first mate

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:)

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?