Rockets

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.

I just did what you did for 2022, searching for SE22 and only got 46 results (see image) - not sure how you are getting to 231 (see second image). I can only get it to 231 when I select 5 years of data. Did you make a mistake and leave multiple years checked?

Before I start this message let me be very clear (before the usual suspects suggest I am trying to minimise the negative impact of vehicles on our roads) that we need to do everything to reduce accidents on our roads (and thankfully the trend has been downwards in recent years) but I thought that map was interesting. I took a snapshot of a wide area across Dulwich (pic attached) and it shows that in 2022 (the last year they did reporting) there were 89 accidents across that area 73 of which were slight and 16 of which were serious. These figures were down from 2021 and 2020 and, in fact, the lowest since 2015 - by some margin. Given the huge number of vehicular movements across the area in a year is it true to say it is common - 0.2 accidents a day doesn't seem so - yet the narrative people on here and the likes of Dulwich Roads try to impress on people is that accidents are incredibly common? I have felt for a long time that Dulwich Roads is trying to scare people.

Yes it is highly likely it was caused by a road vehicle you but the presumption that it was careless or dangerous driving is exactly that - and a presumption lots of people seem happy to apply to any accident without ever bothering to check what actually happened. I remember when Dulwich Roads posted about an accident and suggested speeding/careless driving was the likely cause when it absolutely was not. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that!

Ha ha....coming from the very person who suggested accident was not the right word to use....#where'sthefacepalmemoji! Aha! Clearly not...but they're all having a good guess on what they would love it to be - aka doing a Dulwich Roads! They live in a world where the driver is always, always, always the guilty party!

How you get to this conclusion is beyond belief....but oh so typical...

Ha ha.... So, should we no longer say I cut myself by accident....it was, after all, avoidable if one was paying more attention... Or...I accidentally dropped the mug on the floor...again avoidable if one was paying more attention Perhaps A&E also needs to be renamed to Avoidable Incidents and Emergency..... BTW is the "police accident" sign still used and in the Highway Code...perhaps you can lobby them to change that too...what do you suggest they use "police crash" - no as that suggests the police have crashed...maybe "Police incident invariably caused by a careless or speeding driver"...nah too large for a single sign..... Meanwhile, still no-one actually knows what caused the accident we are talking about do they..........? It's all gone so Dulwich Roads.... Good grief......

DKHB - accident also means a non-deliberate act - no-one goes out to deliberately crash a car - well the majority don't anyway. The fact you say: "too many still do not hold drivers accountable for their actions" also leans in to the suggestion that all accidents are the fault of drivers - again a presumption that really suggests blinkeredness. Yes, there are accidents caused by careless driving but there are also accidents that are, well, just accidents. Not every accident is the result of careless driving - despite how many would like them to be.

But still no-one knows what actually happened do they.... Of course, there is dangerous and careless driving but by presuming every accident is caused by this is blinkered in the extreme - but there seem to be a lot of people who suffer from extreme blinkeredness when it comes to such things...

Oh dear...I think the council and the local councillors really need to start answering some questions on what and why they spent so much on that square. And if these stones were shipped from India how on earth that tallies with a square designed to promote active travel and help manage the global warming crisis? It seems the vanity project may be an environmental disaster...what a waste of tax payers money. Another council, ahem, oversight perhaps? If this is all true the question we should be asking is can we trust the council to spend our money wisely?

According to police figures on reported crime these types of crime have been steadily increasing over a long period of time (on the figures I looked at for the Dulwich Village ward), it's one of the reasons that reported crimes are at their highest for 3 years. I suspect similar trends will have been seen in other wards too.

I am sorry, if you are two thieves who attack and injure a child to rob them of their phone then you are scrotes. That's not being reactionary, that's being polite...

But, a bit like a Dulwich Roads "report", you're guessing/hoping aren't you because you don't know and haven't established what actually happened.