first mate

It will be interesting long term to see how well the landscaping / planting is looked after. The beds at the Tessa Jowell Centre are a mess. Who pays for the upkeep? The main issue though is that cyclists are not adhering to the bits meant to be cycled on but using the pedestrian areas too. That should be the focus here. Yesterday, walking out of the park onto the pedestrian only footpath, I was nearly taken out by a male on a Lime bike, who had decided to mount the pavement. He swore at me for being in his way!

Hoping it has been shelved too. My view is that if people can get away with souping up an e-bike they will. Technically it ceases to be a legal e-bike but it still looks like one at distance, meaning some may be more incentivised to risk speeding without the responsibilities of owning a motorbike, especially when money is short. Applying the same speed limit to all vehicles just makes everything clearer and may be a bit more of a deterrent for some. What would be the downside? I agree about food delivery services. Never use them.

The advent of e-bikes surely makes the case for e-bikes adhering to same speed limits as cars. Can't think why there would be an issue with this. I also like to see all cyclists adhere to park speed limits.

But here you are; you are engaging with it. It is amusing that you, along with various other anti car/pro LTN posters on here, keep trying to shut this stuff down. Why? Why the need to even try? As I have said before, I am reasonably sure that most of the posters that disagree with your stance are annoyed local residents who dislike the way the council have handled their strategy on road closures, sometimes using less than transparent methods, spending millions on projects like Dulwich Junction in the process. Why don't you become one of those people you say cannot be bothered to engage with 'it' and stop airing your frankly outlandish conspiracy theories on here?

Was it though? It could also be read as just another very thinly disguised way to complain about motorists. If it really was purely about improving cycling routes then I am simply amazed you have not really addressed road surfaces, other than a brief mention of Sydenham Hill (too steep for me I'm afraid; I have to get off and walk). I find potholes and uneven ridges at the edges of roads one of the greatest hazards when cycling and this makes me very nervous cycling in the dark.

If not the case I doubt the govt would give the advisory I quoted earlier. Sorry your sentence not making much sense, are you saying that I leap to wild conclusions and this really upsets me?!🤣

✨

In situations like the above, the govt advises it may be useful to contact DVLA to find out the registered keeper/often the legal owner (as in having legal responsibility for the vehicle). I'm sorry if some of you think this advice is incorrect but there it is. It seems we are now into 'when is an accident not an accident' territory again, in fact any kind of hair splitting exercise to deflect from the original discussion. Malumbu, are you sure your involvement with DVLA was not something to do with the many speeding fines you seem to have accrued when you were a more regular driver of cars? 🤫

Phew! 😄

I think they are far more invested in arguing whether an accident can ever be an accident if it involves a car. Yes, I think Snowy may hold some sort of forum record for laughing emoji responses.

Not only that, permanent solutions (I am sure the OP does not mean this) are largely illegal: While foxes are not protected for conservation purposes in England, it is illegal to use the following to kill foxes (or moles and mink): self-locking snares bows and crossbows explosives other than legal ammunition for a licensed firearm live birds or animals, as bait or live decoys gas or poisons It is also illegal to: block or destroy fox earths if they are occupied use dogs to hunt foxes

One of the aggravated taking without consent- do you know which one applied or were you just guessing too? If you genuinely know then do spill? One of the aggravated taking without consent- do you know which one applied or were you just guessing too? If you genuinely know then do spill? On that second point, I and others are waiting to get the facts as opposed to what "appears" to have happened.

So you also think the govt advisory is wrong? Clearly they see a potentially useful relationship between a registered keeper and legal responsibility where a car has been involved in an accident. In terms of the Leeming stuff, unlike you and him, a number of us have kept an open mind about what happened, because, like the fountain accident, it seems at the time of posting, at least, no-one was sure. So no, I am not agreeing. However, it is typical of you and your chums to try to pretend someone has admitted to something they have not. So you know do you that the car was stolen? So what are you suggesting, that all cars should be banned because one might be stolen and then driven dangerously? Seriously? Or that numerous streets be made traffic free because someone might steal a car and drive it dangerously? What is your point?

Didn't say they necessarily were, we have established that, but they may well be, hence the govt advisory on how to possibly identify the registered keeper/owner/person with legal responsibility for a car, in the case of an accident involving a car, where the driver has left the scene. Or are you saying that the govt website advisory is incorrect? And...if by your example, if the damage is paid for then that is a result, isn't it? Damage having to be paid for by the taxpayer was one of the points being made about the fountain and Cllr Leeming in another example. So if going after the registered keeper means damage is paid for one way or another then good. I just do wonder if the fountain accident was the result of an untaxed/uninsured/ unregistered vehicle? In which case the real issue is much more one of criminality.

DKHB, if there was no chance of the registered keeper being or knowing the owner do you really think a government website would be suggesting contacting DVLA to find out the above? I mean, if ownership and registered keeper were two totally unrelated categories you might have a point. Come on. " Who is the legal owner of a car? The legal owner of a car in the UK is whoever has registered the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This person will be responsible for keeping all documentation up to date and ensuring that any road tax due on the vehicle is paid. It’s also important to note that just because someone has bought or leased a vehicle, they are not automatically considered to be its legal owner. To be recognised as such, they must register the car in their own name with the DVLA."

Request information about a vehicle or its registered keeper from DVLA Contents Overview Request information about another vehicle or its registered keeper Request information about you or your vehicle Request information about another vehicle or its registered keeper You can ask for details of another vehicle’s registered keeper. You’ll need a ‘reasonable cause’, for example: finding out who was responsible for an accident tracing the registered keeper of an abandoned vehicle tracing the registered keeper of a vehicle parked on private land giving out parking tickets giving out trespass charge notices tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services tracing people suspected of insurance fraud

An interesting article for another thread perhaps but this one is about a specific incident that was drawn to our attention to make a point but where there is scant detail on the specifics. If you know more about that please do say, otherwise maybe start another thread on how to use the word accident. Otherwise, it just looks like more deflection.

Snowy said: Given the driver ran away we don't know if they were insured, whether the car was theirs etc which is why that blog says that the tax payer will have to bear the costs of the repairs to a memorial thats been there, unharmed, on a pedestrian island since the late 19th century, plus the costs of the emergency services etc If driver fled the scene there may be grounds to apply to DVLA to find out who legally owns the car etc. On the other hand, if it seems likely the car is not registered or is stolen then tracing the driver will be difficult and multiple illegal activities apply. The tax payer has to bear the costs of many types of crime but appreciate your need to highlight this example. Member 3.9k Posted 1 hour ago Rockets said: DKHB.. I am not the one fixating on the use of the word accident! No that was raised again by a Pro LTN poster, so perhaps have a word with them?

Do we know if the driver who fled the scene was also the owner of the car or was it stolen? It is not clear either if the vehicle was insured? As for speeding, put certain individuals into a car, onto an e-bike or e-scooter, and you'll get speeding and reckless behaviour- like running red lights and using powered vehicles on pavements. Yes, a car can do more damage but, as we already know, even a cyclist can kill someone if cycling at speed.

Of greatest interest is how this thread has shifted from one of outrage at an incident where it seems those most outraged were not clear how the incident occurred, to a discussion on how to correctly apply the word 'accident'. Go figure. Do we yet know if the incident involved accidental damage?

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:)