Rockets

Because sometimes you have to pragmatic. Whomever took that photo could see what they were doing and why they were having to do it that way. Is the van doing the work at that house not a low-level misdemeanour - you can’t have it both ways? Therein lies the problem…you want every driver to comply with the rules of the road but not cyclists. That’s hypocrisy but there’s a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on your side of the argument it seems to come with the territory. I think the challenge you have is that anyone who dares to challenge your view or perspective you have to attack and try to demonise them, especially when you get things wrong - instead of saying you got things wrong you double-down. It’s sad but so utterly predictable but this behaviour is why so many people are really challenged by the approach of the pro- side of the lobby - a lot of it is downright nasty and that is why it is rabid - because a lot of people have lost all sense of perspective because they are so far in their ideological sink-hole. And I say this as a cyclist and driver who wants to see zero accidents on the road.

I do not hate anyone and to suggest otherwise is a typical low-blow attack we have come to expect from some. What i do hate however is when Dulwich Roads posts things to further their ideological campaign that are either clearly untrue or they have done nothing to determine what actually happened. It seems every time they see anything that they think was caused by "dangerous drivers" they start salivating and post it as proof. The ones I posted yesterday are a classic example - the yellow arrow sign clearly wasn't hit by a vehicle. And there is this one...now that's vehicle is not being driven anywhere, there is no-one in the drivers seat. Notice also the tubing on the back of the "HGV". Now is that driving down the pavement or maybe it's pouring or removing something into or from the building works going on at the back of the house on that corner....go take a look for yourself...the house, with a load of building works going on at the back of it is at the junction of Dekker Road. As I have said a thousand times before I don't want to be hit by either a HGV or a bicycle (but if you're asking which is would prefer to be hit by then I will, obviously, take my chances with the bike). I am someone who would like to see zero road injuries caused by anything. Some seem to want zero road injuries caused by everything except bikes - which seems to be the go to position for many in the pro-cycle lobby the "well let's turn a blind eye to bikes because cars kill more people".

Earl loves putting words into people's mouths....

Cars and bikes may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.... Imagine a world where people spent more time focussing on things that actually make a difference....

No, I just don't think they should be wasting time, effort and resources pandering to people like you who get upset by the word they use.... Just remind me again...how many accidents have been prevented by not referring to accidents.....?

Apparently every piece of bent and broken street furniture is down to dangerous drivers.....amazing how precise these dangerous drivers are because how anyone managed to just hit the arrow sign and not the lamp post with a vehicle is anyone's guess....and how they managed to hit it and not move it from the housing at all is also an amazing piece of precison driving. We can only presume it's been a slow accident week for them so they are obviously getting desperate for content...... https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1854452442701676548?s=09

Has anyone yet determined what actually happened?

Nope. I think the DfT etc should be dealing with the issue of road safety rather than having to deal with a load of word police who are wasting their time getting them to change a word because it suits their narrative. Again, how many accidents have been prevented because the word accident is not being used by some authorities? Do enlighten me..... Go back and read my sentences very carefully a couple of times and see if you understand it...;-)

No Earl, just pointing out how flawed some of your car bad/bike good narratives are.....

Good grief Malumbu, how many accidents have you had? Should you be allowed on the road (or pavement) at all....;-)?

Yes and if anyone was paying attention (but given the way you and I go at it I very much doubt they do) they will have noticed exactly what you added and when.... And I completely agree that once a day, once a week, once a month or once a year is far too regular. But I wasn't challenging you on that, I was challenging you on your insistence that they were a common/regular occurrence. And my point remains that, given the volumes of traffic moving through an area, those are not common occurrences. No, the people spending time, effort and money lobbying them to force them to change the word used. Changing the word does nothing to address the problem does it - people really need to refocus their energy.

Yeah because not using the word accident reduces accidents by how exactly...honestly, do you not ever think that people get so blinkered by their own ideology that they lose all sense of perspective and get utterly distracted by things that don't actually help the very cause they support? When you read nonsense like this in that document it does make you wonder: Using ‘accident’ encourages a sense of fatalism, with fewer resources invested in prevention efforts as a result.

Barby's latest installment! Townley Road seems to be a good one!

Earl - firstly, I thought attacks on people based on mental health is frowned upon on the forum nowadays? But, no I have not "lost it" and I am great thanks - thanks for your concern. I am accusing you of posting: "Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road" And then when I did exactly and said that stretch of road there were 9 accidents you accused me of trying to create a smaller area. I then suggested you had not been crystal clear. You denied it but then went in and edited your original post to say: "Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it)." You have made a load of utterly false accusations of me trying to manipulate what I have been presenting and I have been really clear with you how I got to those numbers via the CrashMap website - everyone else can do exactly the same thing. The point remains that accidents are not a common occurrence when you look at the volume of vehicular journeys - you may think so and you're entitled to your opinion - but the data suggests they are not. The great news is that the data also shows that accidents are declining (from CrashMap data) and long may that continue - we need to get all accidents down to zero.

Therein lies the point: many would love to aportion blame to drivers - Dulwich Roads does this every time they post - but unless you know it was driver error or the fault of the driver then you are just presuming - and I know how many love to jump to conclusions to forward their narrative. It demonstrates the utter obsession and blinkerdness of some that they cannot acknowledge this. There is a really bizarre car prejudice amongst many whilst the same are happy to turn a blind eye to indiscretions of others. It's time some people grew up a bit and dropped the childish obsession with trying to claim 100% of accidents are the fault of drivers. Sorry to burst your bubble but they are not. This thread was started because some claimed a careless/dangerous driver wrecked the fountain. They did so without ever bothering to check what actually happened and what caused it.