Rockets

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.

I see Dulwich Roads has been back to the site but has not posted or responded to the request to share the content of the tweet they retweeted. Let's see if they do...if I was a betting person I know what my money would be on..... P.S. Raeburn, you came on here defending Dulwich Roads on the basis they tweeted a "correction". By doing so you validated my very first point that Dulwich Roads needs to engage brain and fact check before sending out incorrect and misleading information - thus agreeing with the subject of this thread.

Okey dokey Raeburn....whatever you say....

Not according to Dulwich Roads slide - was 2019 just a particularly bad year for deaths caused by cyclists? There seems to be a lot and they killed more than motorcycles and mopeds 50cc and under.

Goodness me Earl, I posted that exert because of what HorrifiedofHH says in reference to the “pedestrian fatalities” which was HH’s response to the misinformation that someone had been killed in that accident fanned by Dulwich Roads retweeting of the “under the covers” tweet. So you, like Raeburn, are admitting they made a mistake by tweeting the eye witness account without doing any fact-checking whether someone was “under covers”. Great, one by one you are validating my position that they need to take more care to prevent posting misleading info on their thread? We finally agree but, boy, it took us a long time to get here - I was right all along! No I accuse them of using news on accidents as a way to create awareness of their cause but they do not fact check what actually happened/happens and do not take a responsible approach to posting. Do I think they have a ghoulish fascination with accidents? Yes. Can I understand why an activist takes that approach? Yes. Do I agree with it? No, because in their keenness to make their point they are getting things wrong that, as in this case, causes undue concern to many in our community. I still think it would be good for Dulwich Roads to share the tweet they retweeted so everyone can see for themselves - I wish I had taken a screenshot because when people see it the rational amongst us will see the point I was making. They initially reported that there had been a “horrific and tragic” accident and they reported this by retweeting a tweet that said “someone under covers”. Over 5 hours later (at 10.30 a night) they then tweeted a correction on the location of the accident and then addd that someone had been taken to hospital; over 5 hours after their first tweet on the subject. The damage was already done by the first tweet. Also note the HorrifiedofHH post talks of a pedestrian death the day after Dulwich Roads’ tweet, so clearly their “correction” did nothing to quell the rumours of a death.

No they retweeted the "person under covers" tweet and amplified that and extended that tweet's reach by retweeting it to their followers with the message about it being a "horrific and tragic crash" which led many, not unsurprisingly, to think someone had died. In turn, this led me to suggest they needed to engage brain before tweeting and try to establish facts before sending this stuff out because no-one had died (which the police had to confirm due to the amplification of the message that suggested someone had). I am struggling to understand why so many struggle with this...it's not difficult... That was a clear distraction technique by you but, for the record, I don't think that person was right with that conclusion and no, I do not support the narrative that the LTN caused the crash. There you go, see how easy it is to be pragmatic and take a sensible approach to things, maybe some others should try it!

No, when you post a tweet it links to the realtime version of the tweet, so when I posted the link on here the "under the covers" tweet was showing. When the "under the covers" tweet was made "unavailable" so it would no longer show on here but the trail was still there with the user name of the person who tweeted the "under the covers" tweet. The user name has since disappeared (since Saturday) but you can still see the imprint left by that retweet - "You're unable to view this Post etc"

I linked to the Dulwich Roads tweet and that tweet showed the content that they retweeted (the "person under covers") and it was showing until that post was made unavailable. I also notice now that the original tweet link from user akirahoshi0 has now also been removed from the Dulwich Roads tweet in the last couple of days - is someone trying to cover their tracks?

Yup and the original tweet was live then.

No, when I first posted the tweet was available. It has since been made unavailable. One wonders why....

Let's see how you feel about that if Dulwich Roads shares the original tweet they amplified. It was very clear to all what Dulwich Roads was implying (deliberate or not) with their tweet. I very much Dulwich Roads suspected someone had died but cannot bring themselves to admit that their tweet was misleading as a result. The fact the original tweet is now unavailable speaks volumes. I suspect the person who put it out realised it was wrong and was causing distress and took action to address it. Probably because folks from your side of the argument keep posting on it......as you try to provide excuses for Dulwich Roads whilst attacking me for asking them to be more thoughtful about the impact of the posts they make and to engage in a bit of fact checking before posting.

Dulwich Roads, this thread wasn't talking about road safety but the inaccuracy of your retweet that created the impression someone had died. Why don't you share the full context by sharing the original tweet you amplified that created so much distress.....? Then people can decide for themselves. This whole thread is asking you to be more responsible, to check your facts before posting inaccurate, misleading and incredibly disturbing information. You purport to be community-led but seemingly have no issue scaring said community if you think it helps validate your particular viewpoint. P.S. the more you argue the more irrational you look - this might explain how you got into this mess in the first place as you are letting your passion/obsession cloud your decision-making.

Especially when retweeting a post that claims "someone under covers". But apparently the pro- lobbyists speak a different language to everyone else especially when they are trying to avoid saying "yup, sorry we got it wrong". But accountability has always been the Achilles Heel for so many on that side of the argument.

But, by your own argument, Dulwich Roads did send out inaccurate misleading information that suggested, inaccurately, that someone had died. Thanks for validating that for me because some of your cohort were arguing that hadn't happened. So, please Dulwich Roads - engage brain before posting, even Raeburn agrees...;-)

So Raeburn if you're claiming that is a correction (but the intent of that tweet, which is sent over 5 hours after the first is clearly to correct the location) then you are validating my original argument that Dulwich Roads needs to take more care with their posts and establish more facts before sending out disturbing misinformation, are you not?

Over 5 hours after the original tweet they corrected the location. It seems only those on the anti- side intepret a "person under covers" retweeted as "tragic and horrific" as a fatality then (except HorrifedofHH of course as they interpreted it as a fatality too)......oh well we clearly read things differently...

Yeah and the more they twist and turn and try to provide some completely unplausible explanation and throw laughing emojis like confetti they look more and more ludicrous. The best course of action would have been for Dulwich Roads to say, sorry we made a mistake and we got it wrong. But no, they just try to argue their way out if and then look very cultish in their behaviour and all of their content gets pigeon-holed by the more rational folks accordingly moving forward.

How would you interpret this....that they were having a nap perhaps? Interested to know what your immediate reaction is when you read that.

Malumbu, your response was utterly predictable. But also telling because they alluded to the fatality - caused by the tweet from Dulwich Roads.....face palm emoji! Honestly, this thread just shows how difficult it is to get those fully embedded on the pro-side to be rational about this stuff.

DulvilleRes - I think the crux of the issue remains - you don't like it when anyone dare question your grand plans. You want an open (or closed!) road and nothing challenging your views of doing things. Unfortunately for you we live in a democracy and groups like OneDulwich are very much part of that process. A process you are just going to have to live with. Power to the people and all that! There's certainly a nasty streak/fanatacism amongst many on the pro- side of the argument there is a long list of nasty posters on here (LTNBooHoo, LTNManatee, MrChicken and now seemingly DulwichRoads) and, at times, the attitude and tone has been amplified by some councillors.

Malumbu, someone on X sent out a tweet saying there was an accident on the A205 and a person “was under covers”. That, I am sure you will agree, normally suggests someone was tragically killed in the incident. That tweet from a handle akirahoshi0 (the original address of the tweet can still be seen in the replies if you click on Read 4 replies) on the below but the tweet is now unavailable. Dulwich Roads then retweeted that post (the one referring to a person under covers) to their followers referring to it as a “horrific and tragic crash”. The incident happened outside Oakfield School and Dulwich Roads’ retweet caused significant concern, especially for those with children at the school. No-one died but rumours started circulating that someone had. A local newspaper called the police to confirm details of the incident and the police had to put on record that there had been “no fatalities”. A day later an X thread was still talking about death of pedestrians (see HorrifiedofHH’s post). So I was imploring DulwichRoads to engage brain before tweeting as their post had caused a huge amount of concern as the information they posted was misleading to say the least. Not unreasonable I am sure you will agree. But, as you can see from their reaction over a month later (someone alerted them to this thread so they obviously felt compelled to have their say) they don’t think they did anything wrong - other, more rational, people may disagree with them and agree that a more measured approach in future may be wise.

Yeah some people are still waiting for some contrition from you for the distress you caused with your original post that wrongly suggested someone had died outside a school...but, you know, as you said: "THE TWEET REMAINS!" Perhaps it would be good if you move on from your fanatical obsession of ambulance chasing accidents so you can post, often inaccurate and poorly researched information/conclusions about the cause/outcomes of accidents. The ghoulish relish with which you do so is quite disturbing.

Or maybe just use a trolley and a big box! But it is somewhat concerning is it not that even if you did replicate the trolley and box then, according to the traffic wardens, you could not actually move it anywhere......hmmmmmmm..... Seems somewhat ambiguous does it not?

Here you go...fill yer boots...it's only a few days old so plenty for you to post!!!

Brilliant thank you!