Rockets

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....

Why? Seems perfectly reasonable to reasonable people to use it as thus.... accident /ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/ noun an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. "he had an accident at the factory" an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. "the pregnancy was an accident"

Not too many on the pro-side too keen to raise their heads above the trench to try to find a way to defend this....if true...it's a bit embarrassing for the council and their supporters and wonderfully hypocritical.

Oh my word....the problem is clearly a lot worse than many who post on here steadfastly refuse to acknowledge...it's not like we haven't been trying to tell them. Stand at any junction in central London, wait for the greenlight to allow you cross and I guarantee you will see a host of cyclists jumping the red lights. Does anyone think this isn't a problem that needs addressing?

Now come on be crystal clear...tell us what you added.....you know full-well it wasn't a typo... Are you, in fact, the person behind Dulwich Roads because the post-criticism edit to try and cover your tracks is a tactic they have used before....? Kathleen, no - no-one knows what caused the accident that destroyed the fountain.

Ahem...which bit did you edit Earl...come on, try to tell the truth now....;-)?

But you did edit the post didn't you...and you accuse me of moving goalposts......ha ha...we see what you're doing? When compared to the number of vehicular movements across that area to suggest it is a common/regular occurrence is a nonsense.

You weren't crystal clear at all - you clearly said the 1.1km stretch of Lordship Lane from East Dulwich Grove The fact you have since gone in and edited your post (did you pick up this trick from Dulwich Roads per chance?) to then read the below very much suggests you were not being crystal clear. Any accident is problematic but I am not arguing that, I am arguing that your suggestion that accidents are common is misleading. From a traffic journey volume perspective that is not a tiny area so tell me how many accidents there are for every vehicular journey made and only then can we truly determine whether these accidents are common or not.

Ah now I understand your mistake. That is not 46 accidents for that stretch of Lordship Lane - it's 46 accidents across the whole area shown in that map image - so from the farthest side away from Dulwich on Peckham Rye all the way over to half Moon Lane - which covers a large volume of traffic over the course of a year - does it not? And that remains the point I am making - you are looking at the stats in isolation but when you look at them as a % of the volume of vehicular journeys made in the area then they are not a common occurence. But, before you go off on a "minimising it" path I am not and I want no accidents at all. But for you to say they are common is not at all accurate and just spin.

Ok, on CrashMap it shows 9 accidents in 2022 (and two of those happened the Dulwich Library side of Landells Road but I have included them anyway) on the stretch of Lordship Lane between the junction of East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road...are you disputing that? That's not an accident weekly is it? I really don't know where you're getting your numbers from but they are all wrong..... CrashMap is very clear. You seem to just throw things out there to try and create an argument....and you're either reading the map wrong or are doing it deliberately to try and distract from the fact your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Earl I have "taken" anything - I put SE22 in the search box and those are the results it presented to me - so stop trying to create a narrative that I have somehow tried to manipulate the results. I have now zoomed and the picture below includes a much broader area beyond SE22 and look, 299 accidents - and that includes huge swathes of Brixton and the major A-roads. Of course by doing that you actually can say nearly one a day but you further dilute your accident per journey because those A roads carry a huge volume of traffic annually. Any idea how many vehicular journeys are made in that whole area over the course of a year?

Earls, I went to CrashMap (I thought that's where you were getting your numbers from), in the search bar I added SE22, Deselected all 5 years and selected 2022 and clicked Search and it comes up with 46. What % is that of all journeys made in the area in the same timespan - a tiny, tiny percentage and anything but a regular occurrence - do you see the point? Of course, we all want the numbers down to zero and any accident or injury is one too many but by banging on and on about what a regular occurrence you are actually harming your position as it is based on narrative and not fact. And this is why so many people have a problem with the way the active travel lobby and community behaves - because they allow their own rabid ideology cloud their judgement and what they claim - it's why I have such an issue with the hyperbole Dulwich Roads steeps to to promote their cause - more often that not it is incorrect, inaccurate and not based on facts - the very definition of a blinkered activist (one whom seems to be becoming more and more angry with each post they make!)

Ex- but I am not though am I - although you can search for cycle incidents but, and getting back to the point of this discussion, you can't tell if it was a vehicle hits cycle or cycle hit pedestrian incident? My point is that 46 reported vehicle accidents in a year in SE22 (that resulted in a reporting of an injury - the large majority of which were, thankfully "slight") suggests that the narrative that this is a common occurrence is not at all accurate given the number of vehicular journeys done during the year - which if you look at Southwark's LTN monitoring as a guide must be in the millions every year. And again, this is not trying to minimise the negative impact of cars on our road and the damage they do to other people and things but just a bit of a reality check for those who bang on and on about it. P.S. you never came back to me on the transport experts view (and industry view) on whether pneumatic counters are a recommended way to count vehicles under 10km/ph on the other thread. You must of, ahem, repeatedly missed those questions on the other thread.....;-)

Earl, can you clarify were you searching using the CrashMap tool and did you enter SE22? And, I say again, I am not minimising it just pointing out that 46 accidents in SE22 on CrashMap in 2022 shows that these are not common occurrences given the volumes of vehicle journeys in the area, despite what you, and others, would like people to believe.