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 10 hours ago 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]

 

2 hours ago, 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 whether that's just the inevitable effect that humourless pub bores and barrack room lawyers have on every conversation when they're allowed to drone on interminably.

[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.