Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[malumbu]

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

What about the rest of the article @malumbu....sigh....

I asked a fair question.  Why on earth can't you answer it?

[Spartacus]

@malumbu, the article was talking about accidents involving cyclists, yet you focused in on one small point cocerning spending on cycling inferstructure.  Maybe if you raised a question over the accident rates that the article discussed you would have a better chance of getting a response. 

Sadly your methodology of not discussing the overall issues but focusing on a minor point to try and destabilise the discussion is becoming weary 

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, first mate said:

I relayed multiple incidents of bad cycling I witnessed and you accused me of lying. Now you proclaim that incidents of bad cycling behaviour are well recognised. 🤔

...relayed incidents that you have witnessed daily on the square. I don't know how much time you spend there each day, but considering you were supporting the idea that it is a dangerous place for pedestrians and Rockets dubious claim that it's also a high crime area, one does wonder why you keep exposing yourself to regular near misses and potential crime. Perhaps you're just a regular Kate Adie, choosing to return to the frontlines everyday to bring us reports at great personal risk... or perhaps there has been a little hyperbole. I’ve not seen any data suggesting that it’s dangerous or crime ridden (quite the opposite), and it’s not most people’s experience either, but perhaps you are particularly unlucky.

On the fact that there are incidents of bad road behaviour, this is not a remotely contested fact. There are of course examples of bad behaviour by people travelling on foot, bicycles and in motor vehicles. All are a problem, but clearly the mode of transport significantly impacts the danger posed to others. As more and more people cycle, then it is inevitable that there will be more incidents involving bicycles, that does need to be attended to, and is being. But in terms of road safety, bicycles get a massively disproportionate amount of attention across this forum, by people who insist on treating road safety as some kind of team sport, where you cannot point out the elephant in the room, or discuss evidence based interventions.

I would love to be able to have a serious, evidence based discussion about road safety on this forum occasionally, which included thought about how to direct resources towards the most impactful interventions. Instead we just get the usual suspects endlessly complaining in very general terms about 'bloody cyclists', whilst minimising the cause of the vast majority of KSIs and adding almost nothing constructive in terms of either (or worse in Rockets case, regularly treating it like a game and making objectively false or misleading statements).

It’s a shame imo.

Edited Monday at 10:53 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

@Earl Aelfheah are you on the square everyday to be able to doubt @first mate's experiences ?

First mate may well be seeing lots of issues on the square, unless you have solid evidence contrary to what is being said, then its a case of they said, you said. 

Personally, I see a lot of dangerous cycling behaviour on a daily basis, which sadly taints my view of all cyclists. Even you admitted cyclists should stop at red lights, which implies you havecseen them not stopping. Therefore its about perception and acceptance of bad behaviour that we are really discussing here. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

unless you have solid evidence contrary to what is being said

I mean there is official collision data and crime stats, but fair enough, I can tell first mate has taken my comments to heart and I apologise. I am sorry that he's finding himself in dangerous situations at Dulwich Square on a daily basis. I sincerely hope his luck improves.

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Personally, I see a lot of dangerous cycling behaviour on a daily basis

I do too. But I could equally say the same about people travelling by foot or by car and the latter is objectively the biggest problem in terms of impact. That's not to say that we shouldn't discuss all of these, but it would be good to be able to do so in a balanced and evidence based way. 

Edited Monday at 11:37 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dulwich dweller]

On 04/10/2025 at 21:54, malumbu said:

What is the source?

Always step one of a disingenuous wind up merchant/ pathetic troll when presented with credible facts that don't support your entrenched stance. Try to find a way discredit the source. If that fails just ignore it all anyway.

Shameless and blatant.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Dulwich dweller it's not an unreasonable question. That article is heavily editrorialised, including a ridiculous headline. But regardless, I'm not sure what it's really meant to add; Even if you just take it at face value, it suggests that bicycles are involved in collisions with pedestrians (at an increasing, but still much, much lower rate than motor cars). This isn't news, and it's not hugely surprising (as there has been a massive increase in cycling, something the article ignores). We know that there is a lot of bad road behaviour regardless of the mode of transport people use. We could discuss how you address that, rather than constantly turning everything into a football match.

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

mean there is official collision data and crime stats, but fair enough, I can tell first mate has taken my comments to heart and I apologise. I am sorry that he's finding himself in dangerous situations at Dulwich Square on a daily basis. I sincerely hope his luck improves

I would thank you for apologising for calling me a liar had you not immediately undermined it by stating you hope my luck improves. What on earth has luck got to do with it!

[Earl Aelfheah]

I mean I don't consider it particularly lucky to find oneself in dangerous situations on a daily basis, let alone within a single, very small pedestrian area.

Edited Tuesday at 08:30 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Dulwich dweller said:

Always step one of a disingenuous wind up merchant/ pathetic troll when presented with credible facts that don't support your entrenched stance. Try to find a way discredit the source. If that fails just ignore it all anyway.

Shameless and blatant.

 

 

I find your post offensive.  The Telegraph article makes an unsubstantiated claim that billions of pounds are spent supporting cycling.   It just adds the manufactured culture wars, echoed by social media, which at times is quite toxic.

Not the world I want.

Debate by all means but please stop hurling abuse.

[Dulwich dweller]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

it's not an unreasonable question. That article is heavily editrorialised

The statistics aren't though yet no comment on those. Like I said entrenched.

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, Dulwich dweller said:

The statistics aren't though yet no comment on those. Like I said entrenched.

I have commented on them. That figure on investment is also a statistic, for which there is no reference, so it's not unreasonable to question it's source. The article is not a particularly serious analysis on any level, it's an editorial piece in the Telegraph.

That said, clearly there has been a big increase in the number of cyclists, especially in London, and especially in the City. Whilst that almost certainly a net benefit for pedestrian safety, it does also means that you have to give greater thought to the rules and enforcement around bicycles as they grow in number.

But worth keeping it in perspective, and treating articles in the Telegraph, with silly headlines about people declaring war on each other with a little scepticism.

Edited Monday at 14:58 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Oh I am very much looking forward to the next Peter Walker or Carlton Reid article that many of you can direct your newly found impartiality/bias/culture war radar to.....are the Telegraph being any more biased than they are in their coverage? 😉 

Are the Telegraph wrong to say billions have been invested in cycling? Why does that so upset you? Didn't the Tories pledge 2bn around Covid for cycling investment? Given the millions spent on Dulwich Square you can see how it would soon tot up!

Regardless of all of the deflection and distraction tactics being employed by the usual suspect this quote from a man whose wife was killed by a cyclist will no doubt strike a cord with many:

He said: “A near 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of pedestrians injured underscores the importance of the new Road Safety Laws which are now thankfully making their way through Parliament.

“These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads”

My how so much of that rings true....

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Are the Telegraph wrong to say billions have been invested in cycling? Why does that so upset you?

Don't think it's upset anyone, (perhaps those who object to a question about the source?).

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

are the Telegraph being any more biased than they are in their coverage?

The headline is How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians. In an article that adds a one liner towards the bottom of the article, that "cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists.". The article also ignores the increases in the number of people cycling over the period referred to.

But all that aside, the fact that as the number of people travelling by bicycle increases you need to review laws and enforcement (and improve / expand infrastructure), is fairly obvious.

Fundamentally though, it's important not to lose sight of the big picture - the more people who travel by bicycle rather than car, the safer pedestrians are - quite at odds with that headline.

Edited Monday at 15:37 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dulwich dweller]

1 minute ago, malumbu said:

I find your post offensive.

You always say that . Classic troll retort.  I find your whole MO offensive, your evasive, dismissive and selective replies are offensive. Your inability/ unwillingness to debate in good faith is offensive. 

 

26 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Debate by all means but please stop hurling abuse.

More classic troll behaviour. You've got some gaul saying debate by all means when it's you that won't answer a simple question if it means you have to concede ground. 

Since I joined this forum I think we've had maybe 3 or 4 interactions. Each and everyone of those interactions took the same course. You avoided to address the points i raised, and then you accused me of being abusive.  And here we are again!!

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But worth keeping it in perspective, and treating articles in the Telegraph, with silly headlines about people declaring war on each other with a little scepticism.

Agreed and I take most of the articles with a pinch of salt.  Much of it is agenda driven. I was actually responding to the data provided by the DFT. The important and relevant bit of that article ( the data ) seems to have been ignored.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Fundamentally though, it's important not to lose sight of the big picture - the more people who travel by bicycle rather than car, the safer pedestrians are - quite at odds with that headline.

Only if those cyclists are not hitting pedestrians which, increasingly, they are - 20% year on year increase.....

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The headline is How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians. In an article that adds a one liner towards the bottom of the article, that "cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists.". 

It was two lines actually and you missed out probably the most important one in context of the 24 times stat...

However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. 

 

So what do you conclude from that - most people will conclude that drivers are posing a decreasing risk to pedestrians whilst cyclists are posing an increasing risk. And don't suggest I am trying to minimise anything: let me make this very clear that no injury to anyone should be accepted by there are two clear paths here: one is getting better whilst one is getting worse.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The headline is How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians. 

Ahem......meanwhile (well a couple of years ago) in the Guardian....

Cyclists, welcome, you have just become the latest target in the culture wars by Peter Walker.....

.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/17/cyclists-grant-shapps-culture-wars

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

Only if those cyclists are not hitting pedestrians which, increasingly, they are

They’re not involved in serious collisions at any where near the rate of any other type of private vehicle.

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

So what do you conclude from that

I would need to look at the stats, rather than conclude anything from a Telegraph article declaring a war between people, but they don’t appear to take account of the actual risk per mile. So my initial guess is that it’s at least in part related to a massive growth in the numbers / proportion of bicycle traffic, especially in the City where bicycles now make up the majority of peak-time traffic. The fact that cars are getting safer is multi-factor, but is linked to things you oppose- reduced speed limits, camera enforcement as well as improvements in technology.

I have suggested interventions you could introduce to reduce the risk those travelling by bicycle pose. But from articles like that one and from the multiple threads on this forum, you could wrongly believe that people on bicycles pose the biggest risk to others of any form of private transport. The truth is the opposite of course (see below from the DfT:

That’s in absolute terms, when you look at other road users killed by distance travelled, motorbikes jump to the top of the list, followed by HGVs. Bicycles are still at the bottom, pedestrians aside.

Edited Tuesday at 08:22 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They’re not involved in serious collisions at any where near the rate of any other type of private vehicle (except perhaps horses).

Clearly cycles do not pose the biggest threat to pedestrians - no-one is arguing that but you have to agree that cycles do pose the biggest growing threat to pedestrians would you not?

Is there another category of road user that saw a 20% year-on-year jump on causing injuries to pedestrians?

After all, this is a thread about red light jumping cyclists yet you have, once again, tried to make it all about cars......

Maybe put your obsession with cars to one side for a minute, take a step back and ask whether a 20% year on year increase is acceptable or whether the cycle lobby is actually acknowledging the problem exists. When I read some posts on this thread I cannot help but believe what the person who lost his wife to a cyclist said is true:

"These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads”

It is so enlightening when you read the long term threads on this forum that for a long time many accuse anyone who says that cyclists are beginning to pose a real problem as imagining it or, seemingly not visiting regularly enough to be able to say if there are regular incidents (I suspect some of us visit those cycle danger hotspots a lot more than some of your folks posting from further afield) and when stats do turn up showing there is an increasing problem the conversation gets diverted to those issues relative to the issues posed by cars. Why are so many of you afraid to actually acknowledge there is a problem - the longer you turn a blind-eye to it the worse the problem gets and more draconian the controls put in place to control it are likely to be.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I’m not the one disproportionally ‘obsessed’ about the impact of objectively the most benign form of private transport, whilst constantly minimising the impact, and shouting down any discussion of, the least. I am very happy to discuss both, but with some sense of proportion and based on evidence.

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

you have to agree that cycles do pose the biggest growing threat

The use of statistics in that Telegraph article is misleading when it comes to comparing the relative dangers of bicycles and motor vehicles.

Whilst collisions involving cyclists can lead to pedestrian injuries, collisions involving motorists injure pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and all other road users (those additional injury numbers are excluded). The relevant comparison is 28,000 serious injuries involving motor vehicles annually, and 189 involving bicycles.

For deaths you can see the graphs above. Motor vehicles led to around 1,600 deaths, bicycles 3 (two more than were caused by a pedestrian running into someone else who was on foot).

Which takes us to the other issue; Using percentages to compare changes from wildly different baselines. If next year pedestrians cause 2 deaths instead of 1 there will have been a 100% increase, but it won’t tell you much about how dangerous pedestrians are getting. Likewise if there is one less death caused by a cyclist, it would represent a 30% drop, but wouldn’t really tell you that cycling is getting safer.

The article also ignores the relative growth in people travelling by bike over the reference period. Cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London, but this obviously relevant context isn’t mentioned.

Fundamentally, the more people who cycle rather than drive, the safer pedestrians are.

Edited Tuesday at 09:13 by Earl Aelfheah
fixing the formatting

[first mate]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London

Surely this is the point. If cyclists continue to use pedestrian spaces as thoroughfares then perception of risk, if not actual risk, will also increase. I do not think pedestrians and other valid pavement users should have to be worried about cyclists possibly hitting them. Talk to elderly people and you will find that this perception exists and it is stressful for them and unfair.

So, with your 'good faith' hat on, how should this growing issue be addressed?

[Earl Aelfheah]

That's not the point (read the whole of my post).

I agree that as with crime, perception can cause real harm, entirely separately of the reality. It’s exactly why I object to people making up or misusing statistics to exaggerate risk and stoke people’s fears. For example when people claim that areas are crime hotspots, or dangerous crash hotspots for pedestrians, when they objectively are not.

Edited Tuesday at 08:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

And that is your 'good faith' answer to just tell everyone they are imagining things?
 

If you agree cyclists ( including e-bike riders) are using non-shared pedestrian spaces and also claim that cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London then it is odd you do not agree that bad cycling behaviour of the type described is also very likely to increase (as well as risks).

It seems you are heavily in denial mode.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

And that is your 'good faith' answer to just tell everyone they are imagining things?

On the one hand you claim that people are scared of being seriously hurt by cyclists and that the perception itself is harmful. On the other you seem to ignore, or fail to recognise the reality of the fact - that people travelling on bicycle actually pose very little risk relatively, to pedestrians.

When one posts constantly, across multiple threads about the dangers cyclists pose, whilst attempting to close down any examination of the causes of the vast majority of pedestrian injuries, who is doing most to add to disproportionate, unrealistic, and harmful perceptions?

What about the use of misleading data, or conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally, aimed at stoking fear; For example when it is stated that Dulwich Square is now more dangerous than it was previously for pedestrians, and that it is a high crime area? These things are objectively untrue. Is that helpful?

Or how about an article with the headline "How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians"? Does that headline reflect reality?

Edited Tuesday at 07:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

After all, this is a thread about red light jumping cyclists yet you have, once again, tried to make it all about cars......

I have actually discussed red light jumping by cyclists and suggested how you might seek to reduce it. What have you actually added that is constructive with regards the topic? You've mainly made a series of really silly straw man arguments attacking things that no one has said.

Edited Tuesday at 07:58 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What about the use of misleading data, or conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally, aimed at stoking fear;

You have not addressed the central issue that if cycling is on the rise (including use of e-bikes) then incidences of bad or risky cycling behaviour are also likely to rise. What is being dobe to mitigate this?

I am not aware of more cars driving across newly created pedestrian spaces, like Dulwich Sq, or of cars driving down pavements on Lordship Lane, so we need to address cyclists using pedestrian spaces inappropriately as a discrete issue and one that is likely to increase because, as you assert, more people are cycling in London. What do we do about it?