Rockets

"4 x the carbon footprint" - good grief, if true, this really is becoming an on-going source of huge embarrassment to the council and councillors - seems to be own-goal after own-goal. Wasn't Cllr McAsh a member of the Green Party for a while - it seems as he signed off on that junction he isn't paying close attention or his green credentials have fallen to the kerb (or the Indian paving ;-)).... And if they have refused to put cycle slow signs at the junction you really have to question why not - and what agenda they are working to? If true, who is pulling their strings?

Does this mean the gate opposite the Grove Tavern is open again now?

Malumbu - you (and others) regularly post things in threads that have no bearing on the subject matter but are just a ploy to move the discussion onto something YOU want to talk about - especially when the subject matter of the OP is something close to your heart and you are ideologically opposed to. It's nothing more than a distraction technique and adds nothing to the debate. How many times have threads been hijacked by people saying the forum equivalent of "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!!!"? It happens all the time and it's always done by the usual suspects and it's against the forum rules.

The rail service is particularly poor and the weekend traveller seems to take the brunt of it. Whenever we are making plans for any given weekend we always check ahead for fear of the dreaded "Bus Replacement Service" and the frequency of trains not being available has increased markedly at weekends over the last few years.

No, you were doing what so many on the pro-side of the argument do when confronted with a thread that is critical of the behaviour of some cyclists. You try to distract by screaming...WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!!....which is exactly what you, and others, have done on this thread - and you do it all the time - you go head in the sand about the problems caused by cyclists and try to turn the debate on to cars. Again, another example of why so many people get fed-up with the actions of active travel protagonists because few are keen to address the issues in their own backyard.

What a load of nonsense...and i say this as both a cyclist and driver. This is not even close to being true. But this is a thread about bad cycling so maybe take your comments on bad driving and set yo a new thread instead of trying to throw in a "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" to distract from this thread....

Probably good cyclists go and read it to…not sure many realise this, certainly very few of us obey it - I do and often have been overtaken by other cyclists ignoring it. Some cyclists seem to think they have right of way in every instance. Rule 74 Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. and here are a few others a large number of cyclists probably need to read up on and obey. Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Rule 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Rule 71 At traffic light junctions and at cycle-only crossings with traffic lights, you MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Rule 81 Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

Malumbu, are you advocating some type of cycling test and licence for cyclists as well then? You cite left turns across cyclists but there are a lot of cyclists who ignore the Highway Code and proceed to the left of a vehicle that is indicating. Surely if there is no training for cyclists then how are they supposed to know what's safe cycling - many seem to think they are able to cycle to the left of an indicating vehicle.

Because sometimes you have to pragmatic. Whomever took that photo could see what they were doing and why they were having to do it that way. Is the van doing the work at that house not a low-level misdemeanour - you can’t have it both ways? Therein lies the problem…you want every driver to comply with the rules of the road but not cyclists. That’s hypocrisy but there’s a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on your side of the argument it seems to come with the territory. I think the challenge you have is that anyone who dares to challenge your view or perspective you have to attack and try to demonise them, especially when you get things wrong - instead of saying you got things wrong you double-down. It’s sad but so utterly predictable but this behaviour is why so many people are really challenged by the approach of the pro- side of the lobby - a lot of it is downright nasty and that is why it is rabid - because a lot of people have lost all sense of perspective because they are so far in their ideological sink-hole. And I say this as a cyclist and driver who wants to see zero accidents on the road.

I do not hate anyone and to suggest otherwise is a typical low-blow attack we have come to expect from some. What i do hate however is when Dulwich Roads posts things to further their ideological campaign that are either clearly untrue or they have done nothing to determine what actually happened. It seems every time they see anything that they think was caused by "dangerous drivers" they start salivating and post it as proof. The ones I posted yesterday are a classic example - the yellow arrow sign clearly wasn't hit by a vehicle. And there is this one...now that's vehicle is not being driven anywhere, there is no-one in the drivers seat. Notice also the tubing on the back of the "HGV". Now is that driving down the pavement or maybe it's pouring or removing something into or from the building works going on at the back of the house on that corner....go take a look for yourself...the house, with a load of building works going on at the back of it is at the junction of Dekker Road. As I have said a thousand times before I don't want to be hit by either a HGV or a bicycle (but if you're asking which is would prefer to be hit by then I will, obviously, take my chances with the bike). I am someone who would like to see zero road injuries caused by anything. Some seem to want zero road injuries caused by everything except bikes - which seems to be the go to position for many in the pro-cycle lobby the "well let's turn a blind eye to bikes because cars kill more people".

Earl loves putting words into people's mouths....

Cars and bikes may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.... Imagine a world where people spent more time focussing on things that actually make a difference....

No, I just don't think they should be wasting time, effort and resources pandering to people like you who get upset by the word they use.... Just remind me again...how many accidents have been prevented by not referring to accidents.....?

Apparently every piece of bent and broken street furniture is down to dangerous drivers.....amazing how precise these dangerous drivers are because how anyone managed to just hit the arrow sign and not the lamp post with a vehicle is anyone's guess....and how they managed to hit it and not move it from the housing at all is also an amazing piece of precison driving. We can only presume it's been a slow accident week for them so they are obviously getting desperate for content...... https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1854452442701676548?s=09

Has anyone yet determined what actually happened?

Nope. I think the DfT etc should be dealing with the issue of road safety rather than having to deal with a load of word police who are wasting their time getting them to change a word because it suits their narrative. Again, how many accidents have been prevented because the word accident is not being used by some authorities? Do enlighten me..... Go back and read my sentences very carefully a couple of times and see if you understand it...;-)

No Earl, just pointing out how flawed some of your car bad/bike good narratives are.....

Good grief Malumbu, how many accidents have you had? Should you be allowed on the road (or pavement) at all....;-)?

Yes and if anyone was paying attention (but given the way you and I go at it I very much doubt they do) they will have noticed exactly what you added and when.... And I completely agree that once a day, once a week, once a month or once a year is far too regular. But I wasn't challenging you on that, I was challenging you on your insistence that they were a common/regular occurrence. And my point remains that, given the volumes of traffic moving through an area, those are not common occurrences. No, the people spending time, effort and money lobbying them to force them to change the word used. Changing the word does nothing to address the problem does it - people really need to refocus their energy.

Yeah because not using the word accident reduces accidents by how exactly...honestly, do you not ever think that people get so blinkered by their own ideology that they lose all sense of perspective and get utterly distracted by things that don't actually help the very cause they support? When you read nonsense like this in that document it does make you wonder: Using ‘accident’ encourages a sense of fatalism, with fewer resources invested in prevention efforts as a result.

Barby's latest installment! Townley Road seems to be a good one!

Earl - firstly, I thought attacks on people based on mental health is frowned upon on the forum nowadays? But, no I have not "lost it" and I am great thanks - thanks for your concern. I am accusing you of posting: "Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road" And then when I did exactly and said that stretch of road there were 9 accidents you accused me of trying to create a smaller area. I then suggested you had not been crystal clear. You denied it but then went in and edited your original post to say: "Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it)." You have made a load of utterly false accusations of me trying to manipulate what I have been presenting and I have been really clear with you how I got to those numbers via the CrashMap website - everyone else can do exactly the same thing. The point remains that accidents are not a common occurrence when you look at the volume of vehicular journeys - you may think so and you're entitled to your opinion - but the data suggests they are not. The great news is that the data also shows that accidents are declining (from CrashMap data) and long may that continue - we need to get all accidents down to zero.

Therein lies the point: many would love to aportion blame to drivers - Dulwich Roads does this every time they post - but unless you know it was driver error or the fault of the driver then you are just presuming - and I know how many love to jump to conclusions to forward their narrative. It demonstrates the utter obsession and blinkerdness of some that they cannot acknowledge this. There is a really bizarre car prejudice amongst many whilst the same are happy to turn a blind eye to indiscretions of others. It's time some people grew up a bit and dropped the childish obsession with trying to claim 100% of accidents are the fault of drivers. Sorry to burst your bubble but they are not. This thread was started because some claimed a careless/dangerous driver wrecked the fountain. They did so without ever bothering to check what actually happened and what caused it.

But you have to admit that report is shocking isn't it? Do you agree there might be a problem - I know you have suggested this problem was imagined by some of us in the past.

They are, by the dictionary definition, accidents. If you want to use crash because it furthers your cause and allows you aportion blame to drivers for every accident...then good luck. Some of us are a little more pragmatic and live in the real world. The fact you can get so angry about the correct use of a word really is a poor reflection on your cause and shows how one-eyed and blinkered many are. If that furthers your cause then good luck with it - you probably need to lobby the Oxford dictionary a little harder....