Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

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

I was responding to your view about drivers being innocent in collisions.  Happy to discuss cyclists elsewhere on the forum.

Most of my  'accidents' as a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and driver have been my fault.  As I have learned from these, including minimising the likelihood of another road user colliding with me, I very rarely have collisions nowadays.  

Edited to add.  A number of you are unhappy, if not angry, about measures that affect motorists.  LTNs, CPZs and the ULEZ.  It's a shame that I cannot add a rise I fuel duty on that.  Yet you adopt a polarised view that it's all the fault of those cyclists, most who ride through red lights, when not in the pavement.  Meanwhile drivers can do no wrong.  I'm happy with measures against drivers and promoting active travel.  But do not have an opposite  polarised view on drivers and cyclists 

Edited November 7 by malumbu

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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

Yes and if anyone was paying attention (but given the way you and I go at it I very much doubt they do) they will have noticed exactly what you added and when....

And I completely agree that once a day, once a week, once a month or once a year is far too regular. But I wasn't challenging you on that, I was challenging you on your insistence that they were a common/regular occurrence. And my point remains that, given the volumes of traffic moving through an area, those are not common occurrences.

 

1 hour ago, snowy said:

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

No, the people spending time, effort and money lobbying them to force them to change the word used. Changing the word does nothing to address the problem does it - people really need to refocus their energy.

[Penguin68]

28 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Yet you adopt a polarised view that it's all the fault of those cyclists, most who ride through red lights, when not in the pavement.  Meanwhile drivers can do no wrong.  I'm happy with measures against drivers and promoting active travel.  But do not have an opposite  polarised view on drivers and cyclists 

I was asking you whether you laid as much blame on cyclists involved in 'accidents' as you do to 'drivers'. I think by the tone of your response we can draw our conclusions. I believe too many cyclists (frankly, as with careless drivers, one would be too many)  cycle with little regard to their own safety, let alone to that of others. I don't believe and I have never said that drivers can do no wrong. By all means blacken me if you wish, but you win no arguments by doing so. What I have said is that road accident statistics suggest that drivers are driving less badly, and to less bad effect, than they have in the past. They appear to be on an upwards curve of better road behaviour at the same time as anecdotally cyclists appear to be on a downward curve.

[Rockets]

35 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Most of my  'accidents' as a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and driver have been my fault.  As I have learned from these, including minimising the likelihood of another road user colliding with me, I very rarely have collisions nowadays.  

Good grief Malumbu, how many accidents have you had? Should you be allowed on the road (or pavement) at all....;-)?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets We get it. Car good, bike bad. Hundreds of car crashes each year = rare and unavoidable accidents. People on bikes being inconsiderate = a massive danger to everyone requiring multiple threads and lot's of angry attacks on rabid, secretive cabals of dangerous activists. 

Can the rest of us talk about road safety / policy in a more objective and nuanced way now.

Edited November 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

No Earl, just pointing out how flawed some of your car bad/bike good narratives are.....

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

I was asking you whether you laid as much blame on cyclists involved in 'accidents' as you do to 'drivers'. I think by the tone of your response we can draw our conclusions. I believe too many cyclists (frankly, as with careless drivers, one would be too many)  cycle with little regard to their own safety, let alone to that of others. I don't believe and I have never said that drivers can do no wrong. By all means blacken me if you wish, but you win no arguments by doing so. What I have said is that road accident statistics suggest that drivers are driving less badly, and to less bad effect, than they have in the past. They appear to be on an upwards curve of better road behaviour at the same time as anecdotally cyclists appear to be on a downward curve.

I'm discussing collisions involving cars, with other road users and fixed objects.  Where is your evidence that drivers are during not quite as bad as the past?  Car design and safety features, reduction in drunk driving, clamping down on hand held mobiles, and lower speed limits helped reduce killed and seriously injured stats, which have plateaued.

None of these are driver behaviour in terms of what I consider skills - control of the accelerator and brake, steering, positioning, communication (which many are appalling). awareness of other road users including those behind, anticipation.  Why do a number of you continue to be apologists for poor driving?

Perhaps the million plus a year since 2018 having to do a speed awareness course is improving driving standards and/or the number of people with dash cams or helmet cams reporting careless driving.  If so that is a good thing.

Edited November 7 by malumbu

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

No, the people spending time, effort and money lobbying them to force them to change the word used. Changing the word does nothing to address the problem does it - people really need to refocus their energy.

So we've reached the nub of it - you think that your opinion is better than that of the DfT etc. 

[exdulwicher]

6 hours ago, Spartacus said:

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 

It isn't, they use RTC.

Road Traffic Collision.

Accident would imply that no-one was at fault but in a road collision, especially one with injuries, there may be a future criminal prosecution (for, eg, careless driving, driving under the influence etc) so they deliberately do NOT use accident.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

This thread was started because some claimed a careless/dangerous driver wrecked the fountain. 

This is, of course, complete bullshit, as anyone who actually reads the OP can tell. 

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/352811-unbelievable-destruction-west-norwood-marble-fountain-demolished/

 

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

once a day, once a week, once a month or once a year is far too regular. But I wasn't challenging you on that, I was challenging you on your insistence that they were a common/regular occurrence.

You should get some kind of award for this comment. The crashes are too regular but also not regular? Brilliant. This is Olympic- standard sealioning. Guaranteed gold at Los Angeles 2028. 🥇

[first mate]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

I was responding to your view about drivers being innocent in collisions.  Happy to discuss cyclists elsewhere on the forum.

Most of my  'accidents' as a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and driver have been my fault.  As I have learned from these, including minimising the likelihood of another road user colliding with me, I very rarely have collisions nowadays.  

Edited to add.  A number of you are unhappy, if not angry, about measures that affect motorists.  LTNs, CPZs and the ULEZ.  It's a shame that I cannot add a rise I fuel duty on that.  Yet you adopt a polarised view that it's all the fault of those cyclists, most who ride through red lights, when not in the pavement.  Meanwhile drivers can do no wrong.  I'm happy with measures against drivers and promoting active travel.  But do not have an opposite  polarised view on drivers and cyclists 

I have to repeat Rockets question as to how many accidents, collisions or RTAs Mal had been involved in, especially those where they have been at fault? It sits oddly with the frequent advisory tone to others. 

I still cannot understand why it is so problematic to look at the relatively recent issues associated with careless cycling. Recent because more people are cycling, especially those using e-bikes, hire or otherwise. 

How would you address some of the emerging problems with careless cycling?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

So we've reached the nub of it - you think that your opinion is better than that of the DfT etc. 

Nope.

I think the DfT etc should be dealing with the issue of road safety rather than having to deal with a load of word police who are wasting their time getting them to change a word because it suits their narrative. Again, how many accidents have been prevented because the word accident is not being used by some authorities? Do enlighten me.....

25 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You should get some kind of award for this comment. The crashes are too regular but also not regular? Brilliant. This is Olympic- standard sealioning. Guaranteed gold at Los Angeles 2028. 🥇

Go back and read my sentences very carefully a couple of times and see if you understand it...;-)

Edited November 7 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

51 minutes ago, first mate said:

How would you address some of the emerging problems with careless cycling?

Let me know when a cyclist destroys a marble fountain and we can discuss it.

[Rockets]

Has anyone yet determined what actually happened?

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The crashes are too regular but also not regular? Brilliant

I fear there is confusion here about regular and frequent. A regular occurrence may not be frequent, frequent or common occurrences may not however be regular. And there are many attempts to obfuscate by nit picking rather than addressing underlying issues. 

[Rockets]

Apparently every piece of bent and broken street furniture is down to dangerous drivers.....amazing how precise these dangerous drivers are because how anyone managed to just hit the arrow sign and not the lamp post with a vehicle is anyone's guess....and how they managed to hit it and not move it from the housing at all is also an amazing piece of precison driving.

We can only presume it's been a slow accident week for them so they are obviously getting desperate for content......

https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1854452442701676548?s=09

Edited November 7 by Rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

And there are many attempts to obfuscate by nit picking rather than addressing underlying issues. 

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Nope.

I think the DfT etc should be dealing with the issue of road safety rather than having to deal with a load of word police who are wasting their time getting them to change a word because it suits their narrative. Again, how many accidents have been prevented because the word accident is not being used by some authorities? Do enlighten me.....

Go back and read my sentences very carefully a couple of times and see if you understand it...;-)

So this is a long winded way of saying yes, you do think your opinion is better than theirs. 

[Rockets]

No, I just  don't think they should be wasting time, effort and resources pandering to people like you who get upset by the word they use....

Just remind me again...how many accidents have been prevented by not referring to accidents.....? 

[snowy]

So this is a long winded way of saying yes, you do think your opinion is better than theirs and don't understand risk management.

Edited November 7 by snowy

[Rockets]

Cars and bikes may break my bones, but words will never hurt me....

Imagine a world where people spent more time focussing on things that actually make a difference....

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

My irony-o-meter just exploded with that last comment.

[march46]

On 06/11/2024 at 20:53, Rockets said:

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"

Worth reading this https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/11/26/most-uk-police-forces-now-use-incident-not-accident-finds-research/

 

[Penguin68]

If we're going to play around with linguistics then please note the issue of intent. Most drivers involved in collisions, and cyclists and motorcyclists and pedestrians, do so not as a matter of intent but through lack of care, or skill or, on occasion, luck. You may be able to allocate blame but, unless the 'culprit' has acted recklessly then it was still an accident, in that it wasn't intentional. Most people involved in collisions, even if it was through their actions that the incident occurred, did do accidently, and not with intent. 

[first mate]

Of greatest interest is how this thread has shifted from one of outrage at an incident where it seems those most outraged were not clear how the incident occurred, to a discussion on how to correctly apply the word 'accident'. Go figure.

Do we yet know if the incident involved accidental damage?