Dulwich Roads: engage brain before posting..

[Rockets]

On 14/09/2024 at 07:04, Rockets said:

A Met Police spokesperson: “One male has gone to hospital for treatment; we await confirmation on his condition but no fatalities."

 

Just leaving this here....

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Just leaving this here....

...your favourite tagline when attempting some ham-fisted misdirection. No one has claimed that there was a fatality. 

The definition of 'tragic' isn't what you think it is:

Ironically, used as an informal noun ('a boring or socially inept person, typically having an obsessive and solitary interest'), it could suitably describe someone on this forum.

Edited October 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, it is perhaps no surprise to anyone that you (and via likes folks like Malumbu, March46 and Snowy) come running to Dulwich Roads' defence - it's like some predictable pavlovian muscle memory response (i.e. we must defend our brothers-in-arms come what may!).

It's pretty clear to anyone that if you retweet a post about someone being under covers after an accident and then use the words "tragic" and "horrific" in your own tweet to your followers that you cannot then be surprised that people interpret that as a death. Now, layer on top of that the fact that this happened outside a school (and school with a site on each side of the road) and I am sure a few parents may follow Dulwich Roads and it doesn't take a genius to see how this caused panic and why the police had to confirm there were no fatalities.

If you're going to position yourself as  a "community effort" as Dulwich Roads does then perhaps they need to consider the impact tweets such as this might have on that community. All I asked was for them to engage brain before tweeting - to think of the impact a tweet may have if you put it into the public domain.

A rabid and rapid fire and forget policy because you are desperate for content to further your ideology will land you in hot water - you will get things wrong and you may spread mis-information that has negative impact on the very people you are trying to engage with. Which is exactly what Dulwich Roads did but, you know, they still stand by their tweet so read into that what you will.

Edited October 10 by Rockets

[dougiefreeman]

Be honest @Dulwich Roads - did you jump the gun here in a moment of passion? I'm sure many of us have retweeted or posted something without doing our due diligence from time to time - it happens. Particularly when views are strong about connected issues. But I guess the respectable thing might just be to own up to it if your tweet (as un-intentional as it most likely will have been) genuinely caused widespread panic. When your twitter account has 1200+ local community followers, you arguably have a responsibility to take particular care in what you post would you not agree?

Is it just a case of not wanting to give @Rockets the satisfaction of holding up your hands?!

[Dulwich Roads]

Hi Doogie, 

We had received multiple reports about the incident before posting it with some conflicting information, separate from the quoted tweet. It was very clear from this information that this was yet another horrific and tragic crash with one person who was KSI (in police language). Hence we tweeted what we did and then added more information as details became apparent. I very much doubt that this caused widespread panic. We get a lot of messages on the account from people (and multiple about this incident), and not a single one about this tweet creating "widespread panic". 

In fact, almost any alarm about the incident would have been quite genuine given someone was seriously injured. Around 100 people are killed on the roads of London each year, and around 4000 are seriously injured. Each of these are horrific, tragic and in most cases entirely avoidable. Whilst some of us are trying to highlight how we should do more to reduce these numbers, there are disingenuous people such as Rockets who seem not to care in trying to reduce that number. We do wish Rockets showed half as much worry about all those people who are killed or seriously injured on London roads, as they do about trying to avoid any sort of "widespread panic" about the dangers on our roads.  As I'm sure Rockets will always want to have the last word, we're still waiting on them to reply to our request for " have you found any of your posts where you raise genuine road safety concerns? We're waiting... ". 

 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

There you have it folks....were we expecting anything else from someone who is clearly putting their own ideology ahead of any sensible and pragmatic approach to their outreach? A bit like Just Stop Oil protestors, some people just don't know when they're actually doing their cause more harm than good by their blinkered fanatical actions.

The fact the person who tweeted the "person under covers" has since deleted the tweet that Dulwich Roads created the panic with speaks volumes. At least that person is smart enough to admit the error.

The "none of our followers alerted us to a problem" is just laughable - the police had to confirm that no one died due to their post.

Let's just hope Dulwich Roads learns from this episode and takes a more sensible approach to posting...but given their all too predictable response on this thread alone (BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!!!) I very much doubt they will - they seem not to care about anything other than their own personal agenda, which is a shame because what they are trying to do is a good thing which is seriously tarnished by approaches and attitudes like this.

 

 

 

Edited October 11 by Rockets

[first mate]

Do they highlight different types of dangerous or careless behaviour, involving different modes of transport, or do they focus only on one type?

[snowy]

Its crowd sourced content. I'm sure you are able to send in your own footage and stories. 

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Do they highlight different types of dangerous or careless behaviour, involving different modes of transport, or do they focus only on one type?

Nope, you can use this forum if you have issues with other modes of transport. As people often do!

[first mate]

Can you really? I looked and it is literally wall to wall car- catching. A fair bit seems to be  generated by cyclists with headcams catching all and any infractions.

Who is behind the X account?

 

 

[Dulwich Roads]

 

30 minutes ago, first mate said:

Can you really? I looked and it is literally wall to wall car- catching. A fair bit seems to be  generated by cyclists with headcams catching all and any infractions.

 

 

Send in some footage of people putting others in dangers on the roads, especially illegal activity, and we are happy to post it.  Cyclists often use headcams now, just as drivers use dashcams, and both are wise to use them. We're about to publish an awesome video from a driver that we've received, highlighting the craziness around opposition to 20mph limits. As always in strictest confidence - we would never reveal our sources for obvious reasons and often decline to publish if there is ongoing police investigation as this could prejudice the outcome. For example, in relation to some of the moped crash scams going on at the moment. 

Edited October 11 by Dulwich Roads

[Rockets]

Here you go...fill yer boots...it's only a few days old so plenty for you to post!!!

 

[Dulwich Roads]

6 hours ago, Dulwich Roads said:

As I'm sure Rockets will always want to have the last word, we're still waiting on them to reply to our request for " have you found any of your posts where you raise genuine road safety concerns? We're waiting... ". 

 

 

 

 

Still waiting...

Rockets, you forgot the bit where you have to move on from your obsession about cyclists... try again... we're still waiting. 

[Rockets]

Yeah some people are still waiting for some contrition from you for the distress you caused with your original post that wrongly suggested someone had died outside a school...but, you know, as you said: "THE TWEET REMAINS!"

Perhaps it would be good if you move on from your fanatical obsession of ambulance chasing accidents so you can post, often inaccurate and poorly researched information/conclusions about the cause/outcomes of accidents. The ghoulish relish with which you do so is quite disturbing.

 

Edited October 11 by Rockets

[snowy]

They really are living rent free in your head aren't they? 

[alice]

boring

[malumbu]

Out of interest what is the issue with the Tweet/X Rockets?  Is it that you didn't like the term 'tragic' - any serious accident is tragic whether it results in a fatality or not.  I'm trying to get my head around why you are so angry, and why you posted in the first place.  Thanks.

[Rockets]

Malumbu, someone on X sent out a tweet saying there was an accident on the A205 and a person “was under covers”. That, I am sure you will agree, normally suggests someone was tragically killed in the incident.

That tweet from a handle akirahoshi0 (the original address of the tweet can still be seen in the replies if you click on Read 4 replies) on the below but the tweet is now unavailable.

Dulwich Roads then retweeted that post (the one referring to a person under covers) to their followers referring to it as a “horrific and tragic crash”. The incident happened outside Oakfield School and Dulwich Roads’ retweet caused significant concern, especially for those with children at the school.

No-one died but rumours started circulating that someone had. A local newspaper called the police to confirm details of the incident and the police had to put on record that there had been “no fatalities”.

A day later an X thread was still talking about death of pedestrians (see HorrifiedofHH’s post).

So I was imploring DulwichRoads to engage brain before tweeting as their post had caused a huge amount of concern as the information they posted was misleading to say the least. Not unreasonable I am sure you will agree. But, as you can see from their reaction over a month later (someone alerted them to this thread so they obviously felt compelled to have their say) they don’t think they did anything wrong - other, more rational, people may disagree with them and agree that a more measured approach in future may be wise.

 

[malumbu]

Thank you for your explanation.

Stepping back I still do not see why such a strong reaction, so strong you felt the need to post here.  It seems to depend on the interpretation of "a person under covers" and "horrific and tragic crash".  On the first from a search on Google this is not a common term for death.  The second is subjective, and where anyone is seriously hurt then I consider appropriate.  People speculated and there was community chatter long before social media, I expect the citizens of ancient Rome would gossip at the baths about the latest chariot crash.

My perspective is that Dulwich Roads is providing a useful service to the community highlighting poor behaviour from road users - I expect that this  could include to all modes including pedestrians on the road and skaters,

This then brings me to the question of how you were aware of the X/Tweet.  Are you following Dulwich Roads because you are concerned about road safety?

Or is this part of your ongoing issues with Southwark, road restrictions, and cyclists.  If so this appears a little removed and this matter,  The post on X by Horrified of HH is particularly telling - LTNS are no excuse for bad driving. 

I also said that I would give the link about the increase in prosecutions due to dash cams and helmet cams.  It wasn't helpful for the BBC to just refer to cyclists in the article as it is motorists providing evidence too. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly29m5rrd4o

I've posted on the loading bay thread about driving standards, it's probably better here so cut and pasted relevant sentences.

Very few drivers get any refresher or advanced training after their test.  A few years ago, I think it was under Labour, young/new drivers were encouraged to do further training, and I recall that this can reduce what can be enormous insurance premiums.  But not sure that this took off and there is also resentment about black boxes.  So you can pass your test at 17 and have no refresher training for 70 years or more.  For most the only post-test training is speed awareness courses.  Now if you had a programme of random retesting 90 percent plus would fail.  Poor observations, poor signalling, poor positioning, poor anticipation.  But the resistance to any compulsion to improve driving skills would be massive and lose any government significant votes.

Added - this refers to poor driving standards rather than dangerous driving, ie those that know what they are doing is wrong

[Rockets]

Malumbu, your response was utterly predictable.

9 minutes ago, malumbu said:

The post on X by Horrified of HH is particularly telling - LTNS are no excuse for bad driving. 

But also telling because they alluded to the fatality - caused by the tweet from Dulwich Roads.....face palm emoji!

Honestly, this thread just shows how difficult it is to get those fully embedded on the pro-side to be rational about this stuff.

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

It seems to depend on the interpretation of "a person under covers"

How would you interpret this....that they were having a nap perhaps? Interested to know what your immediate reaction is when you read that. 

Edited October 12 by Rockets

[first mate]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

How would you interpret this....that they were having a nap perhaps? Interested to know what your immediate reaction is when you read that. 

Interesting to witness the twisting and turning that Dulwich Roads and its supporters/members on here are using to try and get out of this.

[Rockets]

Yeah and the more they twist and turn and try to provide some completely unplausible explanation and throw laughing emojis like confetti they look more and more ludicrous.

The best course of action would have been for Dulwich Roads to say, sorry we made a mistake and we got it wrong. But no, they just try to argue their way out if and then look very cultish in their behaviour and all of their content gets pigeon-holed by the more rational folks accordingly moving forward.

[Raeburn]

As already pointed out, they did correct it?

You seem to be the only person reading ‘a man was rushed to hospital’, choosing to interpret with a different meaning, and trying to create a flap on here.

 

If genuinely concerned, why didn’t you challenge it on Twitter? Instead you’ve bought it here, isolated one detail, and are creating your own narrative around it. 

 

[Rockets]

Over 5 hours after the original tweet they corrected the location.

It seems only those on the anti- side intepret a "person under covers"  retweeted as "tragic and horrific" as a fatality then (except HorrifedofHH of course as they interpreted it as a fatality too)......oh well we clearly read things differently...