Dangerous drivers everywhere!!

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

Serious collision on Lordship Lane

Generally the word 'collision' is used when two vehicles, or a vehicle and a pedestrian, hit each other. In this case the car has certainly left the road and hit a wall, indeed collided with it, but normally you wouldn't use the word collision to describe a moving object hitting a static one, like this. Unless you were looking for the most emotive word. 

Looking at the front of the car it's relatively unscathed. It certainly didn't have a front end collision. The most likely event to achieve that position on the wall is that it hit some sort of ramp, possibly at speed. 

[SE22_2020er]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

Serious collision on Lordship Lane, hope no one was injured. 
 

https://bsky.app/profile/microbear.bsky.social/post/3lh6nktijmk2y

Hmmmm…. ….must have been going less than 20mph.  Jeepers, that’s quite something.   

[first mate]

Still interested to know when this happened? Any other information?

There is no info when you click on the picture; you have to sign into something. So assuming whoever posted this knows more and can share?

Edited Sunday at 15:25 by first mate

[Cyclemonkey]

The "homeowner" is Openreach as that is (was) the wall in front of the old telephone exchange building near the side entrance to Dulwich Park. 

[snowy]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Generally the word 'collision' is used when two vehicles, or a vehicle and a pedestrian, hit each other. In this case the car has certainly left the road and hit a wall, indeed collided with it, but normally you wouldn't use the word collision to describe a moving object hitting a static one, like this. Unless you were looking for the most emotive word. 

Looking at the front of the car it's relatively unscathed. It certainly didn't have a front end collision. The most likely event to achieve that position on the wall is that it hit some sort of ramp, possibly at speed. 

Those famously emotive people - insurers - use 'collision' to include incidents involving objects: 

https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/auto-insurance/articles/what-is-collision-insurance#:~:text=Collision covers incidents involving objects,all covered by comprehensive insurance.

As do the Met: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/#:~:text=The law defines a reportable,the driver of that vehicle

The car is missing its front skirts and the bonnet is lifted up and forced back. 
 

You might not know the three letter acronym, but the writer was suggesting that the car might not have been driving to the full standards as outlined in the Highway Code.

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Cyclemonkey said:

The "homeowner" is Openreach as that is (was) the wall in front of the old telephone exchange building near the side entrance to Dulwich Park. 

Yes, but since m46 posted it surely they know a bit more, especially roughly when it happened? 

[exdulwicher]

Someone (be it the legitimate owner, or a car thief) has parked a Merc on a wall (having crossed a pavement and demolished half the wall to put it there) and the concern is over one spelling mistake in the original tweet.

Wow.

I'm sure of course that the 20mph speed limit was being rigorously adhered to (what with the car having number plates and all that) good job the airspeed limit is much higher. 😉

Suppose we should be lucky it wasn't a Lime bike, imagine the absolute chaos and carnage that could have caused! I'm sure that could have been the subject of at least another 2 threads. 

 

[first mate]

 E-bikes are currently more associated with other types of criminal activity.

[snowy]

13 minutes ago, first mate said:

 E-bikes are currently more associated with other types of criminal activity.

And thereby completely missing the joke that was in the original photo...

[first mate]

Don't think e-bike crime is a joking matter. 

[Sue]

36 minutes ago, snowy said:

And thereby completely missing the joke that was in the original photo...

I'm totally confused.

And clearly very gullible.

Is this whole thing just a joke, and the photo is a fake?

If so, I'm glad nobody was hurt, but I also feel very stupid

🙄

Edited Sunday at 20:26 by Sue

[snowy]

Sorry Sue, GTA is a reference to a game, Grand Theft Auto where bad driving is an integral part of the gamr.

[Rockets]

Why would anyone want to joke about this? Why does someone think it is funny to liken it to a computer game - does anyone else think that's a little odd? That type of accident is not a joking matter.

The fact that some are laughing at this or using it to mock people really speaks volumes....

[first mate]

I think quite a few people will be confused by the purpose of March46 's post, now with picture removed, but which some of us thought was meant to be another example of dangerous driving (a number of us hoping there were no casualties). But apparently, according to Snowy, this post involved a hilarious joke? Eh? On a thread titled "Dangerous drivers everywhere". Bizarre!

[Rockets]

Some people really are displaying some very odd behaviour. Car crashes are not a joking matter but some like to have a giggle about them. And apparently those who dare question cyclist behaviour are minimising the harm done by car crashes….but when a car hits a wall and looks like a scene from GTA it’s funny and something to make a joke about. Who is minimising it now?

[snowy]

Again, you're missing the point. The joke in the post & picture is about the poor quality of the driving which caused that BMW to land on a wall and how normalised that has become.

Something that is normal (incredibly bad driving) in a game where you follow no rules has become ever more normal on our roads as there's dangerous drivers everywhere. 

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

Some people really are displaying some very odd behaviour. Car crashes are not a joking matter but some like to have a giggle about them. And apparently those who dare question cyclist behaviour are minimising the harm done by car crashes….but when a car hits a wall and looks like a scene from GTA it’s funny and something to make a joke about. Who is minimising it now?

 

Edited Monday at 07:57 by snowy

[first mate]

I think most of us were focussed on the potential seriousness of the issue. Likening that incident to a computer game was the last thing that would occur. Weird.

[march46]

Yet some of you object to describing it as a collision… 

[first mate]

I think that pales into comparison with describing it as like a computer game and making it into a joke.

 

[march46]

It’s all deflection from the seriousness of road danger.

[first mate]

Yes, posting a picture of  an apparently serious incident involving a car, then removing the picture and saying it was meant to be drawing a jokey parallel between dangerous driving and a computer game, is a massive deflection.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I saw this on Sunday. Unfortunately this type of thing is fairly common place (although the car being balanced on top of a wall is pretty stark). Really hope no one was seriously hurt.

[first mate]

There is another post on this in the main section and someone said there was an incident with a Mercedes in the same area recently. That seems odd. I do not know much about cars but this most recent looks very expensive. As you say, let's hope no-one was injured.

[snowy]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Yes, posting a picture of  an apparently serious incident involving a car, then removing the picture and saying it was meant to be drawing a jokey parallel between dangerous driving and a computer game, is a massive deflection.

The original post hasn't been edited - so it's unlikely that the poster removed it clandestinely.

I've no idea how to embed posts, but here's another version of it 

https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1886046149640958391

i'm neither the original poster or the sharer of it on here btw.

Edited Monday at 12:04 by snowy

[first mate]

Oh Snowy, still you persist. What is it you are trying to achieve? Just when this thread had moved on to more sensible ground you try to take it back into weird territory again. The fact remains, making a post about an incident that on the one hand you want to be an example (quite rightly) of dangerous driving but then also say the post contains a funny joke,  just dilutes whatever message it is you are trying to make. 

Why not stick to the fact that this looks likely to be another example of dangerous driving. We can all agree that is serious and not a joking matter.

Apologies Snowy, I see you have now clarified. Let's just stick to this being another worrying example of dangerous driving.

 

Edited Monday at 12:17 by first mate