Rockets

Unfortunately, these types of attacks are increasing - it's been happening for a while now. Groups of thieves are targeting kids (and adults) in the area for their phones - it's organised groups of thieves working the area all, in the main, dressed identically, wearing balaclavas and masks and riding identical bikes.

Ok, so we're guessing/presuming it was careless or dangerous driving - its all gone a bit Dulwich Roads hasn't it? There are a many different reasons why things like that happen and often careless, dangerous driving or excess speed has nothing to do with it but it seems all too easy to jump to conclusions without ever bothering to establish the facts - again, all very Dulwich Roads. Not every accident is due to bad driving. As much as it could have been careless or dangerous driving it could also have been caused by a driver having to take evasive action to avoid a pedestrian walking into the road whilst staring at their phone - you just don't know.

But does anyone know what actually happened - that it indeed was careless or dangerous driving or are we all going a bit Dulwich Roads and presuming it was as a matter of default?

I saw the most amazingly stupid piece of cycling this afternoon at that junction. A middle-aged man and his son were cycling towards DV along Turney and, instead of waiting for the lights to turn green for cyclists, the dad tried to dash across the traffic on DV. But the teenage boy didn't realise his dad was about to try and play chicken with the traffic and so didn't go - his dad then grabbed him and kind of towed him through the traffic on DV and was narrowly missed by a Mercedes people carrier as they tried to weave their way through. They finally got to the other side and the nearly mowed down a load of pedestrians who were crossing under the green pedestrian light at the entrance to Dulwich Square. The dad did apologise to the pedestrians but his actions were so stupid and I am not sure what he was trying to achieve other than maybe save a minute or two.

Does anyone actually know what caused the damage? Was it dangerous or careless driving?

Does anyone know what caused the damage? Was it dangerous or careless driving?

Let's see how much of a fight is put up to not increase fares.... BBC News - Government wants London Tube and bus fare increase https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93qnpvdwj0o

Mal, to be fair Will has been trying to address that for years as it has been part of his strategic goals and it is clear whatever he has been doing hasn't been working - cycling still has a massive diversity problem and that ultimately rest with him (which is probably why he is "weighing up" diversity targets as the buck ultimately stops with him and Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!) Just take a look at the LCC's leadership team - it's very much reflective of the problem cycling faces.....https://lcc.org.uk/team/

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2024/oct/31/cycling-clampdowns-city-councils-danger Interesting article as councils try to wrestle with the problem of bad cycling and the risks to pedestrians and balancing that with the need to promote active travel.

And I think therein lies one of the challenges - it appears (part of) Lordship Lane (and one presumes the part is the high street part) only gets it's first collection of the autumn on November 11th which may explain why, last year for example, there was such a problem with leaves as so many have fallen by then. Perhaps the council should prioritise high footfall streets as a matter of urgency.

I sense, because of the budget challenges the council are facing, that they have reduced the amount of street cleaning. It seemed last year that, Lordship Lane, for example, they wanted to let the majority of leaves fall before clearing them.

They seem to be popping up everywhere again.

Court Lane and surrounding streets are always good - in fact, many are already putting their decorations up now.

Mal, what are you going on about? The point I was making is that, like Boris, regional mayors often use their roles to springboard to bigger jobs. If you spend the whole time picking fights (ostensibly on behalf of your constituents) with the government of the day (who happen to be your political opponent) and then the moment the government changes to your own party and you stop fighting (on behalf of your constituents) then you look like a bit of a hypocrite and clearly you were only fighting because it suited the party agenda. The TFL funding issue looks like a prime example of this and, to be honest, the last thing Labour HQ need right now is a regional mayor kicking off and fighting on behalf of what is right for their area.

FM do you have the link to the session?

So given the below what happened between the letter Sadiq sent begging for money to the Tories and the £250m or so he will be asking Labour for.. ...and politicians wonder why no one trusts them anymore... Ahead of the last government’s autumn statement in November last year, Khan had said in a letter to then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt that Transport for London (TfL) “needs £569m in capital support for 2024/25 to support critical network upgrades and investment in critical road assets”. He added: “Failure to secure this funding would put vital upgrades at risk and be detrimental to long-term infrastructure investment in the capital’s transport network, with consequential negative impacts on the wider UK economy.” However, asked earlier this week what he will be requesting from the new government, Khan said: “I’ll be asking for north of £250m. The £250m we got last year was before the £22bn black hole in the government’s year-to-year expenditure.” So does this mean then that if he gets £250m then critical infrastructure upgrades are at risk and there will be negstive conseuqences and if so why isn't he fighting for more? And if you think Sadiq (like his cohort Andy Burnham) don't have political aspirations beyond city leadership then you are very much mistaken...I mean, it's not as if previous mayors haven't used it for bigger personal goals! 😉

So he isnt doing any negotiation this year then? Or is he negotiating like the haggling scene in Life of Brian this time round? This isn't looking for dirt - it's highlighting hypocrisy.

BBC News - Mayor halves transport funding request from Budget https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dp7w6p775o Amazing how the narrative has changed with a new government...is Khan still fighting for Londoners or rolling over and putting party politics and his own political aspirations ahead of what Londoners need? This seems to be one hell of a u-turn...so what gives?

Has RaptorTruckman gone full circle?

Malumbu, correction - this thread is about dangerous and concerning misinformation being circulated by Dulwich Roads. P.S. it's probably a good time to remind you that you have posted in all of those said threads on numerous occasions and have been a major contributor....just saying....

P.S. there are also two big red cyclists dismount signs on the approaches to the pavement outside of the cheese shop in Dulwich Square, no doubt put there by tje council for those cyclists that, ahem, missed the road closed and cycle diversion signs. Needless to say this morning many cyclists were missing the cyclist dismount signs too as they tried to squeeze their way through in front of the cheese shop.

And Dulwich Roads has been back onto this site again in the last 24 hours but is, again, resisting the invitation to share the content of the tweet they retweeted..... One can only wonder why......

One of the responses asks whether bins are left in dangerous positions by the refuse collection teams so I suspect Veolia is going to get a ticking off!

Permitted to ignore...surely morally obliged to obey? This whole...the rules don't apply to us... is nonsensical. In fact, the Dulwich Square signs are mandatory Road Closed signs with yellow cycle diversion signs - making them very much mandatory.

I am pretty sure Southwark have said that the new Dulwich Square has been re-designed to, amongst other things, slow cyclists - I am pretty sure it was in the consultation documents. And the whole advisory defence is a one-way street for guidance to become mandatory.