Driver smashes traffic light in Dulwich Village

[ianr]

36 minutes ago, Kipper_1972 said:

False plates. Runs away from the scene because he can't wait to scam another brand new car off Cahoot (or suchlike)

What makes you think false plates?  The photo on the above link https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1858796233034182959?s=19 shows the number clearly, MV70CGU, which DVLA has as a taxed and mot'd 2020 1995cc black electric/diesel BMW.  Does that tally?  How is the scam you mention worked?

[Kipper_1972]

Running from the scene........

 

[DulvilleRes]

10 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You keep banging on about this Twitter account. Go and bicker with them on Twitter.

A cynic might say that one possible reason the anti-LTN lobby bang on about Dulwich Roads on these threads (even though Dulwich Roads don't post their press releases on here) is to distract from their own litany of factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and to try and create some form of false equivalence. Despite the fact that the anti- LTN lobby are regularly called out for their inaccuracies, I have yet to see an apology for them. 

[Rockets]

No, I bang on about Dulwich Roads, and others like the OP on this thread, because much of their content is based on ideological hope rather than reality. They post misleading information designed only to further their personal crusade against cars.

 

On that subject, if this is in the hands of a police investigation is Cllr Leeming ok saying this:

Edited November 20 by Rockets

[malumbu]

22 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You keep banging on about this Twitter account. Go and bicker with them on Twitter.

You can also direct message them on this forum and save a lot of repetitive posts.

Edited November 20 by malumbu

[first mate]

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

No, I bang on about Dulwich Roads, and others like the OP on this thread, because much of their content is based on ideological hope rather than reality. They post misleading information designed only to further their personal crusade against cars.

 

On that subject, if this is in the hands of a police investigation is Cllr Leeming ok saying this:

This seems a rather self-serving inflammatory post by a local councillor. I guess he must know exactly what happened or he would not be so eager to comment?

[Penguin68]

If this was, as is clearly possible, a stolen car then the chances of the driver being found and arrested are remote.  So going on about banning the driver and making him or her pay for the damage is very unlikely actually to happen. Virtue signalling like this is anyway not pretty. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 20/11/2024 at 00:47, ianr said:

What makes you think false plates?

It may have been a reference to "cloned plates". The scam works like:

1) present fraudulent documents to dealer to obtain car on credit.

2) find a car that is identical or similar to yours, have plates made up with THEIR registration number, put those plates on your vehicle. 

3) the finance company will realise it's not being paid or the transaction was a scam, but police etc won't be able to find the car because it has someone else's plates on it.

4) either drive around in the car until your luck runs out, or sell it to a mark for cash, or dismember it and resell the parts

 

[Rockets]

Perhaps Cllr Leeming is a magistrate in his spare time? Does he know the finer details of what happened to such an extent that he knows that the cause warrants a ban or is he, like so many when they post anything about car accidents, taking a wild guess and speculating? And if he is, in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case with that post (this is not a snarky comment but a legitimate question to anyone who knows the law in relation to such things)? 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Maybe you lot moaning about the social media activity of people you disagree with should actually go onto that social network and argue with them directly there? Banging on about it here is weird behaviour.

[march46]

Again Rockets, please stop with calling them accidents. Language matters.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/national-highways-to-stop-using-of-the-word-accident

[Rockets]

...said by the person who started the thread using inaccurate information.....maybe that's why you want the discussion off this forum because it is exposing the very issue we have been complaining about for some time about the way car accidents are treated by those on the anti-car side of the discussion.

Everyone seems very quick to jump to conclusions without ever checking the facts.

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

If this was, as is clearly possible, a stolen car then the chances of the driver being found and arrested are remote.  So going on about banning the driver and making him or her pay for the damage is very unlikely actually to happen. Virtue signalling like this is anyway not pretty. 

You may be missing a point here, as the inference seems to be it is the fault of the owner for even owning a car that might, in theory, be stolen and driven dangerously/carelessly:)

 

Edited November 21 by first mate

[se22]

The newsshopper report referenced by Rockets refers to a different crash on Dulwich common on Tuesday morning. A 24 reg car was abandoned all day with its front left wheel hanging off, partially blocking the road in the direction of Lordship Lane.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

lol! 😂

[malumbu]

Most car collisions are due to driver error.  Not sure why this is difficult to comprehend.  Making it us and them doesn't help any sensible argument.  I am happy to be labelled as pro safe roads, for all users.  Surely nobody can argue against that?

[snowy]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

...said by the person who started the thread using inaccurate information.....maybe that's why you want the discussion off this forum because it is exposing the very issue we have been complaining about for some time about the way car accidents are treated by those on the anti-car side of the discussion.

Everyone seems very quick to jump to conclusions without ever checking the facts.

Timely reminder that Rockets defines anti car organisations as:

The Department for Transport

The National Highways Agency

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council

The AA
 

who all don't use the word accident.

2 hours ago, se22 said:

The newsshopper report referenced by Rockets refers to a different crash on Dulwich common on Tuesday morning. A 24 reg car was abandoned all day with its front left wheel hanging off, partially blocking the road in the direction of Lordship Lane.

Lol, so common and frequent that Rockets can't differentiate between the two...

[ed_pete]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Perhaps Cllr Leeming is a magistrate in his spare time? Does he know the finer details of what happened to such an extent that he knows that the cause warrants a ban or is he, like so many when they post anything about car accidents, taking a wild guess and speculating? And if he is, in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case with that post (this is not a snarky comment but a legitimate question to anyone who knows the law in relation to such things)? 

Explain " in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case".  Are you saying that by being an elected official he could be prejudicing a future case ? Prejudicing who exactly ? The magistrates or judge or jury ?

We don't know if anyone was injured or worse but given the information that's been shared so far it would not to be the case so trial by jury is pretty unlikely I would have thought.  Therefore it's likely to be a magistrate or judge that decides the fate.  Personally I think there zero chance of any punishment handed out being influenced by post on social media by a local councillor.  I believe that driving bans are mandatory for dangerous driving, maybe not so for the lesser offence of careless driving. 

Isn't this really about you having a dig at Leeming ?

[Rockets]

No it's about Cllr Leeming posting his judgement on what happened - with his comment "should be banned from driving" he is projecting significant fault to the driver, he is suggesting it was sufficiently dangerous/careless driving to warrant a ban. So, we must presume he either knows the finer details of exactly what happened and the outcome of any police investigation or he is speculating and apportioning blame to the driver. 

 

 

[ed_pete]

Let’s be honest it can only be the latter, i.e. speculation. Still not sure how this is “prejudicing a future case” or why he shouldn’t express his view about the consequences for the driver, whether he is innocent or guilty.

 

[first mate]

Leeming's post came off as making an assumption this was a bad driver who deserved to be punished and foot the bill for damage caused. I'd prefer my local councillor to hold off until in full possession of the facts, especially before using the incident as an opportunity for some self-congratulatory spin.

[malumbu]

Ah, Pete, but you don't understand the antipathy towards Southwark Labour councillors!

It's highly likely that there was nefarious activity, alcohol/drugs and/or poor driving.  Reminds me of the footballer Lee Hughes doing a runner after a fatal clash - most likely to avoid a drugs and booze test.  

That's what I think but I won't be called as a witness 

Edited November 21 by malumbu

[first mate]

Not at all, it is really distasteful to see a local councillor have such a knee-jerk ( as well as predictably self-serving) response to an incident like this. I also agree with Rockets that it sounds out of the Dulwich Roads playbook, so much so that some of us now wonder if much separates Dulwich Roads and Dulwich Ward Councillors?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

an assumption this was a bad driver who deserved to be punished and foot the bill for damage caused.

That is the assumption that any normal person would make upon coming across a smashed up abandoned car that's been driven on the wrong side of the road and flattened a traffic light, yes.

17 minutes ago, first mate said:

some of us now wonder if much separates Dulwich Roads and Dulwich Ward Councillors?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, ed_pete said:

Still not sure how this is “prejudicing a future case” or why he shouldn’t express his view about the consequences for the driver, whether he is innocent or guilty.

Not sure how you can ban someone from driving if they are innocent....

A local councillor is accusing a driver of driving in a way that warrants a driving ban. Surely it's for the police to decide? Could Cllr Leeming been accused of exerting political pressure on the police to influence a decision?

It seems that for some local councillors, Dulwich Roads and many posters on here any driver who has an accident is guilty by default. And they try to accuse anyone who is critical of cylist bad behaviour as waging a culture war.....some should really take a look in the mirror.....