Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

'm not using any 'strategy'. I don't' believe in this constant 'footballification' that you love to indulge in, where everything must be seen through a lens of cars v's bikes.

But you probably need to practise what you preach then because it seems every time anyone has a debate about cyclists you have to try and bring it back to cars....which is exactly what you have done, not only in your first post that I flagged but your response above as well.

So maybe you're the one guilty of a healthy does of "footballification".

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That's good, but it still leaves a significant problem; we are still tolerating around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year. Amazing that you would suggest it's not an issue, but then you were also trying to minimise a car on it's roof on another thread, so I probably shouldn't be surprised. 

But we aren't tolerating it are we....people are trying to do something about it and whatever they are doing seems to be working as the numbers are going down year on year.

Meanwhile....when it comes to discussing the plague of red-light jumping cyclists making crossing the road difficult for pedestrians.....you suggest...

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

n terms of red light hopping by those travelling by bicycle, I think we should look at legal reforms to allow safe progression through red lights at some junctions. Exdulwicher mentioned the 'Idaho stop' previously, which alongside stricter penalties and enforcement, sounds eminently sensible. Other than that, more dedicated infrastructure to separate bicycles and cars would help, but you've generally opposed that.

Why is it that so many in the cycle lobby are convinced that instead of respecting the rules of the road the rules of the road need to be changed to accommodate them.....it's a very weird perspective and one that hints at blinkeredness...how many time have we heard cycling leaders say: "we can't do that because it might slow the growth of cycling"? 

I think the problem is for the cycle lobby is that they spend most of their time saying "it's not our fault" and will ultimately face more draconian measures bring brought because they cannot get on top of it. This is the same model for other road users - laws and regulations are designed to police the worst offenders - and it really does not help when many in the cycle lobby pile on and say "well they aren't really cyclists they are e-bike, Lime-bike, illegal e-bike users". .

Edited September 29 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But you probably need to practise what you preach then because it seems every time anyone has a debate about cyclists you have to try and bring it back to cars.

...a conversation about how to stop red light jumping, in the context of road safety. I've offered suggestions for the former and suggested that it's important to direct resources for maximum impact in terms of reducing serious injuries and deaths.

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Why is it that so many in the cycle lobby

So, so boring. Are you 'the car lobby'? Grow up.

As usual, you're offering no solutions, just playing silly games. 

Edited September 29 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

As usual, you're offering no solutions, just playing silly games. 

I think.Rockets did hint at a solution, "Stop at red lights"

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I think.Rockets did hint at a solution, "Stop at red lights"

Yup. It's pretty simple. Just stop at red lights and this is no longer an issue.

@Earl Aelfheah do you agree with that too - cyclists should just stop at red lights?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

whatever they are doing seems to be working as the numbers are going down

‘Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 

You can read about it here https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london 

[Rockets]

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah do you agree with that too - cyclists should just stop at red lights?

Come on Earl.....yes or no...it's not a difficult question to answer....

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

‘Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 

Errr, clearly not on sections of free-flowing 30mph roads, national speed limit roads and motorways that have been used by the government for that annual comparative analysis...

Honestly @Earl Aelfheah I implore you to actually check the data and methodology before you start throwing stats around...

Edited September 29 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Errr, clearly not on sections of free-flowing 30mph roads, national speed limit roads and motorways that have been used by the government for that annual comparative analysis...

They found that three-quarters of drivers exceed the speed limit on "free-flowing" 20mph roads. So when not stuck in traffic, most people break the speed limit.

There are around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the UK. In London it's around 4,000, with speed playing a role in more than half of them.

You have naturally tried to minimise these stating that: "whatever they're doing the numbers are going down". Well I've told you what they're doing, it's clearly articulated in the 'vision zero' document. It's all the things you've objected to repeatedly.

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

@Earl Aelfheah you still haven't answered @Rockets question "do you agree with that too - cyclists should just stop at red lights?" 

Avoiding it makes you sound like you dusagree. Fair play, at least we know where you stand. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Haven’t avoided it, I answered it before it was asked… the question wasn’t serious, it was a very poor / transparent attempt to deflect, which is why I’ve ignored it. Obviously I don’t agree with cyclists jumping red lights, I described it as a problem, pointed out current attempts to address it and suggested some other things you might do.

Rockets on the other hand, clearly doesn't think that 4,000 serious injuries and deaths in London each year is a problem. Mainly (from what I can tell), because despite the continued high numbers, there have been recent improvements as a result of interventions he vocally disagrees with 🤷‍♂️. 

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They found that three-quarters of drivers exceed the speed limit on "free-flowing" 20mph roads. So when not stuck in traffic, most people break the speed limit.

@Earl Aelfheah please, please, please read the actual report you are citing from....you are wrong on 20mph roads - they were not included in the stats you quoted for your headline.

In fact the report says, very clearly (did you not actually read it before you took the headline stat and repeated it?):

Vehicle speeds on 20 mph roads

The department also has data for a number of ‘free-flow’ sites with 20 mph speed limits, however the data from these sites need to be interpreted with additional caution for the following reasons.

By their nature, roads with 20 mph speed limits are particularly likely to have traffic calming measures in place, or not be ‘free flow’ for other reasons (for example being narrow or having many corners and bends). Department for Transport (DfT) guidance suggests that 20 mph speed limits are most effective when they have traffic calming measures or when average vehicle speeds are already below 24 mph.

 

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You have naturally tried to minimise these stating that: "whatever they're doing the numbers are going down". Well I've told you what they're doing, it's clearly articulated in the 'vision zero' document. It's all the things you've objected to repeatedly.

You're wrong. 20mph roads are not included as part of the "free-flow" analysis that they did, which was on free flow 30mph roads, national speed limit roads and motorways.

I do laugh when you try to accuse me of minimising the impact of cars when you use cars to try to minimise the impact of cyclists...after all this thread is about red-light cyclists yet you, as usual, have tried to drag cars into it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I do laugh when you try to accuse me of minimising the impact of cars when you use cars to try to minimise the impact of cyclists...after all this thread is about red-light cyclists yet you, as usual, have tried to drag cars into it.

You regularly minimise serious collisions where they involve motor vehicles: I can point to several examples if you want.

In dismissing the need to take stronger action to reduce the thousands of serious injuries and deaths on our roads on grounds that there have been improvements, you've ignored the fact that numbers are falling because of the policies you object to - LTNs, 20mph limits, segregated bike lanes, speed cameras, etc.

The fact is that despite this, there are still around 4,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the Capital. Speed plays a part in more than half of them. So I would suggest that speeding is still a significant problem.

I didn't initially bring cars into anything btw, I responded to Penguin68's comment where he suggested only cars ever have to 'slam on the breaks'. I actually pointed to what is already being done to address red light hopping and suggested how else you might improve that issue (more than you've done). But regardless, it is obviously relevant when people start talking about road safety interventions, to discuss how to direct resources in ways that will have the biggest impact. This assumes of course that one is actually interested in improving safety, and not just in a silly game of car vs bike, where you blindly defend 'your team'. This is perhaps where you are struggling to see the relevance.

And on that, I have never once defended bad road behaviour. Regardless of whether the person behaving badly is travelling by foot, by bicycle or motor vehicle. You won't find me complaining across multiple threads about how unfair it is to be fined for breaking the rules, like some people I could mention. It's instructive that you project this on to me, by asking silly questions, like 'do you think it's OK to jump a red light', when I've clearly said it isn't more than once - it says a lot about your mindset.

With regards to speeding on 20mph roads - there have been many different studies and surveys done. I'm not really interested in your usual tactic of tying to kick as much dust as possible to try and obscure something you don't want to admit, but which is undeniably true - it's common place for people to speed, and is a factor in thousands of collisions in London annually.

P.S. Please learn how to format your 'cut and paste' posts so they're not in bold font 48.

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

With regards to speeding on 20mph roads - there have been many different studies and surveys done.

But, unfortunately for you, not the study from which you cited and then somehow tried to correlate to the impact of interventions like LTNs. Which simply was not true and had no bearing on reality. Anyone who had bothered to look at the report would have known that. You clearly didn't so I will let everyone else interpret that how they see fit.

It's a good job some of us are on here policing these misleading narratives! 😉

 

 

[Penguin68]

55 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The fact is that despite this, there are still around 4,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the Capita

Of course any injury or death is to be regretted, but the numbers involved do need to be understood in context with the numbers of people and the miles they travel, together with the relative levels of congestion. London has very many people travelling a lot on congested streets, which means the relative incidence of accidents and not just the absolute number needs to be considered. I don't have these figures but I do know that just quoting an absolute number may be sensational but isn't that informative. Congestion is important because we have 4,000 (your figures) casualties, but how many incidents were avoided? How many people didn't have accidents that led to serious consequences?

What percentage of journeys resulted in no injury or death? 

Edited September 30 by Penguin68

[march46]

There is no acceptable percentage of serious injuries, or deaths. This powerful video is worth a watch. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

With regards to speeding on 20mph roads - there have been many different studies and surveys done.

But, unfortunately for you, not the study from which you cited

You either haven't read it, or you've just resorted to your usual tactic of making stuff up, doubling down and deflecting. I'm not going to get into it. If you want to claim that people don't regularly break the speed limit, or that speeding isn't a significant contributory factor in a large number of collisions resulting in serious injuries and deaths, fill your boots. It's sad how you regularly try to defend dangerous road behaviour where it involves a motor vehicle.

@Penguin68 as pointed out by Rockets, there have been significant reductions in serious injuries and deaths in London already as a result of many of the interventions that he has objected to. The idea that there is nothing that can be done is demonstrably not true. The idea that we shouldn't try to do anything is pretty awful imo. Read the Vision Zero strategy and how it's already made a massive difference.

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Nobody suggests there are (replying to march46). But one serious injury for every, say, 20 person miles travelled would be a disaster which would have to be addressed, one for every 20 million person miles travelled would be, again individually, a disaster but, for a community, a much less worrying statistic. You have to be able to understand scale in context. 

Edited September 30 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Nobody suggests there are. But one serious injury for every, say, 20 person miles travelled would be a disaster which would have to be addressed, one for every 20 million person miles travelled would be, again individually, a disaster but, for a community, a much less worrying statistic. You have to be able to understand scale in context. 

Yes, for the thousands of people every year who are seriously injured or killed, for their friends and families, it is a disaster. But I also consider it a disaster for the community who would object to action to address it. Those reductions in deaths that have been achieved in London as a result of targeted interventions, do you think that they weren't really worth it? Even though they've saved a significant number of lives?

If 30,000 UK citizens were killed every year as the result of plane crashes, we would demand urgent action. Regardless of it being fewer deaths per 'person miles travelled'.

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You either haven't read it, or you've just resorted to your usual tactic of making stuff up, doubling down and deflecting. I'm not going to get into it.

You really should get into it as the information is all in there. Have a read: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2023/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2023

Maybe do that next time before you start throwing stats around. I am not defending dangerous road behaviour I am challenging your, repeated, use of misleading headlines to suit your own narrative that have absolutely no basis in fact.

To suggest I am defending dangerous road behaviour is, yet another, utterly (perhaps deliberately) misleading narrative you are trying to land. It's all so transparent and tiresome. It seems once someone shows that what you say is not correct (clearly in the context here of the report you used the headline from and then created your own narrative from) you double-down on the name-calling/false accusations.

 

 

[malumbu]

I expect, having not waded through scores of ping pong posts between you and Earl, this is about you focusing for a number of years on cyclists' behaviour.  I'm not sure you have started threads on driver behaviour and I expect your posts on cyclists far outweighs anything you have said on dangerous driving.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

The report says:

Quote

...under free flow conditions, 84% of cars exceeded the speed limit at 20 mph road sites where data are available, and 16% exceeded the speed limit by over 10 mph

Yes, it offers caveats around the available data, but it's not true that it does not study 20 mph zones as you claimed above. And this sits in the context of a number of studies and surveys, all of which point to speeding being common place. We know that there are literally thousands of serious injuries and deaths in London every year, where speeding is recorded as being a significant factor. 

This report from the BBC also give some additional context, on the reasons people gave for speeding to both the RAC and the BBC themselves:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62gz9261xgo 

And yes, as well as minimising the issue of speeding, you have repeatedly tried to minimise collision data, as well as the seriousness of specific crashes (see the thread Upturned Car on Adys Road, or Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished, your constant attacks on 'Dulwich Roads', or in fact any thread where serious accidents that have involved motor vehicles have been discussed).

You have objected to 20mph schemes, LTNs, traffic filters, segregated bike lanes, in fact almost all of the measures that have contributed to recent reductions in road casualties across London (the same reductions you cite as a reason not to be worry about speeding drivers incredibly).

The pattern is very clearly one of you attacking 'cyclists' and jumping to minimise or defend 'drivers'. This and your constant references to anyone who doesn't follow the same binary pattern as the 'active travel lobby' just illustrates how you seem to view the issue of road safety as a game with two opposing sides (as does your weird insistence that I condemn dangerous behaviour by people travelling by bicycle, as if I haven't regularly done so, or would for some reason not want to). It's really very sad.

So you know, interpret that as you wish 🤷‍♂️

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

I expect, having not waded through scores of ping pong posts between you and Earl, this is about you focusing for a number of years on cyclists' behaviour. 

Well, to be fair @malumbu it is a thread on red light jumping cyclists......#justsayin

 

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

I'm not sure you have started threads on driver behaviour and I expect your posts on cyclists far outweighs anything you have said on dangerous driving.  

I haven't seen you starting many threads on dangerous cyclist behaviour either @malumbu so not exactly sure what point you are trying to make....

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, it offers caveats around the available data, but it's not true that it does not study 20 mph zones as you claimed above.

Come on @Earl Aelfheah people are not daft. You quoted a headline from a report that did not include 20mph roads and I then noted that speeding was decreasing year on year and you said that was down to, amongst other things, 20mph limits I corrected you. You clearly take um-bridge at  being corrected.

And I am the one being told to grow up...it's laughable...

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And yes, as well as minimising the issue of speeding, you have repeatedly tried to minimise collision data, as well as the seriousness of specific crashes (see the thread Upturned Car on Adys Road, or Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished, your constant attacks on 'Dulwich Roads', or in fact any thread where serious accidents that have involved motor vehicles have been discussed).

I am not sure you can accuse me of minimising collison data or the causes of collisions. What I am doing, which is plain for most to see who want to see it, is challenging the likes of Dulwich Roads and their almost morbid obsession with maximising collision incidents when they have zero clue to what ACTUALLY happened.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

You quoted a headline from a report that did not include 20mph roads

This is just untrue. From said report:

Quote

...Under free flow conditions, 84% of cars exceeded the speed limit at 20 mph road sites where data are available, and 16% exceeded the speed limit by over 10 mph

This by the way is absolute gold:

On 29/09/2025 at 16:20, Rockets said:

But we aren't tolerating it [high ksi numbers] are we....people are trying to do something about it and whatever they are doing seems to be working as the numbers are going down year on year.

In an attempt to minimise the high numbers of 'killed and seriously injured' on London streets, you suggest that we don't need to overly concern ourselves about it because there is already very effective, but unknown, action happening... Well that action is laid out clearly in the mayor's Vision Zero strategy - they're the interventions that you have opposed vocally - 20mph schemes, LTNs, traffic filters, segregated bike lanes, camera enforcement for traffic offences etc.

And there is it. No interest in even discussing the evidence on road safety in a serious way. No interest in anything practical. No interest in directing resources towards the most impactful interventions. Just a constant kneejerk instinct to attack 'cyclists' and defend 'drivers', as if they're not the same people just travelling in different ways at different times. 

It's so, so boring.

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am not sure you can accuse me of minimising collison data or the causes of collisions

...said with a straight face after trying to minimise how widespread speeding is and it's clear role in serious road injuries and deaths.

Edited October 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is just untrue. From said report:

Quote

But the headline you quoted did not contain any 20mph roads.....goodness me....the headline stat you used was from 30 mph, national speed limit and motorway free-flowing roads. Come on @Earl Aelfheah just admit you're wrong.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And there is it. No interest in even discussing the evidence on road safety in a serious way. No interest in anything practical. No interest in directing resources towards the most impactful interventions. Just a constant kneejerk instinct to attack 'cyclists' and defend 'drivers', as if they're not the same people just travelling in different ways at different times. 

Well, was the thread not on the problem of red light jumping cyclists...come on @Earl Aelfheah try to keep it on track and not dive into your usual "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!" hole....that seems to be the most prevalent knee-jerk reaction on here when anyone ever dares suggest there might be problems being caused by cyclists....and you are aptly demonstrating that now - so thanks! 😉

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In an attempt to minimise the high numbers of 'killed and seriously injured' on London streets, you suggest that we don't need to overly concern ourselves about it because there is already very effective, but unknown, action happening...

Again...absolute nonsense.  Where have I ever said we do not need to be overly concerned...you may have created that imagined narrative in your mind but I have not actually ever said that have I? You're doing what you always do - embellishing what was said to suit your agenda.

[exdulwicher]

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

You're doing what you always do - embellishing what was said to suit your agenda.

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"...