Dulwich Park - (dog) walkers and cyclists

[red devil]

But we already do share, and in your words it's 99% successful. There is no segregation as such, nor should there be. In your OP you specifically asked for a form of segregation...

I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists?

It's a hideous idea for a park, which is supposed to be a natural, free-flowing, organic space and environment. Humans aren't automatons. Have you considered moving to Stepford?...

[rendelharris]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But we already do share, and in your words it's

> 99% successful. There is no segregation as such,

> nor should there be. In your OP you specifically

> asked for a form of segregation...

>

> I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that

> pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass

> (or even just stick to one side of the road rather

> than the centre) and leave a clear passage for

> cyclists?

>

> It's a hideous idea for a park, which is supposed

> to be a natural, free-flowing, organic space and

> environment. Humans aren't automatons. Have you

> considered moving to Stepford?...

Oh for goodness' sake. More pointless insults for a perfectly innocuous suggestion. Yes parks should be organic, natural and free-flowing - how does a damned great piece of tarmac fit into that description? Cyclists are just as much legitimate users of the park as anyone else, can they be free flowing and organic and ride wherever they like? You'd soon be complaining if they did. Never heard such nonsense. Asking people to politely leave a bit of room is hardly segregation. Ridiculous.

It's fine, if it's too much for you to share and show a bit of common courtesy to other park users, so be it. We'll still look out for you and be polite and accommodating to where you want to go, shame you can't do the same.

[micky]

There should be a cycle lane. The amount of a times i see a child nearly knocked over is increasing. Plus running events in the park is a hazard at times.

[kbabes]

i like cycling in the park and also on the local road's for that matter.. pedestrians, children on hired mini trikes, dogs, cats & other grown up cyclists both speedy and slow all form a hazard that we all should be wary of imho.. but more interestingly whatever happened to that apostrophe? ...Maybe it's ended up here in this post somewhere?

[rendelharris]

kbabes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i like cycling in the park and also on the local

> road's for that matter.. pedestrians, children on

> hired mini trikes, dogs, cats & other grown up

> cyclists both speedy and slow all form a hazard

> that we all should be wary of imho.. but more

> interestingly whatever happened to that

> apostrophe? ...Maybe it's ended up here in this

> post somewhere?

I see it, wondering where it had got to - is there a prize?

Spot on, everything's a potential hazard...for everybody...and so if we all look out for each other we'll all be the better for it. All I ever asked for, no "segregation," no abrogation of responsibility on the part of cyclists. The funny thing is that I'm at heart a frightful lifetime socialist old eco-hippy who believes fervently in community and the goodness therein, it's been very amusing to be accused of claiming undue entitlement, of demanding segregation, even, forsooth, of being determined to break up the natural free-flowing organic ideal of a park.

[keane]

Erm, you asked for pedestrians - ie the majority of people in the park to use the pavement, grass or bridle way, so sort of a bit like segregation and before you say that obviously i don't cycle, yes I do, as well as walk.

[rendelharris]

keane Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Erm, you asked for pedestrians - ie the majority

> of people in the park to use the pavement, grass

> or bridle way, so sort of a bit like segregation

> and before you say that obviously i don't cycle,

> yes I do, as well as walk.

I can't believe I have to say this again, as I've already written it in my original post and requoted it to you in a reply above:

I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that

> pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass

> (or even just stick to one side of the road rather

> than the centre) and leave a clear passage for

> cyclists?

"Just stick to one side rather than the centre." So, "erm," no I didn't, unless you categorise politely asking people to leave a little room for others as segregation. When you go on the Underground, do you object to signs asking you to walk on the left as segregation?

[red devil]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh for goodness' sake. More pointless insults for

> a perfectly innocuous suggestion.

It's not an innocuous suggestion to say pedestrians shouldn't use the middle of the 'road' in order to create a pedestrian free zone for cyclists. That's clearly a form of segregation. On such a wide expanse there's no need for such measures.

> Yes parks should be organic, natural and free-flowing - how does a

> damned great piece of tarmac fit into that description?

Therein lies your problem, you're seeing it as a road in the traditional sense. As has previously been pointed out to you, it was once a vehicular road, hence the tarmac, but it's now pedestianised except for occasional vehicular access, usually the park's maintenance teams, thus allowing all users free access to use it. In an ideal world it wouldn't be tarmac, but name me a park in London that doesn't have tarmac for some vehicular and/or pedestrian use. Peckham Rye has lots of tarmac paths. Straker Road cuts through the park to service the bins/cafe/nursery area.

> Cyclists are just as much legitimate

> users of the park as anyone else, can they be free

> flowing and organic and ride wherever they like?

I think they should, but earlier you said cyclists should be banned from the pond/cafe area, so you clearly don't think so.

> You'd soon be complaining if they did. Never

> heard such nonsense.

No I wouldn't, as explained above.

> Asking people to politely leave a bit of room is hardly segregation.

> Ridiculous.

Your not asking for that though are you. You want a pedestrian free-zone down the middle of the 'road'.

You're not asking for room, you're asking for segregation...

It just seems perfectly logical that when there's a pavement and a road that the cyclists stay on the road and the pedestrians stay on the pavement.

And all for the sake of a tiny minority of non-cyclists who have shown the audacity to cause you to slow down, or god forbid, stop. Ridiculous indeed.

> It's fine, if it's too much for you to share and

> show a bit of common courtesy to other park users,

> so be it. We'll still look out for you and be

> polite and accommodating to where you want to go,

> shame you can't do the same.

Patronising and presumptuous to boot. Sorry to rain on your parade but I class myself as a cyclist, a very courteous one. One who has been cycling around the perimeter 'road' and through the park on average 3-4 times a week (return journeys) for nearly 10 years without experiencing any difficulty with my fellow park users and how they wish to use the park...

[red devil]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

When you go on the

> Underground, do you object to signs asking you to

> walk on the left as segregation?

Using the claustrophobic rat runs of the Underground as some sort of analogy to the wide open spaces of the park is laughable. In the words of that other great 'socialist'...segregation, segregation, segregation :)

[rendelharris]

How utterly silly you are becoming, you've hooked onto to the word "segregation" with all its emotive connotations and just keep repeating it ad absurdiam. So anyone who asks if a little courtesy and common sense could be shown is demanding segregation? Only if you have a strangely confrontational view of society.

ETA: Having just returned from a delightful morning ride, I realise this thread has become an utter waste of time. What began as a perfectly polite request (ironically beginning "I'm not trying to annoy or offend anyone, so I'd like to start by saying that I'm a lifelong dog lover (only the smallness of our garden stops us having one) and am also very fond of children and love seeing them out playing in the open air.") has degenerated into foolishness. Anyone who had anything sensible to say disappeared pages ago (and there were some, who disagreed with me but managed to express their disagreement in a perfectly rational and courteous manner - thank you, those people) and we're left with those who are not interested in debate, just argument and point scoring. After being accused of being overly entitled, selfish, segregationist and God knows what else, after having a rather peculiar passive-aggressive threat ("I'd hate for you to have a heart attack" - thank you, Rupert James) and most unforgiveably being obliquely compared to Tony Blair, that's enough for me, I'm out.

See you all in the park, you'll be able to recognise me, I'm the one time-trialling at 25mph wearing a jersey reading "I hate children and dogs" and "Segregate all park users now!"

[red devil]

A round of applause for playing the martyr card.

Point-scoring...your lack of self-awareness in all this is laughable.

The only one being confrontational is yourself....the rendell is not for turning.

Segregation, separation, pedestrian-free zones, cycle lane, call it what you want, you were clearly advocating for it. Those were your words I quoted, not mine.

The majority of us get along just fine in the park as it is...the wheel ain't broke...poor grammar and pun intended.

[Sue]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A round of applause for playing the martyr card.

> Point-scoring...your lack of self-awareness in all

> this is laughable.

> The only one being confrontational is

> yourself....the rendell is not for turning.

> Segregation, separation, pedestrian-free zones,

> cycle lane, call it what you want, you were

> clearly advocating for it. Those were your words I

> quoted, not mine.

> The majority of us get along just fine in the park

> as it is...the wheel ain't broke...poor grammar

> and pun intended.

rendelharris made a perfectly reasonable original post.

I think he has been very restrained considering the aggro he has had on this thread.

I don't think it is him who has been confrontational.