Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

You weren't crystal clear at all - you clearly said the 1.1km stretch of Lordship Lane from East Dulwich Grove 

I repeatedly referred to the area you highlighted / took a screenshot of and that covers a 1.1 by 2.8 km space centred around a small stretch of Lordship lane (avoiding the major junctions). In one instance in back and forth I’ve used shorthand and referred to ‘the 1.1km stretch of Lordship Lane’. It is absolutely clear what we are talking about. You set the area, designed as it was to minimise the incidence of collisions. And still you try to dissemble, obsfucate and move the goalposts.

You minimise the regular, weekly incidence of cars driving into something or someone locally, whilst dedicating pages and pages to the ‘dangers’ of people travelling on push bikes. You talk about rabid ideology and people wearing blinkers: the lack of awareness is breathtaking.

And of course now you’re falsely claiming I’ve been editing the meaning of my posts, rather than just engage sensibly.

Its embarrassing 

Edited November 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rather than to take the bait and allow you to distract further. Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it). A collision almost weekly. Would you accept they are therefore a regular occurrence locally, or not? (Bare in mind this doesn't include the junctions of LL and goose green, LL and Barry road, East Dulwich Road and Barry Road, or LL and the S. Circular, and is only for those collisions recorded)

Do you think that's a problem worthy of discussion? Or that to to suggest it's a problem is 'hyperbole' and an example of 'rabid ideology'? 

You have said that you're not trying to minimise the issue of collisions. I think people can make their own judgement on that. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

Ahem...which bit did you edit Earl...come on, try to tell the truth now....;-)?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well it was posted 4 hours ago and edited 4 hours ago, so I imagine a typo. What are you claiming I changed? Are you OK?

[Kathleen Olander]

What happened to the marble fountain though?  Do we know who demolished it yet?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Probably a rollerblader.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Well it was posted 4 hours ago and edited 4 hours ago, so I imagine a typo. What are you claiming I changed? Are you OK?

Now come on be crystal clear...tell us what you added.....you know full-well it wasn't a typo...

Are you, in fact, the person behind Dulwich Roads because the post-criticism edit to try and cover your tracks is a tactic they have used before....? 

Kathleen, no - no-one knows what caused the accident that destroyed the fountain.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

 

On 06/11/2024 at 17:47, DulvilleRes said:

This feels like classic distraction technique

Absolutely. So far, we have had a load of toss about whether 30,000 is or isn't "tens of thousands", whether a weekly occurrence is regular or not, some rubbish about how it can't be careless driving if you didn't intend to hit anything, and at least three different attempts to resurrect unrelated arguments from other threads.

It's all bad faith pedantry. Hard to know whether it's intended to distract from the substantive issue or just hot air.

Edited November 8 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, march46 said:

Rockets please stop referring to crashes and collisions as accidents. 

Why? Seems perfectly reasonable to reasonable people to use it as thus....

accident

/ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/

 

noun

 

1.  

   an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

   "he had an accident at the factory"

    
2.  

   an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

   "the pregnancy was an accident"

[snowy]

On 04/11/2024 at 18:05, snowy said:

So one the one hand we have the following organisations who no longer use the word accident as

"Describing every crash as an ‘accident’ in effect makes excuses for serious incidents. Most crashes are not ‘accidents’ but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention.” Edmund King (the AA)

The Department for Transport

The National Highways Agency

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council

The AA

and then on the other hand we have some lone, out of touch poster called Rockets. 

 

 

 

So after 3 days we are back to the issue that every authority involved in designing, building, maintaining and managing the road network disagrees with one mono topic poster... 

[malumbu]

They are not accidents.  They are preventable.  Mainly due to driver error.  By using the term accident you are accepting that it is OK.

[Rockets]

They are, by the dictionary definition, accidents. If you want to use crash because it furthers your cause and allows you aportion blame to drivers for every accident...then good luck.

 

Some of us are a little more pragmatic and live in the real world.

The fact you can get so angry about the correct use of a word really is a poor reflection on your cause and shows how one-eyed and blinkered many are. If that furthers your cause then good luck with it - you probably need to lobby the Oxford dictionary a little harder....

[snowy]

Actually it’s pronounced “jaslight” - you’ve been saying it wrong the whole time. 

[malumbu]

Ouch.  Would you not agree that cars colliding with other cars, other road users, and fixed objects is due to driver error the majority of times? 

[Penguin68]

Poor road layout, poor signage, pot-holes, badly parked cars obstructing roads and turnings have all been contributory factors to incidents where the error is not necessarily all, or indeed at times at all the 'fault' of the driver directly involved in the incident. Although you are probably right that the majority are driver error that is not the same as saying it is all driver error (and indeed accidents involving cyclists are again not all the fault of the cyclist).

[Rockets]

Therein lies the point: many would love to aportion blame to drivers - Dulwich Roads does this every time they post - but unless you know it was driver error or the fault of the driver then you are just presuming - and I know how many love to jump to conclusions to forward their narrative.

It demonstrates the utter obsession and blinkerdness of some that they cannot acknowledge this. There is a really bizarre car prejudice amongst many whilst the same are happy to turn a blind eye to indiscretions of others. It's time some people grew up a bit and dropped the childish obsession with trying to claim 100% of accidents are the fault of drivers. Sorry to burst your bubble but they are not.

This thread was started because some claimed a careless/dangerous driver wrecked the fountain. They did so without ever bothering to check what actually happened and what caused it. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

Now come on be crystal clear...tell us what you added.....you know full-well it wasn't a typo...

Are you, in fact, the person behind Dulwich Roads because the post-criticism edit to try and cover your tracks is a tactic they have used before....? 

Kathleen, no - no-one knows what caused the accident that destroyed the fountain.

I’m sorry, but I think you’ve lost it. I haven’t made any ‘post accusation edits’. Instead of vague insinuation, why don’t you clarify what you are accusing me of? What are you actually claiming I have changed? 
No, I am not ‘the person behind Dulwich Roads’.
This is embarrassing. When you have lost the argument, you just resort to tin foil  hat stuff. 

Edited November 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl - firstly, I thought attacks on people based on mental health is frowned upon on the forum nowadays? But, no I have not "lost it" and I am great thanks - thanks for your concern.

I am accusing you of posting:

"Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road" 

And then when I did exactly and said that stretch of road there were 9 accidents you accused me of trying to create a smaller area.

I then suggested you had not been crystal clear. You denied it but then went in and edited your original post to say:

"Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it)."

You have made a load of utterly false accusations of me trying to manipulate what I have been presenting and I have been really clear with you how I got to those numbers via the CrashMap website - everyone else can do exactly the same thing. The point remains that accidents are not a common occurrence when you look at the volume of vehicular journeys - you may think so and you're entitled to your opinion - but the data suggests they are not. The great news is that the data also shows that accidents are declining (from CrashMap data) and long may that continue - we need to get all accidents down to zero.

[malumbu]

11 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Poor road layout, poor signage, pot-holes, badly parked cars obstructing roads and turnings have all been contributory factors to incidents where the error is not necessarily all, or indeed at times at all the 'fault' of the driver directly involved in the incident. Although you are probably right that the majority are driver error that is not the same as saying it is all driver error (and indeed accidents involving cyclists are again not all the fault of the cyclist).

If the road condition is bad, slow down.

If visibility is bad, slow down.

If there is low sun, slow down.

If there is the potential of ice or slippy leaves, slow down.

If you don't know the road, slow down.

If you are by a school, shops or other places pedestrians could cross without looking, slow down, and be ready to stop 

It would help if you stopped making excuses for drivers.  In a 20 mph zone then there is no excuse for the vast majority of collisions 

Edited November 7 by malumbu

[march46]

I recommend reading this to help you understand why it’s inappropriate to refer to crashes and collisions as accidents @Rockets

”It’s a crash, not an accident. End the language of denial.” https://www.roadpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/RP_Crash_not_Accident_Briefing_Sheet.pdf
 

 

 

 

 

[Spartacus]

Question for those arguing about the use of a word 

Why is RTA* the used by the emergency services ? 

Problem is, despite wanting it to be "crash" or similar, the use of "accident" has perpetrated the English language.

 

* Road Traffic Accident 

[march46]

Did you read the briefing sheet from RoadPeace (the National Charity for Road Crash Victims) @Spartacus?

[Rockets]

Yeah because not using the word accident reduces accidents by how exactly...honestly, do you not ever think that people get so blinkered by their own ideology that they lose all sense of perspective and get utterly distracted by things that don't actually help the very cause they support?

When you read nonsense like this in that document it does make you wonder:

Using ‘accident’ encourages a sense of fatalism, with fewer resources invested in prevention efforts as a result.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

It would help if you stopped making excuses for drivers.  In a 20 mph zone then there is no excuse for the vast majority of collisions 

Does this also apply in your view to cyclists involved in collisions on roads and pavements? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Earl - firstly, I thought attacks on people based on mental health is frowned upon on the forum nowadays? But, no I have not "lost it" and I am great thanks - thanks for your concern.

I am accusing you of posting:

"Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road" 

And then when I did exactly and said that stretch of road there were 9 accidents you accused me of trying to create a smaller area.

I then suggested you had not been crystal clear. You denied it but then went in and edited your original post to say:

"Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it)."

You have made a load of utterly false accusations of me trying to manipulate what I have been presenting and I have been really clear with you how I got to those numbers via the CrashMap website - everyone else can do exactly the same thing. The point remains that accidents are not a common occurrence when you look at the volume of vehicular journeys - you may think so and you're entitled to your opinion - but the data suggests they are not. The great news is that the data also shows that accidents are declining (from CrashMap data) and long may that continue - we need to get all accidents down to zero.

This is untrue, and also weirdly irrelevant. Everyone can see the whole history of this thread, you do know that right?

on Tuesday at 14:34 I pointed out that were 273 crashes in an area approximately 5km by 2km.

Then at 16:25 you responded by posting a screenshot of a different area, centred on a 1.1km by 2.8km section of lordship lane.

At 12:01 yesterday I posted

Quote

The area you’ve looked at is tiny, about 2.8km wide (which includes a couple of parks) and just 1.1km long; covering a tiny stretch of Lordship Lane chosen to exclude all major junctions (where it meets E Dulwich Road at Goose Green, Barry Road at the Plough, and the South Circular). You walk that in about 10 minutes. Despite this, and despite the fact that the map already displays only a subset of all crashes, there is still almost 1 a week.

Rather than get into a debate about it, I decided to simply make the case on your terms.

Every bit of back and forth between you and I following that post was discussing that area, the one you chose and screen shot. The one that still sees a crash almost every week on average (a ridiculously high number considering the tiny area).

You seem to want to keep narrowing the area down and down, to where we're no longer discussing what happens at a level which could meaningfully be described as 'the local area', but is just one tiny bit of one street. This is from someone claiming not to be trying to minimise how many crashes there are locally. 

There are in fact 5 recorded crashes a week on average across the local area of 5km by 2km. There is almost 1 a week if you look at a very small area 1.1km by 2.8km (which excludes all major junctions). You can cut it anyway you like, but that is far too regular.

The rest is just your usual noise, conspiracy and ham fisted attempts at misdirection (and you talk about people who "allow their own rabid ideology cloud their judgement and what they claim.”?!). It's embarrassing

Just tell us. What’s the area you want to pick, and argue that the number of car crashes aren’t regular enough to be concerened?

Edited November 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yeah because not using the word accident reduces accidents by how exactly...honestly, do you not ever think that people get so blinkered by their own ideology that they lose all sense of perspective and get utterly distracted by things that don't actually help the very cause they support?

When you read nonsense like this in that document it does make you wonder:

Using ‘accident’ encourages a sense of fatalism, with fewer resources invested in prevention efforts as a result.

Blinkered organisations according to you are:

The Department for Transport

The National Highways Agency

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council

The AA