Rockets

Just go and stand outside Dulwich Library for 10 minutes tomorrow around school drop or pick up and watch the flying cargo bikes as they cut corners, ignore red lights and fly along the pavements. Then go and walk around Dulwich Square on Sunday for the full kit wally flying down Calton Road stopping for no-one experience....because every ounce of weight is vital and aerodynamics are essential to Sunday hobbyists cyclists it's not only the leg hair that is gone but also the bell so the only warning you get is the sound of a load gear train as they chicane in front of the cheese shop. Let me know how you get on and if you see any bad cycling. And then when you have finished there, get on the train at North Dulwich to London Bridge then walk to Bank. Stand and marvel about how bad the cycling is there (no coincidence that this is where the City of London Police target cyclists with their fines and warnings). In fact go to any road junction in central London and just watch how many cyclists ignore red lights, use pavements to shortcut light phases. For your final treat go and walk around Regents Park and play chicken with the full kit wally peletons hellbent on shaving a nanosecond off their Strava lap time (oh sorry they can't anymore after Strava was encouraged to remove the Regent's Park lap) Or.maybe just watch Barbyonabike's latest video of bad cycling in our area posted just 4 days ago (some great ones of the DV junction around 3.25)....some classics in this installment...the camera never lies... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-VpL34TSY4c&pp=ygUMQmFyYnlvbmFiaWtl

But none of us are having to battle horses using the pavement, being close passed by horses whilst we walk along the pavement or see horses ignoring traffic signals are we? And given 26 people were injured by bikes in Southwark last year alone I can't imagine more people are injured by horses or cows....I think you're clutching a bit with that one.... As someone who spends a lot of time in and around Dulwich (on foot) and in London (on my bike and on foot) I can tell you that my perspective is that there is a growing proportion of cyclists who cycle in a manner that puts themselves and other road users at risk. Cycling does have benefits but it has an increasingly bad reputation because of the behaviour of many cyclists who seem to have a selfishness normally levelled at car drivers. On the day that London rose to the world's third most congested city and other research confirmed that cycling is still under 5% of all daily journeys in London (whilst walking is around 40%) you have to question whether the cycling only focus of so many in TFL and Labour has been misguided.

It is a big section of works with a lot of what looks like fencing being stored (I had wondered if it had something to do with Gala but couldn't work out why it was so far away from the Gala area).

Hen123 you're at it again... You have an incredibly myopic agenda (not quite a one-topic poster but close) and then hurl childish playground abuse when your argument runs aground and flounders. It is an oh so familiar path taken by so many on the pro-cycle/pro-LTN lobby - taking us back to some dearly departed friends like LTNManatee and BooHoo. It's why cyclists have such an awful reputation at the moment and are widely disliked - and some cyclists are tarring the good ones (like me ;-)) with their brush. Some of us do think and care about other road users and don't believe that cycling is the be all and end all and are capable of respecting the rules of the road. Perhaps a few more needs to take leaves out of our books. Clearly injuries to pedestrians caused by cycles is a problem yet you try and have a sensible discussion with people and all they can parrott is: well cars kill and injure more than bikes and then call you a bigot because you dare to take a position that they don't agree with. That is an approach that will not help us get to Vision Zero will it and Vision Zero apllies to all road users - unless cyclists get an exemption and I am sure there are some on here who would lobby for that.

I don't think they do as they are acutely aware of the measures taken against them to police them from doing so. I am laughing at the way some on your side of the argument manipulate the narrative to try and suit their own myopic agenda and then demonise and name call anyone who dares challenge your way of thinking. Which you just did perfectly. Thank you. Keep it up, you're doing your side of the argument the world of good and are showing what a rational, thoughtful and considered bunch of folks you are! 😉 There is a growing problem with inconsiderate and dangerous cycling that is putting pedestrians at risk and those stats on cycle injuries caused by bikes in Southwark is truly shocking and something needs to be done urgently.

So you must agree then that the action taken by the Royal Parks to restrict Strava use as part of attempts to limit the amount of cycle time trialing through the parks is a good thing then? Yes the injury to the pedestrian was caused by the cyclist. Ha ha, are you applying the same "involving" to accidents caused by cars...you can't pick and choose how you categorise things you know.... So are these not cyclists then, perhaps they come under the powered two-wheeler category? Or are you suggesting we should have cyclist subsets to help your narrative to defend your position?

This is actually a lot higher than I would have expected and I think shows there is a serious problem that needs addressing. Given of the 26 that 14 were classed as serious should be a big concern to everyone. You also wonder how many go unreported due to the lack of need for insurance for cyclists. Shocking stats for the head in the sane brigade....extrapolate that across London and it probably shows the extent of the problem.

Malumbu, even for you this is stretching interpretive skills to the absolute limit...how you came to that conclusion is really a complete mystery.

Again - nonsense. Then you win trope bingo by throwing the right-wing bigot accusation - my, that was so predictable. It's almost as if you are trying to highlight the problems having a rational discussion with some people on this issue is. You can start to see where the cult of cycling trope manifests itself from.... Bottom line is that if London is to achieve it's stated goal within Vision Zero to eliminate all road deaths and injuries by 2041 you cannot turn a blind-eye to one section of road users on the basis of "they don't kill or injure as many people as other road users". That's blinkered, self-serving and naïve in the extreme. Hilda Griffiths was killed by a cyclist racing around Regent's Park who was cycling at dangerous speeds and his defence in court (which was successful) was "the speed limit does not apply to cyclists". That cannot be considered to be reasonable. Interestingly, I read there was another incident involving cyclist and a dog walker at the same spot and this is what is prompting the Royal Parks to take action against cyclists: https://www.royalparks.org.uk/get-in-touch/media-centre/news-press-releases/regents-park-statement-royal-parks Most telling is their detailed statement where they remind cyclists that pedestrians have priority - something a large number of cyclists seem to have forgotten, or ignore, all across London. Safety for all our visitors and road users is our priority. While we welcome considerate cyclists, pedestrians have priority within the Royal Parks, as they make up the majority of park visitors.

Nonsense. That's like saying police should only focus their resources on serial killers and ignore any other type of crime. Unless cyclists injure, maim or kill zero other roads users then they have to be policed to follow the rules. This whole cars kills more people than cyclists so cyclists should not be policed to follow the rules narrative is so unbelievably selfish and blinkered - it's one of the things giving us cyclists such a bad name at the moment and I am astounded so much of the pro-cycle lobby (Chris Boardman etc) is daft enough to go there.

Malumbu, they are starting to police the problem but, unlike other road vehicles that have number plates, you cannot just stick up a camera and prosecute offenders - they have to put officers on the street to catch them at it - with great success apparently...if councils could raise revenue from offending cyclists they would as they would make a fortune...perhaps it is only a matter of time as the problem is getting worse. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cyclists-fined-city-police-london-bank-junction-b1152140.html

Do you think the problem is growing, stable or declining? To me, as a regular cyclist too, it is clearly growing and it clearly needs addressing.

Spot on Penguin68 - there does seem to be some selective blindness amongst the cycling community and it is interesting how their own narrative has changed as more people experience the impacts of bad cycling. First it was very much the case of - "this just doesn't happen" and now when people are seeing it does happen then the narrative has shifted to "well we aren't as bad as car drivers". Only the most myopic could spend any time walking around London and say that there isn't a problem with cyclists - I often stop to wait to cross at junctions and wince as I see cyclists steaming through the junction on red lights without looking as they would stand no chance if any vehicle was passing under the green light and then the response would be "look another car hitting a cyclist" when it was the very action of the cyclist that caused the accident. There is a problem and the majority of the cycling community seems hell bent on refusing to acknowledge it.

In fact, in the new hierarchy of road users, the onus is on the cyclist to prioritise pedestrians - clearly something most are not aware of.

Apparently they have had to isolate the testing facility/company from the rest of the network and staff have had to revert to paper communication.

Penguin68 sorry to hear this. It is a growing problem with some cyclists presenting increased risk to themselves, pedestrians and other road (and pavement) users by cycling in a selfish and dangerous manner.

Boo hiss...I loved that story.....and I still think she made use of the hill to plan her attack, strategically it would make sense! 😉

Looks like she gathered on Dawson's Hill. got defeated at One Tree Hill and died on Peckham Rye.... https://www.dawsonshill.org.uk/

I had always been led to believe that Queen Boudicca had mustered her army on the hill before launching an attack on the Romans from there and then committed suicide on Peckham Rye.

Errr the signs on the fences....there were signs telling people how long the disruption was going to be under the original plans (diversions of public footpaths etc) and now the council has attached a new one over the top telling them that Brockwell Live are responsible for remedying the problems and the fences will be up "until further notice". I suspect they are going have to re-seed or re-lay large swathes of grass and that requires some time to bed in so I suspect the Brockwell Wall will be up for some time. If you want to go look yourself head on over to the BMX track at the top of the hill and you will find one of the signs there - I was there today.

Brockwell Park is still fenced off and looks like it will be for some time. The council have put signs up saying that Brockwell Live are responsible for restoring the park (got to love it when council's point the fingers at others to aportion blame!) and that the fences will stay up "until further notice". Looking through the fence gaps I suspect the Brockwell Wall will be up for some time as huge swathes of the park are compacted mud. The Brixton side of the park was very crowded due to the Herne Hill side being unusable.

You may not believe anything OneDulwich says but you would believe Cllr Leeming and his "handful of times in the past few years"? 15 times a month suggests he may have been less than honest about how often the emergency services had been using the junction wouldnt you agree..but, let's be honest, he has previous for this type of misleading spin...thankfully FOIs are great for exposing council, ahem, "oversights" such as these. Perhaps you should try and piece the jigsaw together again. It looks to me as if One Dulwich are saying some emergency services had not been consulted in March. The Southwark News article from April only confirms LFB had been consulted but no timing for this is given and the LFB statement about contacting the wrong Southwark team is a bit unclear. What you also need to understand is the emergency services hate road blocks - always have done, always will do. Why? Because they slow response times and endanger lives as a result and they are judged on how quickly they get to an emergency call.. Our local councillors, <Dulwich Society name> and the pro-LTN lobby love roadblocks so the two are always going to be at odds with each other. On one side emergency services want no road blocks so they can get to emergency calls quickly, on the other groups who want to close as many roads as possible to all vehicular traffic. And when LAS says they have "raised concerns" you can probably assume those concerns were ignored or rebuked by the council. It's LAS' way of saying "told you so". Given the council has a long history of ignoring the advice of the emergency services and putting their ideology ahead of resident safety I think it is clear where the issue lies here. Remember the emergency services were telling Southwark for months and months that the first DV closure was causing delays but Southwark repeatedly, and deliberately, ignored them. We also have to ask, again, why is the council and the pro-LTN lobby so desperate to block vehicular access at parts of that junction - so much tax payers money has been wasted on that junctions already? To whose agenda are they working as it is clear that the biggest danger at that junction is now posed by speeding cyclists yet the council seem utterly disinterested in addressing that issue? One wonders why that might be?

We always use Balfes and they are very good too.

I think it is far more telling that it got to this point and, it seems, that the Dulwich Society has an internal issue with a sub-committee headed by one of London's leading active travel lobbyists.....

To be fair DulvilleRes it was your post that triggered the change of direction and suddenly the affairs of the Dulwich Society seemed far more interesting than rants about who is behind One Dulwich. In light of some of the things you have now drawn our attention to I think there are far more pertinent questions around why <name removed> was ever allowed anywhere near a DS sub-committee - a clear conflict of interest and seemingly it led to less than impartial approaches to sub-committee issues. You focus on the most recent SGM (and it is clear there are two sides to that particular story) but what is of far more interest is what has been happening to get us to that point, why DS has had to state that the sub-committe headed by <name removed> does not make decisions on behalf of DS or that concerns were raised that the sub-committee was not being neutral in council consultations. Any thoughts on those issues?