first mate

Except most people are not ward councillors. You'd hope your local rep wouldn't be so ready to take to social media before being crystal about the facts, but it seems that is what you Dulwich Roads lot do.

Not at all, it is really distasteful to see a local councillor have such a knee-jerk ( as well as predictably self-serving) response to an incident like this. I also agree with Rockets that it sounds out of the Dulwich Roads playbook, so much so that some of us now wonder if much separates Dulwich Roads and Dulwich Ward Councillors?

Leeming's post came off as making an assumption this was a bad driver who deserved to be punished and foot the bill for damage caused. I'd prefer my local councillor to hold off until in full possession of the facts, especially before using the incident as an opportunity for some self-congratulatory spin.

But if we are talking path users ...I have had to step aside for more cyclists recently than has ever been the case before. You just did not get so many people cycling or e-biking on non cycleway pavements. Back on thread, surely, especially where e-bikes are concerned, surely insurance is a good idea? They are powered vehicles and while they may not cause as much damage as a car I still would not want to be hit by either an e-bike or someone travelling at speed on a pushbike.

You may be missing a point here, as the inference seems to be it is the fault of the owner for even owning a car that might, in theory, be stolen and driven dangerously/carelessly:)

This seems a rather self-serving inflammatory post by a local councillor. I guess he must know exactly what happened or he would not be so eager to comment?

Great, so there should be a way to issue penalties.

The way this is described makes it almost sound deliberate- was it? If the result of dangerous or careless driving the driver should and I don't doubt will be suitably penalised/ prosecuted. However, there may be other reasons; a medical event, avoiding a dog or cat etc.. On balance I would guess it is careless or dangerous driving but it is a guess. The hope is someone knows exactly what happened?

I do think e-bikes should be licensed or have some form of i/d, especially hire bikes. In this digital age there must be way, surely? The cost could be shared with the various companies that hire them out.

Mal you started a thread on the subject of licensing, can you continue your discussion on there? I erroneously posted this on the wrong thread: The thing is, it is already the case that cyclists can be fined for cycling on paths that are not shared, so why not add this to the work of community wardens as they do their CPZ rounds?

The thing is, it is already the case that cyclists can be fined for cycling on paths that are not shared, so why not add this to the work of community wardens as they do their CPZ rounds?

Cardinal flaw in your point is that One Dulwich are not 'my spokespeople'. Are LCC and Southwark Council yours? Your snipe about transparency is laughable, especially when this Labour Council has been anything but where the LTN/CPZ saga is concerned. A lack of transparency is precisely what so many of us are angry about. You carry on and take comfort from your delusion that this is all a Tory plot managed by shady and opaque figures with a hidden agenda. Politicians of all hues will always jump on bandwagons, after all. I hate to break it to you though, but me and probably all the other naysayers on here are nowt more glamorous than hacked off local residents.

Ditto, except I'll skip the meeting up bit. The likes of DR find it excruciating that a group posting online manages to accurately reflect the views of many local residents without those residents necessarily being involved with said group. I think it is so scary for Council cheerleaders like DR because they cannot pin down, undermine or control the dissenting views and the objections just keep coming. As for the conspiracy theory that dissenting views voiced on here are all part of a secretive political group spinning an agenda, seriously, get a grip.

I know you have had a couple of rather condescending replies, advising you to get to grips with technology and live in the modern world. I sympathise with you. I think some of us should try to be a bit more empathetic and acknowledge not everyone is a technophile. Try to see things from a perspective that is not just our own. Also, why give the banking sector carte blanche to remove any sort of human/public facing role. Is this really what we want?

Seems other people also have eyes and are seeing things differently. I am waiting for the Lime bikes to arrive, which they will. Most likely spring/summer. Cyclists still careering onto the pedestrians areas. Yesterday a young male cycling on pavement in the Village made me step aside for him.

Your presumption is incorrect.

Mal is so transparent and predictable, exhorts posters to stay on subject but allows himself the freedom to get in all his usual digs: Posters that dare say anything critical about cyclists are "angry", then in virtually every other line we get the following "cars speeding, speeding drivers, freeflowing traffic speeding, the behaviour of motorists, the need for more bike lanes, cars speeding, parked cars blocking". It is almost like brainwashing. So really this is a thread about Mal's favourite subject...cars. Wow, if the cycling instructors cannot get this right, then we have no hope. Were these private or Southwark Council paid instructors? As a cyclist, I would like to see more fellow cyclists stopping at red lights and dismounting when they get to pavements. I would also like to see those using e-bikes take more care when they overtake slower cyclists at speed and mire care when they finally park the bike. These things would make cycling better, as far as I am concerned.

Oh yes, and just wait until the Lime bikes start to be 'stored' (dumped) there.

The ones I see are never used as seating, have weeds sprouting at all angles and look like something a child would knock up from old, rotting pallet wood. It really is not a great look and in such contrast to lovely Dulwich Square, with its (Shhh, India-sourced) sandstone paving.

Rockets said: "These are elected officials entrusted by us to do the right thing - they have not done that here and it makes a mockery of their environmental stance and is beyond embarrassing - you have to ask just how much oversight and governance the likes of Cllr McAsh are providing. They have also embarrassed those supporters who have blindly stood by them with their support for the changes in DV." Greening the environment, one of the justifications posited for the extraordinarily expensive and multiple reconfigurations of Dulwich junction, has really been undermined by this latest revelation. Has the Council or McAsh made any kind of statement about this?

Given the government's stated desire to create more housing and general loosening of planning laws, this seems very contrary of Southwark.

It is never wise to assume Earl and 'improvement' is very much about perspective; if only life were all about aesthetics and how 'pretty' something looked could be our only priority. But, Vanity Square, the money wasting folly you want to roll out elsewhere, has been foisted on the area by an alleged cash-strapped council. Not only that, I doubt it will look as appealing or be as user friendly once careless cyclists come barrelling through in greater numbers and it becomes a handy Lime bike dumping ground.

Who are 'we'? Quite how you can support this huge expenditure in one of the wealthiest parts of the Borough, in a cost of living crisis, is astonishing. However, in similar vein to Alice's view above, it seems as though you are being deliberately provocative by raising what you know to be a traffic issue in the main section. Now why would you do that? Admin do you want to move this thread into the traffic section?

Of course, missing the point, if nothing is done to stop this rise in careless cycling behaviour people will eventually get hurt. That is the point. It is not a contest of which is worse, but and especially if you have your way, more and more people will cycle. If cycling on pavements becomes the norm it will be a problem. Lime etc... want to ramp up e-bike use and because these are not owned I believe those using them are more likely to do so in a cavalier fashion. We can already see this happening, not only in how they are left lying around but also the manner in which they are ridden.

Ah, Vanity Square, the multi million pound, unnecessary reconfiguration of a major junction, on the basis that Dulwich Village just has nowhere for people to meet and socialise, or children to gambol and play. And it is a wonderful place to pop a Christmas tree. Mind you, with the daily examples of careless cycling I have witnessed recently, pedestrians will need to keep their wits about them, as nowhere on Vanity Square is off limits for anyone on two wheels. There is also the emerging issue of where the lovely paving, unique to Vanity Square, was sourced, which seems rather at odds with this alleged jewel in Southwark's 'green' crown.