Rockets

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.

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.....