Rockets

Can someone explain why this is a political issue - this could and should be enforced by our local council - Malumbu, is that what you mean?

No but you did....doh! Where's that facepalm emoji....

Ok is the joke now over....we can all get back to being serious....I am so glad the hilarity and entertainment factor of a car accident has now abated.

Let's just hope the driver didn't suffer any sort of medical emergency that might have caused them to crash their car hey..... Many who are anti-car suggest there is a culture war being waged and when I read posts that include terms like "standard road violence" really makes me wonder if the problem might be from the very people who try to claim one is being waged against them.

Yes, the joke that someone made and the fact people posted it here and tried to draw attention to said joke is definitely deflecting from the seriousness of road danger. Hey, let's all laugh at the car on the wall that could have killed someone - honestly....

Some people really are displaying some very odd behaviour. Car crashes are not a joking matter but some like to have a giggle about them. And apparently those who dare question cyclist behaviour are minimising the harm done by car crashes….but when a car hits a wall and looks like a scene from GTA it’s funny and something to make a joke about. Who is minimising it now?

Snowy, I am not embarrassed pointing out the bleedingly obvious but maybe you will listen to Peter Walker (another pro-cycling lobbyist and someone no doubt you will respect more than me) ...https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/dec/30/anti-cycling-stories-bad-health-chris-boardman-active-travel .....Boardman’s current life spent lobbying ministers and officials is one he concedes would have been a surprise to his younger self, but it also echoes the lessons he learned from elite sport. It is not me who is embarrassing themselves....Boardman is very much a pro-cycling lobbyist....

Why would anyone want to joke about this? Why does someone think it is funny to liken it to a computer game - does anyone else think that's a little odd? That type of accident is not a joking matter. The fact that some are laughing at this or using it to mock people really speaks volumes....

He is the very best example of a pro-cycle lobbyist elected to a powerful position. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is probably also a pro-cycle lobbyist! It's quite telling, and utterly laughable, that you're trying to claim he isn't - but not at all unsurprising. Thanks for helping me make my point about the utterly cultish behaviour of many in the cycle lobby! Bravo.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

The cycle lobby is one of the most developed, well-funded, well organised and successful lobby groups in the country and have seats at the most powerful tables - Will Norman and Chris Boardman are prime examples. The point i have also been making is that there are many in the cycling lobby (and we see so many of them who post on here) who refuse to acknowledge that there might be a problem. Who blindly try to throw shade on any perceived issues with cyclists by trying to scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS! And when they come on here and try to claim, as some sort of bizarre defence, that bikes that are causing many of the perceptual problems for pedestrians are not in fact bikes but mopeds just shows how completely myopic some are - desperately trying to argue a ludicrous point when what they should be doing is saying yes, there is a problem. Cycling blinkerdness seems to affect a lot of people who want to see cycling grow and I get it but the cultish head in the sand approach isn't doing the cause they purport to love any good at all. Cycling and cyclists have a perception problem and it's not a culture war organised by car drivers it's based on cyclist behaviours and the lack of focus from authorities to do anything about it.

Apologies if I got this wrong but I thought you were naming one person quoted in the media in relation to One Dulwich - apologies if that was someone else. You have thought, more than once, suggested failed Conservative candidates might be the ones behind it. Is this not the very crux of the issue: parts of The Dulwich Society are no longer apolitical. You started the discussion way back last year by trying to convince everyone that people were trying to hijack the Society EGM/AGM. This peaked interested in what was happening and it seems the transport sub-committee had become massively politicised. So much so that Dulwich Society had to state that the transport sub-committee did not speak in behalf of DS as they were becoming increasingly vocal about their support for the DV LTN. Then you look at some of the people now involved in the sub-committee, how they got elected to their positions, the attendance of our local councillors and the responses to your original post from others with knowledge of what had been happening. Marry that with the repeated redaction (at the request of someone) of the name of the sub-committee chair when linking them to their active travel lobbying efforts and it doesn't take a genius to work out what might have been happening here. Some, myself included, think there has been a coordinated political effort to influence the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee to support the council's agenda. So really you bleating on and on about who is behind OneDulwich pales into insignificance when you start looking in to what has been happening in the supposed "apolitical" Dulwich Society. That's where the real story seems to be.

What i am saying is that something has to be done to regulate and enforce bad cycling. Your approach of trying to deflect by saying they're not bikes they're mopeds is not helping anyone and is typical of the "well don't have a problem" narrative displayed by many in the cycle lobby. There is a growing problem around the perception of cycling. It's not a culture war as many in the pro-lobby will tell you, it is something being perpetrated by the action of cyclists and unless our cycling community starts to address it it will hinder the growth of cycling because public perception will begin to dictate policy.

Ha ha Snowy, someone took offence to having the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee's chair award winning active travel lobbying flagged on the forum and asked the administrator for the name to be removed. Nothing in my post broke forum rules. Someone seemed to not want people to know about her London Cycling Campaign awards etc. I wonder why - perhaps you could enlighten us with your thoughts on that? Nothing in my post broke forum rules. Although the tone of your above post does come close to breaking Forum Rule 1 does it not?

I am not disagreeing with anything you say. The whole point of this part of the thread was to highlight the damage these cyclists are doing to cycling and if something isn't done soon to clamp down on this then cycling as a whole suffers. Whilst both Lime bikes and delivery bikes have been responsible for the majority of post Covid cycle "growth" it is actually creating a much bigger cycling perception problem. Pro-cycle lobby groups seem unwilling to address it because they fear scrutiny of their own ilk. Maybe this is why Earl claims that stronger regulation and enforcement will hinder cycle "growth" because people might realise how much of it is delivery drivers on modified pushbikes and drunk Lime bikes users...neither of which is a good look!

Not sure selective quoting applies here as you did say they were bicycles didn't you...modified bicycles granted but not mopeds? That was exactly my point but Earl seemed to want to pick a fight over it...I wonder if they will turn on you now in the same way they turned on me when i suggested that...let's see.....

Well, it appears the Oracle of all Such Things disagrees with you....see below..thanks Ex-!!! 😉 Earl, I am sure you'll be about to launch an argumentative attack on Ex- anytime now.... And that was exactly the point I was making. Earl, you may think it is a matter of legal fact but the court of public opinion sees them as bad cyclists and it is this type of behaviour that leads to calls for more regulation. This whole debate was stimulated by my experience of such bad cyclists in Soho. Also, a point to remember as well, is that these delivery drivers have been propping up cycling counts for a long time and whilst it might be good for Will Norman's "cycling growth" numbers in London it's really, really bad for the perception of cycling and cyclists.

This is where you're exposing you flawed argument style because I never mentioned illegal mopeds. You did. You referred to push bikes that have an electric conversion kit added (new rear bike wheel and battery slung from under the frame) that can go up to 70 mph as illegal mopeds. The point I was making was the below and based on my experience of walking through London and seeing the push bikes with electric conversion kits being ridden badly and in a way that endangered pedestrians: So the issue here is, again, someone makes Point A, you throw in Point Q and then accuse them of something based on your insertion of Point Q and accuse them of stating Point Q when they did nothing of the sort. And you've done it again. It's just the your flawed "debating" style.

Earl, no honestly, you lose me. We start at Point A and you take it around the houses and try to land a punch by making Point Q which has no bearing on Point A at all....

No, according to the admin update at the time of the removal someone asked for the name to be removed (even though it is all public information).

Earl - you're meandering and losing me again.....what I was arguing about was that push bikes with an electric conversion kit are not identified as mopeds by those pedestrians that they are causing huge problems for. They are seen as bad cyclists. Are you advocating that push bikes with electric conversion kits should be registered as you seem to want to treat them differently to other forms of cycling? But the police can via ANPR.

Someone is seemingly policing what gets posted on the forum.....the public names of Dulwich Society sub-committee chairs who are award winning active travel lobbyists and now Dulwich Roads posts that people have been critical of......that'll get the conspiracy theorists going....;-) March46 maybe repost it again and let's see what happens....

Earl I am the one not ducking the question I can assure you. Those delivery bikes which are wrecking havoc in central London and putting pedestrians at risk are not, in the eyes of the public, motorbikes. They are bicycles. Do you agree or disagree?

But to members of the general public, walking around Soho for example, how do they present themselves (and I remind you this is where this part of the discussion started)?.....;-) Do people look and think "oh look there's a bad cyclist" or do they think "oh look there is someone riding (badly) an illegally modified pushbike that should actually be classified as an electric motorbike/moped due to its power output but of course only if it had a number plate, road fund licence and indicators.......which it doesn't...." They present as a bad cyclist and this is what is moulding the negative perception towards cyclists - delivery riders, Lime bike riders, red light cyclists, pavement cyclists are all doing massive harm to the perception of cyclists and to anyone who cycles, like me, this is something that has to be urgently addressed.

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?