Forum topic: A 'dashboard' showing traffic volumes and speeds in the Fox Lane area

I'm an 82 year old cyclist, who cycled a lot in his childhood on roads where traffic was, by current standards, negligible . Then there was a break whilst I dealt with my education and early employment until I moved into deepest countryside 8 miles each way to/from work by 'bike'. That, by and large, was not a lot of fun because much of it was along a major road in the countryside, although one evening, long after dark, and on the section of my ride which was a track, not a main road, I cycled up behind a magnificent stag who didn't hear me coming; indeed I eventually had to shout to get him out of my way. That sort of experience stays with you.

But to business. In a sense I sympathize with Klem Klem; by comparison with what I've seen elsewhere in Europe the A105 (Green Lanes) cycle lanes are rather dismal, but the Council has done what can be done on exisiting roads, and for a single cyclist in a well-lit city it's adequate enough. Well done Enfield! Sure the sections on the pavements through the shopping areas could be dangerous, but with a loud bell on my bike's handlebars I get by.................and most walkers are polite and willing to scuttle onto the pavement. That's better that than people being scared of traffic and not cycling at all. And we should remember that even Europe's cycling nations have their problems which they solved and we are borrowing.

I say 'Hurrah' to Enfield. After all, those of us who are experienced cyclists can move back to the general carriageway, that's the law. And remember: quite a high proportion of car journeys are driver-only short trips which could have been walked, 'biked' or made on public transport. Walkers and cyclists are where the Council would like us to be.

I am adding this note to simply provide information, which readers can choose to accept or not. But I expect it may still attract comments questioning my motives. However, bravely on.

Firstly I am pleased to see that there is a degree of scepticism expressed over the speed data used in the dashboard. I have no doubt that the volume data is near enough correct and perhaps the data regarding the lower speeds also. But the data regarding the speeds of close to 100 mph must be challenged. Because they are frequently used to justify certain arguments. I recently did "the math", based on the laws of physical mechanics in respect of rates of acceleration, velocity and hence distance travelled. Then applied that to published data from car manufactures regarding their models' rates of acceleration. Those who choose to do so will find that it is impossible for a vehicle to have reached a these extreme speeds, travelled for a distance at that speed (remember during acceleration the vehicle would be well below these upper limit) and then decelerate towards the junction. The vehicle would have either flown into the park or similar. So please apply a degree of common sense when looking at these data points.

Secondly, it was of great interest to see the data for cycle numbers in Green Lanes and a level of selective transparency - through publication on . However I requested and obtained from LBE the data for the parallel cycle scheme in Edmonton's Hertford Road (attachment to this note). Ther,e the average number of cycle journeys in one direction is 90 per day. (between 1st August and 31st December 2019). The peak day was 149 and the lowest 40. Whilst this data is not immediately relevant to discussions in the Palmers Green area, it is relevant when assessing the levels of success of LBE schemes implemented to date.

In conclusion however, it is extremely positive that measured data (with an acceptable degree of accuracy ) is now being made available for evaluation of current and planning future options. This is to be welcomed. If we are to engage in meaningful debate regarding LTNs it must be grounded in sound data and modelled accordingly. Let us use these data going forward in the debates. And make it readily available to all.

Not sure why data "has to be challenged", other than when it appears to disagree with someone's predisposition, but as we used to get told at Uni... please set out your working. I'd be generally interested.

Regrettably my attachment with Edmonton Cycle Lane usage did not attach. Hopefully this time ....

Of course we should be confident in the data, though I cant see any reason for LBE to provide inaccurate figures ; easier for them to do nothing. Perhaps what’s most important is the materiality of the figures - if I was hit by a car whether it’s doing 60, 70 or 80 is immaterial - I’m a goner. In fact I don’t fancy being hit by any vehicle doing more than 20. The only advantage of a low speed is that I might have time to get out of the way.

I wonder if the low usage figures in Edmonton are related to the danger of cycling to the cycle lanes? Only when we have a good network of low traffic neighbourhoods will the cycle lanes on through routes get full usage. All the more reason to expedite Fox Lane’s walking and cycling friendly ltn as a exemplar for the Borough.

On the previous page Adrian Day said this about the amount of use being made of the A105 Green Lanes cycle lanes:

"I wonder if the low usage figures in Edmonton are related to the danger of cycling to the cycle lanes? Only when we have a good network of low traffic neighbourhoods will the cycle lanes on through routes get full usage. All the more reason to expedite Fox Lane’s walking and cycling friendly 'LTN' as a exemplar for the Borough.

I agree, but I'm equally sure that, compared with the period before the 'car age' - defined perhaps as the period from the 1960's until now - a very much smaller proportion of the population cycle, and many younger people have weaker cycling skills, or simply cannot ride a two-wheeled bike. It is going to take a long, long time, and much persuasion, to make up that deficit. Most people now think 'car', not'bike'.

I was intrigued why the council would produce supposed accurate data for low speed vehicles and traffic volumes but allow inaccurate data to pass for the outrageous speeders, roughly those outliers in the 60-100mph bucket. (50mph is not unusual and will have been experienced by any group standing in high viz with a speed gun on our streets; that’s even with a bunch in high viz pointing a speed gun at you – most drivers brake.) I almost went as far as starting some Newtonian maths to see just how fast a car could reach in a 400m street having entered it at 20mph and stopping to zero at the other end. I found better things to do.
Standing at the roadside the other day as a speeder went past in a whoosh, I smelt an answer: going back a few years to a car crashing into a parked vehicle on Aldermans Hill, where under its bonnet was a nonstandard engine that ran on non-standard fuel, and here were the distinctive exhaust gases from one such. There’s enough of these idiots not only drag racing up the A10 but running laps locally and generally showing their technical expertise and overall bravado to more than answer the apparent discrepancy with what is physically possible by the manuals.