Rockets

@Earl Aelfheah that's a close to an apology as I suspect I will get! Given you made that false accusation as your justification for @Raeburn calling me a "troll" I presume you don't think I am troll now after all? Again, not correct and you seemingly trying to "yeah...but" in true Vicky Pollard style. I will let others judge how some posters behave on here and whether it constitutes bullying - it certainly feels as if some wage relentless unfounded aggressive attacks on anyone who dares disagree with their particular view of the world - there is also a hell of a lot of narrative manipulation, name-calling and putting words into people's mouths going on. A lot of people who contributed massively to this forum over the years have been hounded off it. Why? Because they dared to voice an opinion that differs from others - kind of sad don't you think?

To be fair was it not the government leaks that were setting much of the tone for what was expected? I think this is the crux of the problem that this government are abysmal when it comes to communication - and absolute omni-shambles in fact. just look at the nonsense ahead of the budget and then the inside attacks on Wes Streeting. It all gives the impression they aren't properly in control of things and makes Keir and his cabinet look weak and then, post budget the suggestions Rachel Reeves was less than transparent with the public and it all looks even more of a mess. All at a time when this government is deeply, deeply unpopular - the own goals keep continuing.

Oh my goodness the relentless dog-whistle attacks are hilarious - it's like playground bullying.....and I am the one who needs to "grow up" apparently! Anyway, sometimes fighting back exposes bullies for the cowards they are so let's see what reaction there is when I reel off just a few of the things I have supported over the years on this thread (some people clearly have very short memories)...let's see if any have the maturity to apologise and admit they were wrong..... - segregated cycle infrastructure - the need for more cycling parking for Lordship Lane - pragmatic use of 20mph zones - school streets - the crossing at the Grove Tavern - the need for a crossing at LL and East Dulwich Grove - oh and to keep it on topic the sage advice that wearing high-vis is a commonsense approach when cycling (particularly at night)

Therein lies the challenge and what this is all about - local Dutch authorities want more say in how they legislate to deal with nuisance modified bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters etc due to the chaos they cause (see my earlier statement about chaos in inner-city Amsterdam!) as central Dutch government claims you cannot differentiate between an e-bike or a fat bike (I am not sure if this is within the current legal definition or something else). As a result, some local authorities want to ban certain types of vehicles from cycle lanes including e-scooters, fatbikes, some e-bikes and large cargo bikes and claim that central government is moving too slowly to act - from 2027 it will be law that anyone under 18 has to wear a helmet when riding an e-bike or fat bike but local authorities want central government to do more. The government is bringing in the helmet law apparently because of the sharp rise in hospital admissions of e-bike riders (it doubled between 2020 and 2024) and the number of 12 - 18 year olds suffering brain injuries from e-bike accidents rose 6-fold. I can't wait for someone to jump into the Dangerous Drivers Everywhere thread and suggest people look at StreetView to see there are no such drivers around and watch for the reaction! 😉 Let's be clear challenging the validity and commonsense of a suggestion made by another forum user is not trolling - coming on and calling someone an "agitator" and "troll" is much closer to troll like activity! These are both awful and show how there is a real problem with distracted drivers and I very much hope that you win any case as the impact of a momentary lapse of concentration by drivers has long-term consequences for other road users.

Who is a member of the Democrats 66 party, deputy mayor and is very much a politician (who has responsibility for traffic)......doh! Yup. Please see above about how fact checking is very important...ahem.. No. They are called Fatbikes. The clue is in their name but the suggested changes are for not just fat bikes but a whole range of bikes that are causing problems and injuries for their riders and others. Fatbikes are a particular problem. Is quite ridiculous. Yup but, you know, in your mind I clearly know nothing of the challenges posed by cyclists in the inner city and am just saying things to "agitate" and "troll". But you claim there are no challenges after a 30 minute run around the city and a check of StreetView. Right......

What on earth was he on about? Air brakes - but I doubt you need to be idling for a long time to get the pressure to a level where they will work.

There was an interesting chat about this on the budget The Rest Is Politics and they highlighted a challenge that taxation levels are now getting to Scandinavian levels yet our public services are nowhere near as good as theirs and the government is pouring money in to, for example, the NHS but people aren't seeing the improvement as (the politically dreaded) productivity is actually going down. They cited 20% to 30% more investments in nurses etc yet productivity is at around 7.8%. This is a big challenge for the government because if people don't feel the difference or feel they are getting good value for money they will turn on them very quickly.

It is factually wrong but very typical of your posts. There are plenty of examples of me supporting public realm improvements and local road safety measures throughout the many years of this on-going debate....I just think you're choosing to ignore them because you think it legitimises your attacks. You're wrong. Very wrong (and not for the first time). As I say, I am not the one acting in a troll-like manner here. Go take a look - I will await your apology. Absolutely 100% this. @march46 no-one has ever claimed that high-vis is the solution on this forum (I am not sure how some are getting to this conclusion but I think it is another case of putting words in people's mouths to suit their own personal narrative) but clearly high-vis certainly helps to be seen - I mean that's just commonsense. Granted, no amount of high-vis is going to help with a driver with their head in their phone and they are a scourge of our roads and I hate it if I see people doing this and glad that you were ok @march46. As far as I am concerned it should be a long driving ban for anyone caught using their phone whilst driving.

@Earl Aelfheah do you have anything constructive to add or just here for the name-calling - and the irony is you're calling me the troll...?! Never let the truth get in the way of a good story hey! 😉

@Raeburn no I do not think you have won anything - if that was your motivation then you have failed spectacularly. I am wondering when the penny will drop for you that the whole inner-city area being a nightmare due to cyclists is the catalyst for efforts by local authorities to reduce it being a nightmare. Anyway I am off to Google Street View to assess whether my experiences and views about Amsterdam, based on actually spending time there, are correct or not......... I mean a local politician is saying this: "I receive messages every week from Amsterdammers who say they no longer dare to go out on the road and who beg me to ban fat bikes. So I feel it is my duty to try everything within my power to address this problem,” Perhaps they need to spend more time on Google Street View to see what's really going on......

@Raeburn you seem to be trying to put words into my mouth - what I actually said was: You seem to have decided what I want this to be. What is driving this is, according to Dutch media reports, is the increasing number of injuries caused by, and to, those riding e-bikes - especially fat bikes. Apparently figures from Amsterdam hospitals show an increasing number of injury admissions to those riding e-bikes - especially in the younger age groups. Here is just one such story: https://nltimes.nl/2025/11/26/amsterdam-plans-fat-bike-ban-busiest-areas-city And lo, look what a local politician says in that article - reflecting exactly what I was saying about downtown Amsterdam - : “I receive messages every week from Amsterdammers who say they no longer dare to go out on the road and who beg me to ban fat bikes. So I feel it is my duty to try everything within my power to address this problem,” says traffic alderman Melanie van der Horst. “For 3 years, we’ve been asking the national government to introduce measures to deal with fat bikes. And in the meantime, the problems have only gotten worse, with more unsafe fat bikes on the road and more accidents, sometimes involving very young children.” And I provided my first-hand commentary - we clearly disagree but I suppose the difference is I didn't resort to a knee-jerk accusatory language and accuse someone of being an "agitator" and "troll" because I have an opinion that differs to theirs. Nor did I accuse them of posting "deliberate untruths". Pretty aggressive and inflammatory language don't you think - but it's a definite pattern displayed by many who won't hear a negative word said about cycling. Can you not see what you are all doing here? It's getting ludicrous. And this really is beyond laughable. Imagine if I had said that - can you imagine the pile on!?

Maybe that's because folks like you and I who actually stop are by far the exception rather than the rule....sorry, couldn't resist! 😉

Agitator and troll - they're two new ones I can add to the names I have been called! 😉 All because I dared offer an opinion that differs from yours. Ho hum - par for the course. Spend some more time there, maybe have a chat to the locals - I think you'll find they'll agree with me more than you! They'll probably tell you during the summer months, and especially during the height of the tourist season, that the inner-city is blighted by cyclists (especially tourists). Oh and if you drink beer avoid the Texels cloudy beer - it goes down like fruit juice but is lethal!!! 😉

I think we all are - you can't keeping putting words into people's mouths all the time. If we said it fine but if we didn't say it don't claim we did - it's not playing fair. Please try to refrain from doing that.

And you seem to be arguing with me based on a 30 minute run in late November.....ho hum....maybe chat to some of the locals about the joys of cyclists in the city centre (especially in the summer months). Interesting though that local authorities across the Netherlands are looking to ban certain types of bikes using cycle paths in cities....perhaps ask some locals about their thoughts on that too! BTW if you want any good restaurant recommendations I have plenty!

Imagine Singelgracht like a ring-road canal that encircles the inner city - it has an entrance/exit to both the north and the south of the city. My reference to that was that the area within the Singelgracht canal - the actual inner-city, is a nightmare because of cyclists. Outside of it everything works well but inside it is a cycle nightmare.

We will agree to disagree on that one.... Downtown Amsterdam is the thing of cycle nightmares. @Raeburn let me explain - Singelgracht is one of the main canals (so I doubt any bikes or cars will be using that! ;-)) and I was using that to say anything the other side of it towards the city is a nightmare. The other side is ok. Additionally, the potential banning of e-bikes, cargo bikes, fat tyre bikes etc in bike lanes is being considered for the whole of Amsterdam - in fact a number of cities in the Netherlands are considering similar bans. Can we just make this a standard automatic response?! If only it were true of course and not just a knee-jerk response anytime anyone reads something I post that they don't agree with! 😉

@Raeburn we will agree to disagree on that one - anywhere inside Singelgracht is a nightmare for pedestrians. Granted everything works nicely the further out of the city you get but inside it is an utter nightmare - it's why Amsterdam is looking at banning certain types of bikes from bike paths in the city (e-bikes, cargo bikes etc).

No I am not I am pointing out that you are putting words into my mouth and then trying to take us down a rat hole when I challenge you on it. It happens every single time anyone tries to debate something/anything with you. Why not? That's how reputation's are built and wrecked. As a cyclist who obeys the rules and is mindful and considerate to other road users (and actually knows the rules and guidance in relation to cyclists) it is of enormous frustration to me that I see growing numbers of cyclists who care not one jot for any other road users, who put themselves and others in harm's way because of their selfish attitude to the way they cycle. No-one notices the good behaviour only the bad. No I am not, I think I am reflecting the general perception towards cyclists which is being dictated by the growing bad behaviour by many cyclists. Some may be happy to to put their heads in the sand and defend cyclists and bad and inconsiderate cycling (after all cars kill far more people than cyclists - which seems to be the mitigation offered by many) but the perception is growing amongst the wider (probably non-cycling - given some cyclists seem to be a bit selective about what they see) public that there is a problem with cycling. It's a bit like estate agents - there are good estate agents but their reputation has been tarnished. If you want to see the manifestation of how bad things can get go to downtown Amsterdam where the frustration and anger towards cyclists is palpable. Closer to home it is interesting that the Mayor is closing Oxford Street West (a huge swathe of Oxford Street between Great Portland Street and Orchard Street) to cyclists as well as vehicles - clearly they don't want to mix pedestrians and cyclists. Why might that be?

Who mentioned injuries? You did. You then tried to put those words into my mouth...but this is what you do...repeatedly. Many people on this forum have warned you about putting words into people's mouths and misrepresenting what people have actually said.

@exdulwicher are you turning on one of the cycling journals now? Maybe write them a strongly worded letter! Yes I see cyclists behaving/dressing/acting appropriately all the time but I also see an increasingly large number who do not and who give those of us that do a bad name and actually put themselves at huge risk - only last week I was in a cab travelling up the Brixton Road, sat at red lights at the junction of Vassell Road heading towards the Oval and the lights turned green - a bus started to pull away travelling in the opposite direction on the other carriageway and suddenly a girl on a Lime bike shot across the junction from Vassell (wearing over-ear headphones) causing the bus to slam on it's brakes and she was then narrowly missed by one of the cars in front of us. It's that type of thing that infuriates people and if she had been hit by the bus I am sure the narrative would have been about another cyclist being injured when it was a result of her own utter stupidity. Clearly anyone who cycles would be best advised to wear bright clothing - it's kind of commonsense but seeing the blinkered reactions of some of the usual suspects on here just speaks volumes. You're putting words in my mouth again @Earl Aelfheah - you have been warned about this type of behaviour before.

No @Earl Aelfheah try reading what it says and digesting it in the context of your accusation of me "victim blaming". I mean, that's advice from www.cyclist.co.uk. My sage advice would be listen to them and don't listen to some of the posters on this forum for they know not of what they talk about and seem lost in their own blinkered view of the world....

@Earl Aelfheah read what cyclist.co.uk says about this....are they, and the courts, victim blaming as well I presume???? Honestly this thread..... Rule 59 of the Code states that cyclists should 'wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light.' If a cyclist was injured in the day, or in poor light conditions, and was not observing Rule 59, this could compromise their legal position. If the cyclist brings an injury claim against a driver, the driver could successfully challenge the claim, on the basis of a Rule 59 breach. @Earl Aelfheah you still haven't answered the question - do you think it is advisable for cyclists to invest a few pounds in clothing items that help make them more visible? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. I think the £6 or so I spent on my high-vis reflective jacket was money well spent and I would hardly call that "special clothes".

Who said anything about maximising the impact of deaths - I said maximise the impact of car accidents - get your facts right please. You're clearly trying to put words into people mouths again. It seems to me, and probably many other sensible folks on here, that no-one is trying to minimise the impact of road deaths or injuries - it's just a narrative you like to try and peddle to deposition anyone who dares try to discuss anything with you. You're doing what you always do - never actually answer the questions posed to you just default to your usual responses. We have seen it time and time again. Ho hum....

Huh, did you see how much the council spent on Dulwich Square? There is money to do this type of thing, they are making millions from PCNs, CPZs etc. I think we can all agree Lordship Lane needs some TLC - the pavements are awful. Why is it that the councillors are happy to throw millions at Dulwich Square but next to nothing to Lordship Lane that gets 1000x more visitors every day? Perhaps a Goose Green resident can email one of the councillors to ask them.