I was just wondering whether you were prepared to share the background on how the stats are collated because the data shared by CrashMap is based on very specific information shared by the police with the DfT isn't it? You seem to be using CrashMap as the definitive bar by which you judge how frequent cycle vs pedestrian accidents are and how you compare that to motor vehicle accidents but it is not a straight-forward as that is it?

 

On 14/03/2025 at 08:34, Earl Aelfheah said:

This insistence that there is a huge danger to people walking on the pavement posed by cyclists just isn't born out in the data.

I am correct in assuming the data to which you refer here is CrashMap/DfT?

[Earl Aelfheah]

27 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I have

You haven’t. I’m not talking about Crashmap.

[Rockets]

Ok then, to which dataset are you referring then? Please send the link and I will have a look. You have been referencing CrashMap on here though haven't you?

[Earl Aelfheah]

*sigh*

I’ve told you. The powerBI dashboard which I’ve shared more than once. It contains the data you said wasn’t collected (without looking for it) and says on the first page how it’s collected (which you’ve said we don’t know, despite my previously pointing you towards it).

Are you really interested? I mean it’s very clear you’re already looking to try and undermine the data without making any effort to look at it first.

…it’s also entirely irrelevant to the proposals on the gyratory. 

Edited March 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl can you share the link - you've shared so many resources to justify your narrative that I have lost track of which one you are actually referring to....?

[first mate]

  On 07/02/2025 at 09:33,  Earl Aelfheah said:

For those interested in the data, this dashboard is worth spending some time looking at Microsoft Power BI

Data is separated out according to vehicle or pedestrian. I need to look out how data is sourced and whether that might involve collisions on paved or pedestrian areas. That aside, there is a category for pedal cycles and for motorcycles. Which category do e-bikes fall under? I assume illegal e-bikes go under motorcycles and other e-bikes under pedal bikes?

[Rockets]

Thanks FM - It’s the same police reported STATS19 dataset used by the DfT that is used by CrashMap - there’s clearly only one dataset and it’s the one the police supply to TFL, DfT etc so includes accidents that result in injury or death reported by the police that complies to STATS19 criteria. So it’s by no way definitive and shouldn’t be used to compare the number of accidents involving cars and bikes because the dataset collection is skewed to motorised vehicles.

Edited March 18 by Rockets