Rockets

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.

Errr it's hardly victim blaming is it: pointing out that wearing dark clothing doesn't help you be more visible. It's commonsense. Come on @Earl Aelfheah would you not recommend cyclists invest in items to make them more visible to other road users? I do and I know a lot of others do as they take their safety very seriously. If that's the case then you are surely also showing bias. If everyone used roads and was considerate to other road users then everyone could co-exist very nicely. As a cyclist and a driver I pride myself on being able to find the happy balance - I am neither an obnoxious driver or obnoxious cyclist. I think we can all agree there are plenty of both around at the moment. Or maybe you don't. I pasted what the Highway Code says earlier...perhaps you should re-read it? This thread is hilarious (if it wasn't such a serious issue), the reactions from the usual suspect shows how entrenched, dangerously ill-informed and bereft of commonsense, some people are.

Yup too many deaths on our roads. But whilst you accuse some of trying to minimise the impact of car accidents it must equally be true then that there are some who clearly want to maximise the impact of car accidents too - just look at the title of this thread and then some of the posts throughout. Some have clearly gone a bit "Dulwich Roads" - where any accident involving a car is an excuse to suggest excess speed, dangerous/careless driving without ever establishing what actually happened.

It wasn't a few seconds - it was along the full stretch of the A205 - even alongside the bit with a designated cycle lane on the pavement....and you're really stretching now aren't you? What they were doing was being that awful type of cyclist known as the obnoxious ones....we all know a few if we cycle - the ones who don't give a single thought to anyone other than themselves, think the world revolves around cycling and suffer from that awful affliction thrown at many car drivers called "entitlement". Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you....you allowed yourself to get dragged into the anti-car black hole! 😉

So @Earl Aelfheah were the two cyclists riding two-abreast along the A205 right to do so? My point remains, and actually the Bikeability chap in the @malumbu video really highlights the problem, that many of the supposed experts aren't actually giving good advice to people or are giving incomplete advice to cyclists - much of which I think is leading to examples of bad cycling we see on the road every day and the catalyst for a lot of the anger directed at cyclists. As a cyclist who cycles a lot in London I really disagree with this statement - in fact, most cyclists don't subscribe to this - perhaps I just cycle around other pragmatist cyclists like myself but most cyclists in London do not cycle in the primary position "more often than not". Yes I take primary position when approaching junctions especially if there is a bike box (when the traffic conditions allow). On quiet roads do I keep my distance from parked cars (you don't have to cycle down the middle of the road/lane to do this), but am I also mindful to move out of the way of faster vehicles approaching - yes. But do I ever engage in the Bikeability chaps narrative of I took the space first so I basically tough - no, never. But they aren't helping the likelihood of being hit are they - sympathy if you get hit, less sympathy if you made yourself harder to see? It's still seems nonsensical to me that people would not try to make themselves as visible as possible - a reflective high-vis jacket that goes over any type of clothing costs a few quid on Amazon - a small price to pay to make sure you're seen. Maybe it's a "why should I have to" type mindset - good luck with that - I hope it works out for them.

And wear bright clothing perhaps.........seems like a very good commonsense approach wouldn't you agree? In fact, if you're not wearing bright clothing or have lights on your bike and cycling at night cycling in the middle of the lane is probably not good advice as by the time the person sees you it may be too late..... I have. In case you haven't here is what it actually says: Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation. 1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you 2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads. Well it very much was in the case of the two riding abreast of one another on the A205...... Yes I did. Did you notice how the Bikeability chap did not expand on the circumstances when to adopt primary position (as the Highway Code does) - and this is the issue - anyone who saw that video could mistakenly think that primary position should be used in all circumstances. The way he was talking, and especially his use of language like....."another road user [cyclist] who gets to the space first and they [cars etc] need to share it with them" is not actually that helpful at all and actually quite misleading and could lead people to cycle in a manner that was not considerate to other road users - clearly something our A205 friends listened to. It's like the misinformation thrown around about cyclists approaching left turn indicating vehicles at the times of the changes made to the Highway Code - utterly misleading and potentially very dangerous - the Highway Code is very clear that car drivers must give way to a cyclist going straight on when they are turning left but that is only half the story and it also says that cyclists must not undertake a vehicle indicating a left turn - something much of the publicity at the time omitted - so we have a lot of cyclists who think the car has to wait for any cycle proceeding to the left of a left turning car - no matter how far behind the cyclist was and that is wrong and potentially very dangerous.

If that was the case then the Highway Code would not make the stipulation they do? As I said before that rule seems to be taken by some cyclists to justify inconsiderate and selfish cycling I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "entitled to do" with entitlement being the key. The road is not narrow, it was broad daylight so no-one would have a problem seeing them yet they did it and created challenges for other road users by doing so. If they had been thoughtful to other road users then they would not have done it but they seemed only to care about themselves and actually seemed to be revelling in it. Why? Again why the use of should adopt....you can cycle perfectly safely and also be considerate to other road users - I could adopt that position I don't have to. It's your use of should rather then could that probably flags the issue here. I could adopt that position should the situation dictate it - it's a subtle, but important, nuance of language and probably mindset.

@malumbu I think your addition speaks volumes and highlights the issue. Most urban roads are not narrow and are not the type of roads to which the Highway Code refers. It is very interesting that cycling in the centre of the lane does come with those caveats as many cyclists seem to interpret it as applying to all roads but it clearly doesnt. And therein lies the issue and takes us back to the original post and the ludicrousness of some of the things said about wearing dark clothes whilst cycling at night. Why wouldn't you try to make yourself more seen or why would you cycle down the centre of a road or two abreast on the A205 holding up lines of traffic?

Is that stipulation on the circumstances where is it ok to ride in the centre of the road removed anywhere else? It's interesting that many cyclists interpret that as it is ok to cycle in the middle of the lane in any circumstance. I didn't realise it came with some caveats. The not using the cycle lane and riding two abreast (along the A205) has come up on these threads before and as a cyclist I always take the approach that I am always considerate to other road users. I do remember two gents cycling really slowly along the A205 two abreast along the section between the Grove Tavern and Dulwich College and folks coming on here saying - well they can so they should. They had created a long line of traffic behind them as they had a good old natter and were, quite rightly, getting volleys of harsh words from drivers - the lack of consideration for other road users was quite something.

I am really laughing so loudly at the ludicrousness of this discussion. It just shows how hilariously blinkered some people are.

You see. Another pragmatist....!

Street lighting, paving slabs, better bike parking....anyone? Or is it all about the parking.....it's always about the parking...all the world's ills can be brought back to parking...

Because I am not sharing the pavement with faster moving vehicles that can do me real harm if they didn't see me and hit me. I am taking a commonsense and pragmatic approach to joining the carriageway with bigger vehicles. Your argument seems to be based on...there are no rules to say I should so I won't...unless you're applying for a Darwen Award I doubt it is a smart approach to cycling.

I don’t why some on here take every conversation as a means to try and attack car use. Funny how no-one has anything to say about the variety of sensible improvement suggestions for Lordship Lane yet are fixating on widening the pavement by removing car parking spaces. I mean, has anyone got stuck outside Odonno’s for more than a few seconds….or has anyone been stranded there for days…….;-)

Did you read it, what do you think? You may have to pause occasionally but it's hardly the end of the world and no different to most other high streets at a weekend.

This thread is hilarious. Just because it doesn't say you must wear bright clothing why wouldn't you? When I cycle I have a day glo, reflective builders bib that I bought from a builder's supply store for a few quid. It's no fashion statement but it fits in my pocket and over anything I am wearing and I wear it because it increases the chance of other road users seeing me, especially at night. That seems entirely sensible and pragmatic. I also marvel at some cyclists seemingly going out of their way to decrease the chance of other roads users seeing them. Not sensible and pragmatic.

Errr...because the last time the council surveyed Lordship Lane shops 22% said they had driven....that is all...goodness me P.S. that was the last time the council ran such a survey.....and it is here (I am out and about so cannot attach): Source: Southwark Council https://share.google/5ZZZbi6iG3BDEAx5j

Here we go again…..goodness me…relentless. Zero point trying to have a conversation when it gets skewed like this. So, maybe let’s just encourage the council to run another survey as I do not think they have done one for 10 years so we can get an accurate picture. When I get a chance I will also post the survey the council did 10 years ago so you can all see for yourselves what was said.

But where did it say they are driving to work there and then shopping? 22% of the respondents said they had driven. Look, we know some are trying to use this to lobby for the removal of parking spaces but those spaces (which are growing more limited each time the CPZ creep takes place) are vital to the thriving Lane as we know it now. Please, drop the parking bone and go pick up another - there are far more pressing needs for Goose Green end of Lordship Lane if the council were to spend any more on it....move it to Dulwich Village and millions would have been spent by now! 😉