Earl Aelfheah

@first mate I can't actually believe you're defending someone driving a car on, or over the pavement, considering your multiple posts raging against this where it applies to people on push bikes. You think it's OK to hit objects on the pavement in a car, but not on a bicycle? What are you talking about?

I have a question for a local councillor. Anyone got any thoughts on how I get an answer? Please don't suggest asking them. 🫠

You've thrown so much unsubstantiated nonsense at the wall, you can't even keep track of it yourself

You have provided no data to back up your claims. A rise in phone thefts in Dulwich Village does not tell you anything about the filter introduced 5 years ago. As already stated, phone thefts have risen (at an even faster rate) across most of London. In Dulwich Village 'all crime', violent crime and burglary have fallen and average earning have increased since the filter was introduced. Applying your logic this is proof the filter has made people safer and wealthier. Which would be just as spurious a claim. You’re being massively dishonest.

This is just noise. You have provided no evidence of your claim that the filter on calton avenue (introduced more than 5 years ago) increased crime, road danger, or pollution. It’s not true. You’re spreading fear and misinformation.

The police can issue fines to cyclists for offences like careless or dangerous cycling, cycling through a red light, or not having lights and reflectors when required. Clearly there are people who don't take adequate care and who hurt (primarily) themselves. That said, there are lot of benefits to them too and they're very popular. This week, with the tube strikes, they've really come into there own. They're definitely not in the same category as motorbikes, being only pedal assist, and only up to 15.5 mph, so it would be disproportionate to apply the same regulations, but as Malumbu says, there probably does need to be some thought to how you improve safety and encourage better behaviours.

I literally gave you those numbers and linked you to that website. Your original claims were based on absolutely nothing. You have done what you always do. Completely made something up, demanding others disprove it and then when they do, providing data, quickly look to cherry pick and / or misrepresent that data to 'prove' something you'd already decided. It's just flooding the zone with 💩, hoping some sticks. You have literally provided nothing to back up your claim that the filter has increased crime. Nothing. The fact that phone theft has increased in London, and (at a much slower rate) in Dulwich, does not tell you anything about a filter on Calton Avenue introduced more than 5 years ago. You know this. But you're not interested in what's true, you've just got an axe to grind and if it helps you to spread fear and misinformation, you seem to think nothing of that. As I say, it's just flooding the zone. Shame on you.

The graph does not show that. You're posting this nonsense across multiple threads, so I'll do the same with my response. since the filter was introduced, crime in Dulwich has fallen against background trends and in most categories, fallen in absolute terms. Since before the filter was introduced: 'All crimes' have fallen Violent crime is down Robbery has fallen Crime against the person (mainly mobile phone theft) has increased everywhere (but has risen less quickly in Dulwich than in London generally). Overall crime rate on Calton Avenue in London near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level. Violent crime rate is 85% lower than London average and 57% lower than national average. You've offered no evidence at all that increases in phone theft are linked to the filter (introduced more than 5 years ago); They're clearly not not, as one can tell from even a cursory street level analysis. Your claims around collisions / pedestrian safety and pollution are false. The data show the exact opposite to what you have stated, road safety has improved and pollution has fallen. You're deliberately trying to mislead and to sow fear, in pursuit of a pathological, obsessive sense of grievance over a road layout change and some landscaping. It's very sad. I'm bored of having to correct this stuff, but it does potentially cause harm, spreading a false sense of fear and the perception that Dulwich and the square specifically as a dangerous area to be avoided.

Rockets talking absolute nonsense. Since the filter was introduced, crime in Dulwich has fallen against background trends and in most categories, fallen in absolute terms. Since before the filter was introduced: 'All crimes' have fallen Violent crime is down Robbery has fallen Crime against the person (mainly mobile phone theft) has increased everywhere (but has risen less quickly in Dulwich than in London generally). Overall crime rate on Calton Avenue in London near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level. Violent crime rate is 85% lower than London average and 57% lower than national average. He's offered no evidence at all that increases in phone theft are linked to the filter (introduced more than 5 years ago); They're clearly not not, as one can tell from even a cursory street level analysis. His claims around collisions / pedestrian safety and pollution are false. The data show the exact opposite to what he has stated, road safety has improved and pollution has fallen. He's deliberately trying to mislead and to sow fear, in pursuit of his pathological, obsessive, grievance. I'm bored of having to correct this stuff, but it's potentially harmful, spreading a false sense of fear and the perception of Dulwich and the square specifically as a dangerous area to be avoided.

Dulwich is a low crime area. Despite your usual tactics of inuendo and misinformation, there is no evidence of a crime wave in Dulwich. As pointed out, crime has tracked either at, or way below the London average. And you claims around pollution, collisions etc etc. are equally entirely false or misleading.

Why don't you explain what you think that graph shows and how it relates in any way to the filter?

It's ridiculous to suggest that if you drive a car into an object on the pavement, that is the fault of the object. If that's what you think, then you should hang up your keys.

I am certainly concerned with constant misinformation around supposed increases in pollution, collisions, pedestrian safety and crime, as well as suggestions that the road filter on Calton Avenue has reduced footfall and damaged business. There is no evidence for any of these claims. In fact quite a lot of evidence for the opposite in many instances. There has also been constant insinuations of foul play, illegality and conspiracy - again with no evidence offered, and deliberate misrepresentations (or wilful ignorance) about proper democratic process. It's been going on for years now and it's driven by a handful of individuals from what I can tell (for example, the man calling himself 'One Dulwich' and claiming to represent the whole community, as well as a one particular monomaniac on this forum). I think it has a negative impact on the community to sow unsubstantiated fears of crime and to suggest that pedestrians are facing great danger where they are not. It's particularly stark when you consider that the some of the same individuals repeatedly minimise or play down actual crash data / road danger.

The cycle Lanes of central London were absolutely packed yesterday as people found alternatives to the tube. Proper rush hour bike congestion in some places! Lime must have had one of their best days for rentals I would imagine. Great to see so many taking to two wheels - perhaps having discovered how easy it is to get around by bike, some will be encouraged to stick with it.

Pretty sure you are allowed to park north of Stradella road, outside of the restricted hours (12-2 weekdays): https://streets.appyway.com/lambeth Unless you mean it's difficult to find a space, which may be the case. There is also a parking bay outside the shop. Max stay 1 hour

It is not a function of modern vehicles to allow for them to hit something (or potentially someone) situated on the pavement with enough force that it could upend a heavy metal bollard set into the ground with concrete (or in this case, to turn the vehicle onto it's roof). Your vehicle is not allowed to drive on, or cross the pavement when turning, even if your wheels stay on the road.

The number of posters defending driving across the pavement says a lot about our road culture.

Awful. Cowardly behaviour by these thugs. I hope he recovers quickly.

I'm just asking what Rockets actually wants? Beyond unspecified people being 'held accountable' in unspecified ways, for unspecified crimes. It's not too much to ask considering that he's been complaining about a road filter on Calton Avenue across almost every thread in this section, over a period of many years now. What does he want? Do you know?

Oh you're right. driving into a wall at under 20 mph is totally different. 🙄 The references to bikes is actually a parody of people like you, who constantly raise 'serious concerns' about dangerous 'near misses' involving bicycles, but rush to minimise the significant number of serious collisions, mostly involving motor vehicles.

You really need a hobby. This doesn't remotely suggest what we all know you're trying to suggest.

Driving into a wall at 20 mph is an example of dangerous driving. The cause of the dangerous driving is another matter. People expressing shock, disbelief, or concern at a car turning onto it's roof on a residential street, seems perfectly understandable to me. What is not, is rushing to minimise / or downplay it. With tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our roads every year, we are in danger of becoming inured to it - a car on it's roof in a residential street is not something that should be considered unremarkable, or just 'one of those things'. The suggestions that hitting a bollard that is on a pavement is unavoidable is concerning. It's not unavoidable. It's not even difficult to avoid. Most people don't drive into things on the pavement. As usual, Rockets is hugely inconsistent, repeatedly claiming to be very concerned about anecdotes of push bikes 'nearly' crashing on other threads, whilst seeking to minimise a car on it's roof in a residential street (something that has actually happened) on this one.

Nope.

I do not agree. If your vehicle is overhanging the pavement as you turn, and you're unable to see what's on the pavement, then you are driving dangerously. The same is true if you're reversing.

Still can't say what it is you actually want - beyond boring on across multiple threads. It's just one long tedious tantrum.