Zebedee Tring

There's generally far too much selfishness and "sod you" attitude around these days. I blame Ayn Rand, Maggie Thatcher and the cult of "there's no such thing as society".

Come on stringvest, tell us what you really think of cyclists. Don't hold back!

I agree fully with what you were saying, uncleglen - this should have been clear from the tone of my post. My comment about not trying to re-launch the debate was actually directed at the "Here we go again" post.

Without trying to relaunch this debate, which has been aired at length on EDF in past, it's indisputable that there is a small minority of bad and dangerous cyclists who are doing their best to give cyclists in general (the majority of whom are well behaved) a bad name. The type of cyclists whose attitude seems to be "F*** off, I'm saving the planet!"

Just a small correction - the deadline for replying to the statutory consultation is tomorrow Thursday 30 July.

That might be because if anyone dares to criticise them on social media they threaten them with legal action (or at least they threaten the website on which the criticism appears). I've never visited Le Chandelier but would not do so now as a matter of principle, because IMHO if a caf?/restaurant can't stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen.

SteveUK1978, I wasn't exaggerating. People (i.e. not just yours truly) are always complaining about bicycles or kiddie cycles on the pavement hitting them or just missing them. So two near misses for me in a relatively short time isn't surprising. Given the number of people cycling on the pavement these days, it's only a matter of luck that there aren't more accidents. I remember cycling on the pavement when I was about 12 and being stopped by a policeman - I never did it again. But that was about 100 years ago when people generally showed greater consideration towards the rest of the community. And there were more police officers to enforce the law.

SteveUK1978, for some reason you seem to find this funny. I would have thought that by the time that you reached the age of 37 (which I presume from your post name is roughly your age) you might have approached this issue from a more mature perspective and wouldn't support parents who behave like overgrown kids by cycling on the pavement with their brood. Just wait until you get "felled by one of these riotous brutes" (in your words). Don't then come complaining to me. I will continue to walk to Red Apple to get my morning paper and nothing is going to stop me.

Nigello, I agree that there are a good number of responsible parents. However, there are too many parents who are not.

I post the following with a certain trepidation because of the deliberately perverse interpretation that certain posters placed on an earlier post of mine on this thread, but here goes. This morning I was walking past Dulwich Library when a man and two boys (maybe his sons) cycled on the pavement very near me - one of the boys nearly hit me. The man offered no apology Just to make it clear, I wasn't hit by the bicycle and didn't suffer any injury. I didn't shout at anyone and I am not anti kid (we brought up two of our own quite happily). The main point that I wish to make is that, quite apart from the fact that cycling on the pavement is illegal (an issue that has been debated at length in the past on EDF), there are too many parents today who seem to think that it is OK for their family to use the pavement for cycling and that other people, irrespective of what age or physical condition they are in, should jump out of the way when they approach them on their bikes.

Lots (if not most) of us have had children and we often have been embarrassed by their bad behaviour. The point is that we at least tried to control them, even if we failed. You will find that if people see that parents are trying to control them they will be more sympathetic. However, too many parents today don't even try to control their kids and this is what this thread is really about.

Stephen Lawrence murderer country more like it. But this accords with my memory of Eltham.

Perhaps my views have been formed by my earlier experiences. I grew up in an area of N London which was near two Underground lines and where you just turned up at the station without having to consult a timetable first. Moving to S E London (Greenwich) was a big culture shock, with a relatively infrequent British Rail suburban service and (at that time) no DLR and Overground. Things have improved and I use the Overground a lot, since I live between Forest Hill and Denmark Hill. However, an extension of the Victoria or Bakerloo Lines closer to ED would be a great boon.

Because they might have stood a better chance of getting to work or wherever they wanted to go on time in reasonable comfort without having to get up considerably earlier than they needed to. I thought that this was obvious and wouldn't need explaining, KKK. But clearly I was wrong. Or are you one of those people who want ED to return to how it was 20-30 years ago?

Road Traffic Regulation Act Notice for Townley Road junction is in today's "Southwark News" on p. 41. The deadline for objections is 30 July.

In the same way that the Tube has ruined places like Clapham and Brixton? Or the same way that the Overground has ruined places like Shoreditch and Hoxton? I'm sure that the ED people who have had to cope with the major London Bridge, Thameslink and Elephant & Castle problems this year would love to have ED served by the Tube. In the words of a typical East Enders character, I don't believe I'm hearing this!

I cannot believe that at least one Councillor on the DCC who agreed to fund this study on very little evidence, at a time of enormous financial constraints, can't tell us what the petition actually said. Words fail me.

I hear what you're saying rch, but doesn't Matt Hill report to anyone else? Or is he going to be the supremo until later this year? If so, this doesn't fill me with confidence. And he didn't come over well at the DCC meetings that I attended. In the meantime, at least one very strong email has gone to the Cabinet Member and the new MP is unhappy with the lack of recent consultation.

With the greatest possible respect to Matt Hill, he is the author of the Community Council report that in the opinion of many was less than forthcoming (to put it very charitably) on the issue of the process and the person who is (allegedly) apparently keeping us in dark about what is happening at the moment. He is not the person that I would approach on this.

It's happened already. Those children - and indeed those twenty somethings who behave like children - who have to have the latest iPhone/game/download/trainers etc NOW!!!

Macutd, there has been a massively long thread on this subject on the EDF which has been running for about the last eight months. Read and enjoy! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1426742

If I had my way, I would ban people from using split infinitives in public.

Reminds me of one of the regulars in "From The Message Boards" in "Private Eye": "If any stranger speaks to my kid, I swear I'll do time!"

My late mother said that you should never say "no" to a cat. Unsurprisingly she was very popular with our cats.

I've just remembered - Rodney Bewes was the one in the "Likely Lads" who WASN'T funny. His namesake similarly isn't funny but he thinks he's some kind of insulting Frankie Boyle comedian. There seems little point in carrying on this debate so this is my last comment on this thread. However, reading the comments of people like rodney bewes (and not just rodney bewes), I'm getting a better idea as why Cameron and his chums won the election - the Thatcher culture of "there's no such thing as society" and "sod you, I'm all right Jack" reigns supreme today in this country.