The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Kathleen Olander]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

My only collision between a bike and a pedestrian is when I ran out into the road in Westminster without looking.  The bike caught my hand, I apologised and the rider said no worries.  Very different if it had been the other way round where I may have used choice language.

On the opposite I have had numerous times when pedestrians have walked out on me without looking, I'm now far more aware of pedestrians on their phones etc, but the first times were before mobiles let alone smart phones when I worked off Fleet Street, or I'd cycle down Oxford Street.

I sense that some of you want conflict to happen so you can then post about it to support your anti-cyclist views.  Me?  Pavement cycling when pedestrians are on it is a nuisance.  If someone wants to scoot through a red light it doesn't bother me, if they cycle when I am crossing the road on my green light then that is out of order.  But I wouldn't feel angry enough it to go on a mission.

I'm far more angry about those speeding on Perry Vale, particularly when the school kids were leaving, and those parking outside the schools on double yellows.  Hats off to Southwark, that unlike Lewisham, have a much better policy including school wardens.  And Lambeth, is even better.  Bromley have a compulsory 40mph outside schools for their residents. 

What does any of this have to do with the newly landscaped Dulwich junction?

[Rockets]

Mal, your latest post is laughable.

Happy to turn a blind eye to cycling infringements yet get angry when cars do what you are defending for cyclists. 

And then you throw in a blatant lie about Bromley for dramatic effect.

Thanks for posting; you validate the very problem many of us have with some folks on your side of the argument.

No doubt many are happy to turn a blind eye to cycling infringements around Dulwich Square.

[malumbu]

In deed I'll enjoy turning a blind eye.  I've got the T shirts printed.  Glad I can be of service.  

[first mate]

Earl said:" So the point I make is one of perspective, proportion and reality. I didn't bring up bias, that was firstmate. But I will answer his quip. Whilst I have no doubt that you have noticed people cycling across the square, it stretches the bounds of probability that you have come close to being hit on multiple occasions. I suggest that your antipathy to 'cyclists' and the creation of the square may be leading you to be hyper vigilant when it comes to misdemeanours involving bicycles and prone to over interpreting inconsiderate behaviour, as regular, and dangerous 'near misses'. "

1. you do not have an exclusive take on reality. My reality may be different to yours,  but they are equally valid.

 
2. At least you now seem to accept I did not ask you a question or request an answer from you.

3. The near misses are genuine, it is just you seem unable to accept things unless they also happen to you.

4.My only antipathy is towards careless cyclists. I am also a cyclist.

5. Explain how you "over interpret" a near miss?

As I said, to openly start accusing others of lying just because you really do not want to accept events that do not tally with your perspective comes over as desperate.

[Rockets]

Malumbu, glad you can admit it at least, some pretend they aren't biased - at least you acknowledge you are and we can now apply that filter to everything you post...

Edited December 11 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

Happy to turn a blind eye to cycling infringements yet get angry when cars do what you are defending for cyclists. 

You think the two are comparable? A 2 ton motorised vehicle breaking the rules and a 10kg push bike powered by someone pedalling? There is the problem. He's not saying it's OK for people to break the rules on a bicycle, he is saying he is much more concerned by people in motor vehicles speeding, which. He is objectively right to be so. The latter leads to tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year and millions of pounds of property damage. It's a very odd person who doesn't see the difference, or a very cynical one who seeks to draw false equivalence. As I said, and issue of perspective, proportion and reality.

11 hours ago, first mate said:

1. you do not have an exclusive take on reality. My reality may be different to yours,  but they are equally valid.

And again, here is the problem. There is an objective verifiable reality. You just aren't interested in it. Dulwich Square is not dangerous. It's actually quite a pleasant space.

Edited December 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

After the situation in Palestine deteriorated there was a concern about Jewish communities in London being subject to hate crime.

BBC London had a crew in East London to interview the local community about this.  In camera two guys in orthodox gear cycled along the pavement.  The presenter said nothing, nobody walking on the pavement was bothered.  The article continued, moving to speaking with people about community tensions.

My point? Two cyclists were on the pavement.  They shouldn't have been.  But in the great scheme of things it was trivial compared to events in Israel and Palestine. Hence my continued point about a mild irritant not deserving the rancour from a small number of you.

[Kathleen Olander]

15 minutes ago, malumbu said:

After the situation in Palestine deteriorated there was a concern about Jewish communities in London being subject to hate crime.

BBC London had a crew in East London to interview the local community about this.  In camera two guys in orthodox gear cycled along the pavement.  The presenter said nothing, nobody walking on the pavement was bothered.  The article continued, moving to speaking with people about community tensions.

My point? Two cyclists were on the pavement.  They shouldn't have been.  But in the great scheme of things it was trivial compared to events in Israel and Palestine. Hence my continued point about a mild irritant not deserving the rancour from a small number of you.

You are determined to get this thread derailed aren't you.  It's not all about YOU or cyclists, it's about DV Junction!

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

My point? Two cyclists were on the pavement.  They shouldn't have been.  But in the great scheme of things it was trivial compare

And my point - cycling errors were not the story being told, no reporter worth their salt diverts between stories, that's just bad journalism. You may have only one fixed point in your universe but reporters focus on just one story at a time, and tell different stories. 

[first mate]

Earl said: "And again, here is the problem. There is an objective verifiable reality. You just aren't interested in it."

Now you are trying to divert and deflect again. I have had recent experiences which you have decided must be untrue because you have not had the same experience. Please do not try to claim that you and only you can ascertain "verifiable objective reality", after all, we only have your word for it that you have never experienced or seen any dangerous  or careless cycling in the area. I

 

[Rockets]

12 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You think the two are comparable? A 2 ton motorised vehicle breaking the rules and a 10kg push bike powered by someone pedalling? There is the problem. He's not saying it's OK for people to break the rules on a bicycle, he is saying he is much more concerned by people in motor vehicles speeding, which. He is objectively right to be so. The latter leads to tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year and millions of pounds of property damage. It's a very odd person who doesn't see the difference, or a very cynical one who seeks to draw false equivalence. As I said, and issue of perspective, proportion and reality.

As we have said time and time again, no-one wants to be hit by anything. 

Since the DV junction was closed to traffic the risk to pedestrians is now created by cyclists. Some seem to want to minimise the risk whilst pointing at cars and saying...but we don't hurt as many people as they do.

Of course this is correct but also a tactic used by many on the pro-cycle lobby to deflect attention away from issues being caused by a, growing, number of their community.

If we are to get to Vision Zero you have to deal with all forms of transport that harm people. You can't exclude cycling on the basis that they don't kill or injure as many as others.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 11/12/2024 at 20:05, Rockets said:

Happy to turn a blind eye to cycling infringements yet get angry when cars do what you are defending for cyclists. 

No. You implied that we should get just as angry by similar infringements whether committed by cars or bikes. 

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

no-one wants to be hit by anything.

Again and again weasel words and false equivalence. You take the car, I’ll take the bike. Let’s see who comes off worse.

Does anyone actually believe that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space? Or that the area is more dangerous now than it was when it was dominated by motor vehicles and kids cycling to school had to battle with traffic? Research has shown road casualties to reduce by half in LTNs. There is hysteria and hyperbole, and then there is reality.

Edited December 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Whoeveritis]

I dont get it.  Has DV changed for the better? The shops by this square thing are/were horrible. An unprofessional hairdressers, terrible award winning soup from the cafe next to the book shop. What is the attraction, why do people live there?

[Earl Aelfheah]

54 minutes ago, Whoeveritis said:

I dont get it.  Has DV changed for the better?

No, it's now incredibly dangerous. You literally can't go there without being knocked over and sworn at. Although it does depend on which of the equally valid versions of reality you frequent, so you may be ok.

Edited December 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Whoeveritis]

Really? not by someone with one of those poshish self important voices on a bike? Admittedly I’ve moved to Langley Park, much nicer. What is so great about DV? 
 

[malumbu]

Wow, I use Langley Park as a milestone for one of those places I'd least like to live.  Insular, parochial, monocultural.  I am happy to take the P out of Dulwich and the area, but ultimately far happier living around here than Beckenham. And cycling policy is awful, only poor people cycle around there, the ones who can't afford a car.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Whoeveritis said:

Really? not by someone with one of those poshish self important voices on a bike? Admittedly I’ve moved to Langley Park, much nicer. What is so great about DV? 
 

I don't know, but it's nice enough that people from Langley Park (wherever that is) spend time thinking about it apparently.

[malumbu]

It's a separate thread but why on earth would you move to Langley Park?  Oh it;s the schools my dear.  Oddly enough there are frighteningly good schools around here.  But far more diversity, irrespective of how the area has changed in the last 25 years.

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Does anyone actually believe that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space?

Dulwich Square is not, in itself, a dangerous space. The cyclists who abuse the rules make it a dangerous space.

Malumbu, I love it when you jump on your high-horse and sound off about an area sharing your "What I fink" enlightenment....it just projects you in such a negative light...there's a real nastiness in some of the posts. 

Edited December 13 by Rockets

[malumbu]

I'm being factual, I can't understand why any enlightened liberal person would want to live in Langley Park.  And I grew up in dullsville so I am well qualified.  

I've said in the past for those of you who are angry with Southwark's transport policies and lefty local authorities you may be happier in LB Bromley 

[Earl Aelfheah]

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Dulwich Square is not, in itself, a dangerous space. The cyclists who abuse the rules make it a dangerous space.

So you do think it is a dangerous space… because of cyclists. More dangerous than when it was full of cars? This is just absolute nonsense and I suspect you know it. 

the idea that the pavements of Dulwich have been ‘taken over’ by cyclists, and that the Square is a dangerous space, is laughable. But maybe you should stay indoors clutching your pearls, just to safe.

…you can’t spend even more time on Twitter getting red faced and railing against the ‘war on motorists’.

Edited December 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

43 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I'm being factual, I can't understand why any enlightened liberal person would want to live in Langley Park.  And I grew up in dullsville so I am well qualified.  

Only ever so slightly lurching into bigot territory...or is it just an enlightened liberal being "factual"!

 

41 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But maybe you should stay indoors clutching your pearls, just to safe.

Ha ha, now Earl trying to lurch into it too....;-)

And yes,  Earl I would argue with you that for pedestrians that junction is now more dangerous than it was when it was open to cars. The build and structure of the original junction was designed to seperate pedestrians and moving vehicles and it worked very well. Now before you accuse me of it I am not saying we should go back to that.

The new junction design throws moving vehicles into a pedestrian space and that is what is creating the problems. There seems to be an obsession by active travel planner to mix cyclists and pedestrians and it doesn't work and increases risk for pedestrians.

If anyone bothered to monitor it I bet you there would be far more cycle vs pedestrians incidents in that area now than car vs pedestrian indicents when it was open to cars. Every day I see pedestrians having to take defensive action due to cyclists.

They really should put a pedestrian crossing at the entrance of DV from Calton as it might slow some of the cyclists down a bit.

 

 

Edited December 13 by Rockets

[Whoeveritis]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

It's a separate thread but why on earth would you move to Langley Park?  Oh it;s the schools my dear.  Oddly enough there are frighteningly good schools around here.  But far more diversity, irrespective of how the area has changed in the last 25 years.

Where are the frighteningly good schools around here ? Do you mean the Harris Academies ?

Edited December 13 by Whoeveritis

[first mate]

What on earth is a "frighteningly good school"?

Back to Vanity Square, quite aside from the design which seems to encourage careless cycling, we still have to consider whether any perceived benefits justify the massive costs. I think that is doubtful. 

[malumbu]

How many pedestrians have been killed or seriously injured due to pedal cyclists using the pavements, running red lights etc on the square or SE22 as a whole?  I'm very interested in the data.  Is it a real problem or perceived?

Edited December 13 by malumbu