Dangerous drivers everywhere!!

[first mate]

Nope, never had a prosecution or FPN. 

[Rockets]

No points or prosecutions for me either. A FPN notice or two when councils starting giving them out like confetti. Malumbu, that is one hell of a rap sheet - you seem to have been a very dangerous driver in your time...I presume you are now a born-again courteous driver?

[malumbu]

A more courteous driver than most on the forum.  Obviously I was born at another time in another planet when it was usual for young drivers to be stopped routinely by the fuzz and speed traps were far more common.

[Rockets]

Given that list if misdemeanors I am not convinced to be honest.....;-)

[mr.chicken]

On 30/07/2023 at 14:42, first mate said:

Pots and kettles Mr C. Do you disagree with me?

Saying pots and kettles is an implication that I'm blowing through red lights while pointing the finger at others for doing so. That's a somewhat bold claim, and given you don't know who I am, you don't have any evidence for it.

As for whether I agree: this is a thread for whinging about cars. If you want me to whinge about other road users, please start an appropriate thread and I'll whinge there. Otherwise I'll endeavor to stop a car related thread getting sea-lioned into oblivion by all the usual suspects.

 

 

 

 

 

[first mate]

Actually the pots and kettles remark was in regard to your comments about others derailing threads.

I am sure you never run red lights while riding a bike, you actually do not strike me as the type. Unfortunately many, many others do. I have a theory that some cyclists are 'born again' former petrol heads, who love speed. Having to stop at traffic lights is a faff and annoying for them.

[mr.chicken]

15 minutes ago, first mate said:

...

Please make a bike whinging thread if you have opinions on bikes. Otherwise it's just whataboutery to distract from dangerous car driving. Making a thread is easy to do and you keep not doing it which makes me wonder why you want to keep distracting people from the problems with bad car drivers.

 

[first mate]

Ah, pots and kettles.

I dislike dangerous car drivers as much as you do Chick, only I also dislike cyclists that flout the law for their own convenience and risk the safety of others.

Edited August 1, 2023 by first mate

[mr.chicken]

45 minutes ago, first mate said:

I dislike dangerous car drivers as much as you do Chick

No you don't, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to derail a thread about bad drivers into one about cyclists. You can of course prove me wrong by starting a thread abut bad cyclists and stop derailing this one. I don't think you will do that because you don't dislike bad drivers and your constant derailing proves that.

[first mate]

So very sensitive all of a sudden about derailing. As I said, pots and kettles.

I have not really deviated from the subject of dangerous drivers and have commented on driving that I think is inexcusable; including those who do not stick to 20mph.  However, car drivers are not the only road users that show inconsiderate behaviour and to mention that is not completely irrelevant.

Of course, I would not dream of describing the content of this thread as "whinging" about car drivers, because I appreciate this is all about different perspectives and experiences. 
 

 

[march46]

Awful collision with a driver hitting a woman on a Lordship Lane zebra crossing, fractured leg and in need of a brain scan. 

 

[Rockets]

I very much hope the person injured is OK.

 

By the way, as you have posted this in a Dangerous Drivers Everywhere thread are you trying to suggest this was the result of a driver driving dangerously?

 

[Sue]

The original post on nextdoor from the injured person's mother has been deleted, but it said that the car driver stopped to let her daughter cross on the crossing, but then drove into her while she was on the crossing and knocked her down.

It isn't clear why, or whether it was deliberate.

Apparently the car driver did then stop.

As they are asking for witnesses, shouldn't march46's post above be in a more prominent part of the forum? 

Not many people are likely to see it here? I only noticed it by chance.

Edited July 24 by Sue

[first mate]

I also hope the young woman is okay. Is there any sort of an update? One would imagine that in such a busy, prominent part of Lordship Lane there will have been plenty of witnesses? 

 

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Sue said:

As they are asking for witnesses, shouldn't march46's post above be in a more prominent part of the forum? 

I also think, that unless the facts on what actually happened have been established, that the post should not be in a thread entitled "Dangerous drivers everywhere!!" especially if witnesses are being sought - it creates the impression/suggestion that this was due to dangerous driving.

 

People also need to think carefully about reposting content from Dulwich Roads as they have a long history of posting details of accidents without ever establishing what actually happened. They are using their channel to try and create the impression that every accident is due to speeding or dangerous/bad driving and when they have been alerted to the actual causes they refuse to provide updates - blinkered by their own self-importance and ideology.

[Sue]

7 hours ago, first mate said:

I also hope the young woman is okay. Is there any sort of an update? One would imagine that in such a busy, prominent part of Lordship Lane there will have been plenty of witnesses? 

 

The original post on nextdoor (posted by the young woman's mother) has been deleted, along with the comments, which I assume (but have no idea)  may have been for legal reasons.

I haven't seen any update.

I read that two doctors who were nearby helped initially, along with another passer by.

Obviously, as with many things posted online, I have no way of telling what is true and what isn't, but yes, leaping to the conclusion that the accident was due to dangerous driving seems somewhat premature, unless there was evidence of that.

Edited July 24 by Sue

[malumbu]

Posting in the abstract rather than specifically on this traumatic case.  Motorists (and all road users) should be easing up as they approach zebra crossings, scanning the road ahead, ready to brake should a pedestrian walk across suddenly without warning.  We all know those that don't and some that are happy to speed.  And if not probably have encountered this when on the pavement ready to cross.  There appears from some a particular interest in cyclists rather than drivers.

Sadly improving driving standards is not in manifestos.  Sunak was preoccupied with middle lane drivers, not relevant to more hazardous urban roads.  Governments before him were committed to cyclist training.

Edited July 25 by malumbu
Amended to provide greater clarity, programmes in place to train cyclists but no training for drivers once they pass their test

[first mate]

You are to be commended on broadening the definition of careless driving to include all road users that are not pedestrians. I think we can all agree that anyone using the road, whatever their mode of transport, should be ready to slow and brake and always be on the lookout for pedestrians.

[Rockets]

22 hours ago, Sue said:

Obviously, as with many things posted online, I have no way of telling what is true and what isn't, but yes, leaping to the conclusion that the accident was due to dangerous driving seems somewhat premature, unless there was evidence of that.

Which is why march46 should never have posted that info in this thread, but they were clearly trying to suggest that the accident was caused by dangerous driving. This is a dangerous precedent to set especially if the police/persons involved are appealing for witnesses but a tactic straight from the DulwichRoads playbook where they try to project that any motorised vehicle accident is caused by speeding/dangerous driving or a combination of both.

 

Clearly issues of potential sub judice do not apply if you are a pro-active travel lobbyist with an X account!

[march46]

Recommended watching for everyone concerned by road danger.

[Rockets]

With quality content like that you can see why Warner Bros shut down a lot of Global Cycling News (GCN) content  channels...honestly it's like watching an episode of the Day Today (without the irony!) I really felt Chris Morris was going to appear on-screen with some pithy comment about cycle-clips....he would have had a field-day with "motonormativity". I presume there must also be such a thing as "cyclonormativity" - that might explain the rapid increase in bad, inconsiderate cycling.

 

March46 - posting this stuff really does nothing to further your cause.

 

 

 

[malumbu]

The video states the obvious and preaches to the converted, we've had a pro car culture for the best part of a century.  Yet so many are in denial, as comes across from some discussions on the forum. 

At least try to watch it with an open mind and give some credibility to the experts in academia.

[first mate]

"At least try to watch it with an open mind and give some credibility to the experts in academia".
 

I must have misunderstood, I thought Rockets was commenting on it because they watched it? But because they do not agree this means they are not open-minded?

 

Edited July 28 by first mate

[Rockets]

The video, and the "cars kills more people than cycles" lobbyists overlook one key, but very important, point:

• KSIs from motor vehicles have been declining over the last 10 years
• KSIs from cycles have been increasing over the last 10 years 

 

As groups like TFL try to force cycles and pedestrians to co-habit spaces (like floating bus stops) then this trend will continue and the "yeah but, look what's happening over there and we're not as bad as them" approach is doing the cycle lobby no good whatsoever.

 

I do think it is interesting that there are growing calls to better record and track injuries caused by bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters.

This article from Bristol on the issue with e-scooters was very interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8865env3q3o

[Penguin68]

I would hate to de-rail such a well intentioned thread (!) - but what I have observed is an increase of dangerous road users (and I include pedestrians) everywhere. Pedestrians for instance who cross roads well supplied with crossings (i.e. Lordship Lane) away from the crossing and diagonally with their backs to oncoming traffic - cyclists who shoot out of side roads without stopping or signalling - people on scooters and e-bikes ditto - but normally without helmets - people on push bikes at dusk or in the evenings without lights or reflective clothing and so so - they are being dangerous mainly to themselves, of course, but still dangerous. The lack of any road sense, particularly (but not of course exclusively) of those who may well not have had any motorised vehicle training or testing designed to make them hazard aware is increasingly noticeable (or at least, I've increasingly noticed it).

Motorists too clearly 'break the law' - particularly as regards speeds higher than 20mph - although many roads other than side and purely residential roads were designed, and used, at 30mph limits relatively safely until very recently. But clearly, there are dangerous people in motorised vehicles, and they risk less, as regards survival or serious injury, than others.

But it is people who mainly put themselves at risk who are worrying me. 'He was right, dead right, as he passed along, but he was just as dead as if he'd been dead wrong' was drummed into me early (before I was 10) by my parents to alert me to hazards - as a young pedestrian - it is learning that seems to be lost to current generations. And in many cases, such as those I cite above, these road users are not even 'dead right' as regards their use of public highways.