Rockets

I do not believe this is true (Southwark's claim they had to). Didn't Cllr Barber flag this many years ago around the time of the first attempt to force a CPZ on Dulwich that it was Southwark's decision to extend them?

Funny how the council has only shown interest in this when it's trying to get CPZs in....I mean for how many decades has it not been of any concern. The council uses it to create parking pressure and the usual suspects start regurgitating the "sightline" narrative they have been fed. So predictable. Of course CPZs are part of addressing the climate crisis too.....ahem...

Double yellow lines are becoming part of the armoury of underhand techniques the council uses to try to create demand for revenue generating CPZs. I know some people complained about the problems they were causing and councilors responded by saying: we can help you get a CPZ. It's brazen and utterly reprehensible and they need to be held to account.

It's hard to find a junction now where Southwark have not extended double yellow lines to the legally permissible length - whether they are needed or not. This has zero to do with road safety and everything to do with revenue generating CPZs. Look at what has happened around Townley and Calton: the council manage to persuade a few supporters to support a CPZ. One or two roads get a CPZ (whether the majority want them or not) then teams of council workers extend the double yellow lines on the surrounding roads - ostensibly to make our roads safer but actually to make parking more challenging. When people then write to their councillors the suggested solution to the problem (that the council have created) - a CPZ! Honestly, anyone else who thinks anything else is a deluded (or blinkered) fool....it's so transparent it's laughable. There were never parking problems in Dulwich until the council started meddling. They are the ones solely responsible for creating parking pressure on our streets and all because they have managed to persuade a very vocal (and gullible) minority that there is "dangerous parking".

Think about it Earl, just think about it for a moment. No just years and years of the council doing this...speak to James Barber about it...he was on the case years ago. Anyone with a modicum of sense can work out why the council extends them as far as legally permissible (when many other authorities do not) - its to create parking pressure. Ask anyone on a street where they have done it.

Ah so you did research it. Can you share the data you found to put your closed road stats into context?

Your research is not complete though Earl is it - you are throwing figures around without broader context? You are cherry-picking a stat, like the council loves to do, and are providing no further context. I was just interested to see whether you had looked at that because pointing out that accidents had reduced on a closed road is a bit of a no-brainer but if you haven't looked at accidents on the displacement routes then you cannot actually say whether closing the road has reduced accidents or not - unless the only stat you are interested in is accidents on a closed road. Do you see the point now?

Earl you're misrepresenting what I was saying...again....tsk tsk. Of course, if you remove cars then the danger from cars reduces - you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work that part out. What takes a little more grey matter is to work out that when there was slow moving congested traffic then the risk to pedestrians was low. Remove the vehicles and replace them with fast moving bikes and try to mix them in a highly pedestrianised area then the risk to pedestrians will be higher. Is that clearer now?

Does this come as any surprise - one arm of the junction has been closed to motor vehicles - this is a bit like when the council said that the LTN was a success because their monitoring inside the LTN showed motor vehicle journeys had dropped - it's a bit of a...errr yeah, go figure moment? Earl, has a similar drop been seen on the displacement roads that are currently taking the traffic that used to go along Calton to and from the Village? Did they say this did include records of collision with pedestrians involving bicycles because if they claim it does it would be interesting to know from what source they are taking that data.

The council are extending all of the DYLs in the area to the legal permissible maximum to create parking pressure to try and create demand for CPZs. Where is this? The irony is they claim it is to make junctions safer but it seems to be having an adverse impact because people can now see more around the corners and are not slowing down.

Because you are pro-cycling lobbyists who are blinkered by your own fixation with cycling. You fail to acknowledge the issues caused by bad cycling and if anyone challenges you on it you scream: “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!”. Something has to change, streets are becoming more dangerous due to bad cycling.

Do you also feel that it is a disgrace that people's bus journeys have been delayed by displaced traffic from LTNs?

I do wonder if we will have to head towards a CBT scenario with bikes - that there has to be some sort of basic cycle training before people head out onto the road. Only horses and cyclists can head out onto the road without any sort of training. Bring back the Cycling Proficiency! Everyone used to do it at school way back when and that meant everyone had a modicum of road sense...which seems to be severely lacking in many of today's cyclists.

I had forgotten that they have also managed to close East Dulwich Grove too! We are completely encircled

Thames Water is very quickly encircling Dulwich with their waterworks - Honor Oak Road has two sets of temporary lights as well!

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.