Rockets

Earl, I am not going to rehash that argument with you but my position was very clear on why I challenged you on how "frequent" these collisions were given the number of vehicular journeys made over a course of the year. That's not minimising anything - it's trying to establish some facts instead of opinion. Probably because the council haven't yet realised what a revenue-generating opportunity this is....I am sure they will realise it soon! Put a few PCN teams at a few strategic points and the cyclist cash registers would soon start ringing!! 😉

Yes boo/hiss...how dare that famous Herne Hill school Dulwich College be the sole cause of increased pollution on Croxted Road......;-)

As someone who has spent time running training courses for cycling do you think there needs to be more focus on educating cyclists - is this a lack of road sense issue?

So then can we presume that there is a growing problem which is why the City of London Police regularly deploy officers to enforce the rule? Some on here would try to convince you there is no problem and that this is all part of a culture war, maybe the police are part of it too....

No I didn't. I merely challenged you on your assertion that these accidents were frequent (or whatever term you used) - that's not me minimising crash data but challenging you on your maximising of it. Thank you - that was completely uncalled for and clearly against forum rules - but I may change my user name to Despicable Individual as a result...or at least get a T-Shirt made...;-) And I agree that it's impossible to do - but then, how do we manage the challenge of bad and dangerous cycling? More police doing stops like they do in the City?

Clearly schools contribute massively to the problem but it is actually amazing that the Guardian editor/legal team let this story go to print and finger Dulwich College specifically in the way they have. Also, which private schools do those 6,000 pupils go to in Herne Hill exactly...I think the journalist might be a bit confused where the schools are....

Leaving this here with no comment....

I think this is what Earl would refer to as a "minor issue". And the problem with e-bikes is that anyone can go out and buy a kit that takes a bike way above 250W (some are advertised as being able to do 60mph for "off-road") - police are trying to clamp down as it is a growing problem but these bikes pose both a threat to pedestrians and the riders themselves.

But this thread is about the problems posed by cyclists is it not? Maybe set up a thread about cars as you seem to have a pavlovian response where anytime anyone talks about cyclists you scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! - maybe use that as the title of your car thread on the forum! 😉

Low level nuisance behaviour...at what point does it not considered low level nuisance behaviour...when they hit someone? You're minimising this as much as those you accuse of doing so with cars (which I hasten to add no-one is doing). You seem determined not to admit there is a problem, which is very much part of the problem and why so many people get frustrated with the pro-cycle lobby - a selfish blinkerdness that does the cause no good at all.

Because someone managed to get the old one locked! If you look at the figure pre-Covid the picture looks even worse for the council...... Here is the data:

But to be fair, could some also be accused of maximising the negative impact of cars? The go-to position of many in the cycle lobby is "well the problem with cyclists is not as bad as the problem with cars". It's almost as if they don't want to acknowledge any sort of issue. I think the challenge is that many pedestrians in the Dulwich area are feeling increasingly put at risk by cyclists and bad cycling and we cannot silence their voice because..well...cars are worse and it doesn't suit our narrative. The only way we will ever see Vision Zero is if everyone acknowledges where there are problems and does something about it.

I know this was when the Tories were desperately trying to stoke the fires but I thought this was interesting: However, enforcement should be undertaken proportionately and not used as a means to raise revenue. Can anyone provide any evidence to counter the claim that Southwark are abusing the powers afforded to them as they are doing it as a means to raise revenue? Penguin68 I am with you...clearly Southwark has determine that PCNs can pay for their vanity projects so need to find locations to place cameras that can earn the most revenue, not where the need is greatest from a safety perspective. All over the borough the council is installing cameras with the sole purpose of generating revenue. The Lower Road bus lane camera was illegally fining drivers because of an admin " oversight" and was Southwark's biggest earning camera raking in £500,000 in one year. Not only that but the signage was incorrect for the bus lane too. One wonders how no-one from the council ever bothered checking. Shocking.

Sue, firstly, no need to be rude - it's against forum rules and we have enough council supporters who will demonise anyone who dares challenge how they act. But, given the original discussion on this thread, given the huge increase in the number of PCNs issued (which has come about as the council puts more cameras in like the one on Lordship Lane at Overhill) and given we have established that the council can raise revenue from these fines to spend on vanity projects like the Dulwich Square project you can see why they are incentivised to place as many traps as possible. Even better if signage is poorly placed, obscured or the measures are policed in an overhand way (all real examples of which you can read about here) to ensure maximum revenue generation from them. Look at the council's keenness to roll out CPZs against the wishes of their constituents. Why? Revenue. Revenue to waste on projects like Dulwich Square. So whilst you think you're ever so funny suggesting I do a course in logic it appears I already did and passed with flying colours because it is more than clear what is happening here. But I am more than happy for you to provide your evidence to counter my position.....

Malumbu, what point are you trying to make exactly? I have said the council is setting traps to generate revenue from PCNs - which the data clearly supports. Look at the council's data - what's the direction of travel? Are the total numbers of PCNs being issued going up or down...and how do the numbers of PCNs issued now compare to back in 2020....? I am still perplexed as to why you are such a Southwark council apologist and fan boi...they're not even your council. ;-)

If it's an error who is signing this stuff off....didn't the Townley one have a timing error on it too when they first went in with the bus gate?

Excellent news!

Ha ha, an FOI...that seems a lot of effort to get an answer to a simple question or are you suggesting that's the only way to get info from Southwark....? Those PCN numbers come from the council themselves...none of that needs interpretation....it speaks volumes.

Sorry to hear this - I hope they get the power back on soon for those affected on a night like tonight.

Because this is a public forum and people often know the answer to questions that are posed. Clearly others, ahem, don't like it when certain questions get asked that don't suit their agenda and then are now referring us to our local councillors who are, very often, non-responsive. You know, getting us to throw the question to councillors doesn't make it go away and, anyhow, we like to tap in to the in-depth knowledge a lot of people claim to have on all things council and transport! 😉

Agree and that is due to the echo-chamber nature of social media algorithms. Previously racists and other idiots wouldn't read stuff in traditional media that echoed their warped mindset but now they feel empowered because they think everyone thinks this and can easily reach those that do share the same ideology. Cast your mind back to how Blackberry Messenger was blamed for its role in the London riots back in 2011. We now have that a thousand times worse.

Why? Unless you're suggesting that the people on this thread were speeding down a school street?

Earl, you're heading down the WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! track here. Vision Zero (https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london) will require ALL modes of transport to be focused on, yes cars and other motorised vehicles need to take the main focus but every mode of transport that causes death and injuries needs to be addressed. We must not lose sight of that and this "well have you seen how many people cars kill and injure" narrative pedalled by the cycle lobby is nothing more than a deflection. Clearly there is, some suggest, a growing (but it is very difficult to find any definitive published stats) issue of injuries caused by cyclists and they must be put under the same scrutiny as any other road user - not given an out because they are not cars.

Scary, scary times. We have all been brought up to fear the 1984-style dystopian world where governments control communication and use it to oppress and yet it seems that actually we needed to fear the people building the communication channels (although clearly Trump is pulling the strings). With news this week that Meta is also relaxing moderation and fact-checking we are heading into uncharted territory. Labour were very clever with their social media strategy in the run-up to the election and now social media is a huge threat to them and is disrupting and distracting. The concern with social media prior to this was with the threat from the likes of Tik-Tok because of their links to China. Perhaps the only outcome we can wish for is that Trump falls out with Musk (it will definitely happen at some point because those two big egos are like oil and water) and Musk turns the tables on him, but then who will Musk align himself with then. Maybe this will actually end-up with people waking up to the fact that there is a generation of kids who believe everything they read on social media and that that was becoming a dangerous precedent because whomever controlled the platform controlled the narrative.

I think because only a tiny few are getting penalised (usually in the City of London with the high profile police campaigns as they try to tackle the problem and educate cyclists -https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2024/april/nearly-one-thousand-cyclists-given-fixed-penalty-notices/). When I cycle I do marvel at the number of cyclists that jump red lights and I ponder where they are going in such a hurry, why are they so afraid of losing momentum by stopping and is there a kind of tribal issue going on here where they don't want to be the ones that actually stop. There does seem to be a kind of red-light stopper camaraderie building amongst those of us who do stop though with some cyclists I have been waiting with using some very choice words to describe offenders who put both themselves and pedestrians at risk by cycling like idiots.