Dulwich Roads: engage brain before posting..

[Raeburn]

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

Again, deliberately choosing to omit ‘a man was rushed to hospital’ from that correction tweet, instead preferring to push disinfo on here.

And if time is important, you chose to start this thread three days after the event and the clarity was posted.

 

[Rockets]

So Raeburn if you're claiming that is a correction (but the intent of that tweet, which is sent over 5 hours after the first is clearly to correct the location) then you are validating my original argument that Dulwich Roads needs to take more care with their posts and establish more facts before sending out disturbing misinformation, are you not?

Edited October 13 by Rockets

[Raeburn]

So it should have said ‘an alive man was rushed to hospital’?

No wonder you were so alarmed and confused. It’s great that you bought this for everyone’s attention on EDF …and did zero about it on Twitter within the context of the actual discussion.

[Rockets]

But, by your own argument, Dulwich Roads did send out inaccurate misleading information that suggested, inaccurately, that someone had died. Thanks for validating that for me because some of your cohort were arguing that hadn't happened.

So, please Dulwich Roads - engage brain before posting, even Raeburn agrees...;-)

[Raeburn]

You’ve woven together a lot of disparate points to come to your nonsensical conclusion there. 
 

As ever, good luck in your quest.

[alice]

The phrase ‘a tragic accident’ means somebody died. 

[Rockets]

Especially when retweeting a post that claims "someone under covers".

But apparently the pro- lobbyists speak a different language to everyone else especially when they are trying to avoid saying "yup, sorry we got it wrong". But accountability has always been the Achilles Heel for so many on that side of the argument.

Edited October 13 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

I'm sorry, but the very 'best' you might interpret 'a horrific and tragic accident' would be one causing life changing injuries, and in context probably of a child - but juxtaposed with 'under covers' - which most would interpret as fully covered (not tucked into a duvet) - then a fatal accident. To suggest anything else would be to stretch normal reporting conventions far too far.

It was a mistake, and a mistake probably, but not certainly, encouraged by an agenda which wishes to attack motorised traffic as inherently and always dangerous and sinful. There is almost a sense of relish in the reporting.

In the context of an accident close to a school it was sensationalist. The attempts by others to excuse or trivialise the impacts of this false reporting (given I am not suggesting it was, ab initio known to be false) are lamentable.

[Dulwich Roads]

Since Rockets has been going on and on about this tweet, an average of ~12 people have been killed on roads in London alone and another 500 seriously injured. This isn't sensationalism, just the grim reality of the danger on the road and every one of those statistics is a real person, whose death has impacted many more loved ones around them. Every day is a lottery when walking down the pavement or trying to cross the road, hoping that other road users are not drunk/on their phone/speeding/jumping the lights etc and that we make it home safely. Another ~8 people will never make it home this month in London. And the same next month and so on. this danger isn't just on the roads. Children aren't even safe in their school grounds in London from over-sized SUVs killing them - the awful incident in Wimbledon was repeated, without children being injured, on half moon lane not long afterwards as a car crashed into the school grounds. 

Rocket's posts will do nothing to stop that death toll from continuing the relentless rise upwards, as he doesn't care about improving road safety. We're still waiting for him to point to where he raises any genuine concerns about road safety on this forum. Meanwhile, we will keep reporting and retweeting information from the community about our local roads. 

As Rockets is never going to post anything useful about road safety, it would be good try and wrap this thread up. Here is the tweet of the crash he seems so concerned about. Can he explain what he actually wants changing or correcting or explaining about this tweet? He's had the dictionary definition of "tragic' explained to him, and the quote tweet was removed by the original poster. So what exactly is the outstanding issue with this tweet and the replies?

6 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

... an agenda which wishes to attack motorised traffic as inherently and always dangerous and sinful. There is almost a sense of relish in the reporting

Pedestrian or cyclist behaviour on the roads very rarely results in death or serious injury. 

Motorists account for the overwhelming majority of road traffic collisions. That is why drivers need a licence, vehicles have a registration plate and MOT, insurance and so on. Motorists are the main focus of sensible policing efforts which focus on reducing death and injury on the roads from motorised traffic and the behaviour of dangerous/illegal drivers. 

[Rockets]

Dulwich Roads, this thread wasn't talking about road safety but the inaccuracy of your retweet that created the impression someone had died.

Why don't you share the full context by sharing the original tweet you amplified that created so much distress.....?

Then people can decide for themselves.

This whole thread is asking you to be more responsible, to check your facts before posting inaccurate, misleading and incredibly disturbing information. You purport to be community-led but seemingly have no issue scaring said community if you think it helps validate your particular viewpoint.

P.S. the more you argue the more irrational you look - this might explain how you got into this mess in the first place as you are letting your passion/obsession cloud your decision-making.

 

Edited October 15 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

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

 

There is nothing in the tweet that you have shared that seems misleading, or alarmist. It's pointing out that there are road closures in place after a distressing crash. I'm not sure why we have a thread on it (beyond your obsession with minimising the regular destruction caused by people behaving dangerously when travelling by motor vehicle). 

It's also interesting that you've posted comments blaming (ridiculously) this horrific crash on an LTN, without judgement. Yet you've admonished the individual simply pointing out that a crash has happened and that someone has been taken to hospital. It's clear to me that you're just using a tragic crash in which someone has been injured to 'score points'. Please stop trying to recreate your Twitter 'war on motorist' echo chamber on to this forum. 

Edited October 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is nothing in the tweet that you have shared that seems misleading, or alarmist.

Let's see how you feel about that if Dulwich Roads shares the original tweet they amplified. It was very clear to all what Dulwich Roads was implying (deliberate or not) with their tweet. I very much Dulwich Roads suspected someone had died but cannot bring themselves to admit that their tweet was misleading as a result.

The fact the original tweet is now unavailable speaks volumes.  I suspect the person who put it out realised it was wrong and was causing distress and took action to address it. 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm not sure why we have a thread on it (beyond your obsession with minimising the regular destruction caused by people behaving dangerously when travelling by motor vehicle). 

Probably because folks from your side of the argument keep posting on it......as you try to provide excuses for Dulwich Roads whilst attacking me for asking them to be more thoughtful about the impact of the posts they make and to engage in a bit of fact checking before posting.

Edited October 15 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you’re using the forum to complain about a deleted tweet? Making no mention of this now unavailable tweet in the original post, but instead linking to a different one?

Are you sure you're not just trying to redirect having realised that the word 'tragic' doesn't mean what you thought it did?

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

They circulated incorrect and erroneous facts and did nothing to correct it

This is indeed outrageous. Imagine regularly doing this.

Edited October 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you’re using the forum to complain about a deleted tweet? Making no mention of this now unavailable tweet in the original post, but instead linking to a different one?

No, when I first posted the tweet was available. It has since been made unavailable. One wonders why....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Your original post is on the 14th and links to a tweet from 11th?

[Rockets]

Yup and the original tweet was live then.

[Earl Aelfheah]

OK. So you linked to two tweets and one was taken down? 

[Rockets]

I linked to the Dulwich Roads tweet and that tweet showed the content that they retweeted (the "person under covers") and it was showing until that post was made unavailable. I also notice now that the original tweet link from user akirahoshi0 has now also been removed from the Dulwich Roads tweet in the last couple of days - is someone trying to cover their tracks?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sorry to push the point, but I’m confused. You haven’t edited your original post and one can’t edit a tweet. So has the link you posted redirected to a different tweet than the one you were originally commenting on?

Edited October 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

No, when you post a tweet it links to the realtime version of the tweet, so when I posted the link on here the "under the covers" tweet was showing. When the "under the covers" tweet was made "unavailable" so it would no longer show on here but the trail was still there with the user name of the person who tweeted the "under the covers" tweet. The user name has since disappeared (since Saturday) but you can still see the imprint left by that retweet - "You're unable to view this Post etc"

 

Edited October 15 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Got it. So it wasn't something that Dulwich Roads said. They just reported that there had been an accident, that the road was closed and that someone had been taken to hospital, whilst retweeting an eye witnesses account.

Because you accused them of effectively wishing someone dead, to suit a narrative? Not sure what narrative that would be? Perhaps that there are far too many serious injuries and deaths on our streets as the result of dangerous driving? Because that seems like a matter of fact which I would be very surprised if you didn't agree with.

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

It's almost as if they are wishing for a far more tragic outcome to suit their narrative.

I notice that you don't take issue with someone claiming that the crash was the result of an LTN. In fact you reposted that without criticism on this thread. No thought to whether that nonsense claim might be being used to suit a narrative. What do you think? 🤔

Could it be that you should just spend less time down your 'war on cars' Twitter rabbit hole? Or better still, stop trying to turn the forum into an extension of it?

Edited October 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Got it. So it wasn't something that Dulwich Roads said.

No they retweeted the "person under covers" tweet and amplified that and extended that tweet's reach by retweeting it to their followers with the message about it being a "horrific and tragic crash" which led many, not unsurprisingly, to think someone had died. In turn, this led me to suggest they needed to engage brain before tweeting and try to establish facts before sending this stuff out because no-one had died (which the police had to confirm due to the amplification of the message that suggested someone had).

I am struggling to understand why so many struggle with this...it's not difficult...

 

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I notice that you don't take issue with someone claiming that the crash was the result of an LTN. In fact you reposted that without criticism on this thread. No thought to whether that nonsense claim might be being used to suit a narrative.

That was a clear distraction technique by you but, for the record, I don't think that person was right with that conclusion and no, I do not support the narrative that the LTN caused the crash.

There you go, see how easy it is to be pragmatic and take a sensible approach to things, maybe some others should try it!

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 12/10/2024 at 00:07, Rockets said:

Where did I post about the LTN being to blame for the crash as a distraction technique exactly? I believe it was you who posted it. Considering you are complaining about people reposting misleading information, don’t you think this is a tad ironic?

So Dulwich Roads reported that there had been an accident, that the road was closed and that someone had been taken to hospital. All correct.

They also reposted an eye witnesses account (which was taken down). We have no reason to believe it was posted on bad faith.

You accuse them wishing someone dead, because they campaign for greater road safety?

Absolutely outrageous/ bizarre. 

Edited October 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Goodness me Earl, I posted that exert because of what HorrifiedofHH says in reference to the “pedestrian fatalities” which was HH’s response to the misinformation that someone had been killed in that accident fanned by Dulwich Roads  retweeting of the “under the covers” tweet.

52 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They also reposted an eye witnesses account (which was taken down). We have no reason to believe it was posted on bad faith.

So you, like Raeburn, are admitting they made a mistake by tweeting the eye witness account without doing any fact-checking whether someone was “under covers”. Great, one by one you are validating my position that they need to take more care to prevent posting misleading info on their thread?

We finally agree but, boy, it took us a long time to get here - I was right all along!

52 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You accuse them wishing someone dead, because they campaign for greater road safety?

No I accuse them of using news on accidents as a way to create awareness of their cause but they do not fact check what actually happened/happens and do not take a responsible approach to posting. Do I think they have a ghoulish fascination with accidents? Yes. Can I understand why an activist takes that approach? Yes. Do I agree with it? No, because in their keenness to make their point they are getting things wrong that, as in this case, causes undue concern to many in our community. 

 

I still think it would be good for Dulwich Roads to share the tweet they retweeted so everyone can see for themselves  - I wish I had taken a screenshot because when people see it the rational amongst us will see the point I was making.

52 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So Dulwich Roads reported that there had been an accident, that the road was closed and that someone had been taken to hospital. All correct.

They initially reported that there had been a “horrific and tragic” accident and they reported this by retweeting a tweet that said “someone under covers”.

Over 5 hours later  (at 10.30 a night) they then tweeted a correction on the location of the accident and then addd that someone had been taken to hospital; over 5 hours after their first tweet on the subject. The damage was already done by the first tweet. Also note the HorrifiedofHH post talks of a pedestrian death the day after Dulwich Roads’ tweet, so clearly their “correction” did nothing to quell the rumours of a death.

 

 

Edited October 15 by Rockets

[Raeburn]

I don’t believe that Rockets. You are making things up about me.