Earl Aelfheah

Don't get me wrong. I think social media algorithms have a big (largely malign) impact on the real world. But that's not the same as saying an individual posting / reposting stuff into what's largely an echo chamber, amounts to a form of activism / community action. I believe the term is 'slacktivism'.

I think we have lost all perspective - The BBC clearly misquoted Trump (which is obviously wrong), in a programme that broadly gave an accurate account of what happened on January 6th - that he inspired the attack on the Capitol. His speech did repeatedly call on people to fight. He repeatedly claimed that the election had been stolen. He has since pardoned many of those involved in that violence. The 'journalist' at the Telegraph who 'broke' this 'story', more than a year after the Panorama documentary aired, also misquoted Trump's speech and gave a false impression of what was actually said. In both the case of the BBC and the Telegraph, the editing was misleading and sloppy. In my opinion however, the editing of the speech by the Telegraph is actually more misleading than the BBC's. The jist of the speech was not one calling for calm, but one calling for supporters to fight: "...fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore". Trump used the term "fight" twenty times, and the term "peacefully" just once. During Trump's speech, his supporters chanted "Take the Capitol", "Invade the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol" and "Fight for Trump". The Telegraph have not acknowledged their misleading editing / misquote of course. Trump has escaped punishment for his role in a violent insurrection. Many of the rioters who stormed the Capital have been let off / pardoned. The only people to have taken responsibility for anything, or to have faced any consequences for their behaviour, are the BBC. The BBC have apologised and both the BBC Director General and the News CEO have lost their jobs. They (we) also face a 1 billion dollar law suit from a corrupt, criminal, President (an unprecedented act from the supposed 'defender of free speech / the free world'). The idea that the BBC's errors are being 'swept under the carpet' is self evidently nonsense. It is very clear that the Telegraph would love to end the BBC, as would the Times etc. They are not motivated by the national interest, or a quest for truth (neither is Trump - a firehose of BS). For Trump to be suing any media organisation as the sitting president of the United states, (let along a publicly owned UK broadcaster - effectively, the British taxpayer) is outrageous. That the whole country isn't telling him exactly where to go, shows a distinct lack of patriotism in my opinion.

The ‘tree people’ conjures up a very Tolkienesque image.

I'm not massively convinced by this. I think posting on social media is often mistaken for a form of activism, but actually changes very little in the real world (except perhaps increasing polarisation due to the echo chamber nature of the algorithms). May I ask what actions you're advocating for? It would be helpful to share if you think they've had a positive real world impact.

Those suggesting that they can't see a bicycle with lights and reflectors, unless the rider is also dressed in specialist reflective clothing sound like they might be wearing blinkers, I agree. Personally I do wear a reflective jacket, but that's my choice. It's easy to judge others, but I suspect many people use a bicycle without first donning special 'cycling ' clothes - They don't deserve to have someone who is not paying adequate attention, drive into them. About 5 and half thousand pedestrians get hit by cars each year in London. I'm assuming you're not blaming the pedestrians for the clothes they were wearing?

Bicycles are also required under law to have lights. A bicycle with lights ands reflectors is visible. If you’re looking.

I notice that that no one is calling for cars to be painted bright colours though. And do you wear bright clothes and reflective materials when walking after dark, as advised by the Highway Code? Why not?

The advice doesn't relate to situations where pedestrians share footpaths with cars. In fact the picture from the highway code clearly shows two individuals walking on a pavement. If you are suggesting that people must abide by advice when they're travelling by bicycle, then surely the same logic applies when they're travelling by foot? Or perhaps where it is just advice and not a mandatory requirement, individuals should consider it and exercise judgement? Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I would suggest that they are not if you are driving with due care and attention. The law would tend to agree with me too. If you drive a motor vehicle into someone travelling quite properly by bicycle and who has lights, the excuse of 'not seeing them' isn't going to be very convincing. And what colour of clothing is it ok to wear? What about green? What type of green? At what point is the shade no longer bright enough to consider them worthy of sympathy in the even of a collision?

The highway code advises reflective clothing for pedestrians at night, yes (not helmets). It also advises you "wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions". I've posted a screenshot above. Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle on well lit city streets, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I think they're perfectly visible to anyone paying adequate attention. If someone chooses to wear additional reflective clothing, that's great - but it's up to them. It's not mandatory, and anyone who choses to just walk or cycle in their normal clothes is perfectly entitled to do so. We shouldn't make excuses for inattentive / dangerous driving.

The space outside of Jades, where that tree is is extremely narrow as are many other bits, and the whole stretch is packed at weekends / very slow going.

BTW, this is a local discussion forum. So it kind of is a debate.

I don't know about that. I'm just commenting on the idea that it's not possible to read the signs / notice a school street. That said, if you're going from ED to Highshore Road, can't you go via McDermott > Choumert Grove > Chadwick? The original post suggested that the school street would only be in operation for just over an hour in the morning?

You can see the line along the Oddono's / Moxon's stretch where the shop owned frontages end and the pavement begins. The pavement is narrow for what is a very busy stretch at particular times and were there are pinch points around trees. You can also see in the picture below, why buses struggle to pass each other / cause congestion because of cars in the bus lane.

Who is 'they'? The people of West Dulwich?

No one is arguing that people should cycle without lights or reflectors. Obviously they should. It is also a legal requirement. But the colour of someone’s clothing? Is it ok to wear navy? What about green? What shade? At what point should we have ‘no reason for sympathy’ if they’re in a collision? I don’t want people to feel like they need special clothes just to walk or cycle. If you have lights and reflectors and you’re on well lit city streets, there is no reason why drivers shouldn’t be able to see you, assuming of course, that they're driving with due care and attention. But yes, if there are lots of people without lights, that should be addressed. I suspect in part, it's the change over in seasons and the fact that people are getting caught out by how early it's getting dark now (obviously no excuse).

I agree with this. Would be interesting to see.

I don't know it... Cyclists who chose not to follow advice? Does that extend to pedestrians who fail to follow advice too? Do you “Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions” when walking? As advised by the Highway Code? It’s quite grey out today. If not, and you get hit by a car, should there be 'no reason for sympathy'?

People should abide by the rules obviously and should have lights and reflectors (which make them perfectly visible, especially in a well lit urban area). Anything they choose to do over and above that is up to them. There is advisory guidance (as posted above). But it's just that, advisory. People should use their own judgement and I strongly oppose the idea that if one doesn't agree with their choice, then they 'get what the deserve' (which is effectively what Penguin is suggesting). The highway code also suggest that pedestrians should: Which one might consider sensible advice, but very few people abide by (and I certainly don't criticise them where they don't -I for one have never worn a luminous sash when walking 🤣).

People travelling by bicycle should have lights and reflectors of course. Assuming they do, then the are perfectly visible for anyone paying adequate attention. I don't like this idea of 'invisible' cyclists - it sounds like an absolute cop out. As pointed out above, even when you do wear every fluorescent bit of clothing going and have all the lights and reflectors possible, drivers will still claim they didn't see you. We need to push back on that excuse. If you're driving a powerful motor vehicle through a built up area, then there is a heavy responsibility on you to take care and look out for pedestrians and cyclists. It feels like the burden of responsibility is slightly skewed here. There are lot's of black cars. They pose a far greater risk to others than pedestrians or cyclists. I don't hear people calling for them to be painted brighter colours. We should not be policing what people wear, whether walking, cycling or driving.

I'm not missing the point, I don't agree that people must wear special clothes when walking or cycling. There is no law on this and despite the highway code suggesting clothing that cyclists and pedestrians might consider wearing after dark, I doubt you wear a reflective sash when walking in the evening. It's also a fact that a bicycle and a moped are different things. It's not unreasonable to point out where someone conflates the two. What is 'disagreeable', is Penguin68 suggesting that we should have no sympathy for someone hit by a careless driver, if they weren't wearing particular clothes that he deems appropriate. People should obviously have lights on their bikes when travelling after dark.

There is no law about what people must wear when cycling. The highway code also suggests that pedestrians might want to wear bright clothes in order to make themselves more visible, but I don't think many people actually follow that advice. I think people should wear what ever they feel comfortable in. You shouldn't have to wear 'special clothes' in order to use a bicycle, or to take a walk. There are laws about lights. I agree that people should have lights on at night. There are invisible cyclists? 🤣 You have no sympathy for someone travelling perfectly legally by bicycle, with good lights and reflectors, and who is hit by a driver paying insufficient attention, if they're not wearing bright clothing? And does the same view extend to pedestrians? From the highway code:

I am aware. You didn’t read my post properly: I was pointing out that people can wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. And that a moped isn’t a bicycle.

People should have lights on - hard to disagree with that. It’s up to them what they wear though. People aren’t encouraged to paint their car bright yellow when it gets dark. There is no law that saws you have to dress brightly when walking or cycling, or driving a car. A moped isn’t a bicycle.

@first mate you regularly address questions for the council to me. I know you're convinced that I work for them in some way (along with anyone who doesn't automatically oppose all change), but I don't. I have no interest in creating more parking on the Lane - you can tell this because I've never called for it, and have agued for removing some parking.

My experience of school streets is that they're usually pretty obvious - often people put temporary plastic barriers up, and there are lot's of parents and children hanging around / standing in the road. In most cases, the signage is also pretty clear (if it isn't in a specific instance, then you should take it up with the council). Those driving through are quite often just choosing to ignore it, or are completely inattentive (which I have little sympathy for if you're driving past a school during drop off / pick up). I live opposite a primary school and before the school street restrictions, there was at least one collision involving a child, and several near misses.