Rockets

Sorry what a load of utter claptrap....you seem to be suggesting the moment someone gets on a bike they suddenly becoming impervious to causing accidents....and if every car journey was replaced by a journey on a bike then there would be zero accidents or injuries.....goodness me... Here we have Cycle Brain of the Year!!!

Surely stricter regulation of bicycles leads to safer roads?

Maybe take this chat to the thread in relation to this but it looks like members of Dulwich Society tried exactly that...that's when it all went a bit pear-shaped...

I am not. I am just wondering why an "independent" local campaign group, which seems to get funding/support from Southwark Council, has decided that increases in traffic congestion and pollution on Croxted Road is down to private schools in Dulwich....when we know that TFL said the increases were down to the LTNs - myabe the two are interlinked but no mention of that from the campaign group.....

Ha ha, if you'd been in a car and threatened to run someone over you'd probably have left yourself open to a threatening behaviour charge or using a car as a weapon or maybe ended-up in a Jeremy Vine video. You really should not be threatening to run anyone over even when on a bike.....perhaps you were just doing your bit for cyclist/pedestrian relations....or maybe the red mist descended....

Thanks Earl, another great example of Cycle Brain..... The point remains - there are billions of pounds every year spent on making our roads safer in terms of vehicles, there are laws and monitoring in place to ensure compliance or catch those who break the laws and more clearly needs to be done. If I go out in a car, drive at 25 mph in a 20mph zone hit and kill someone I will face the full face of the law and regardless of whether the pedestrian stepped out in front of me or not I would expect to be charged with dangerous driving. If I go out on my bike, cycle at 25mph in a 20mph zone hit and kill someone in exactly the same circumstances I can claim the speed limit does not apply to me so speed cannot be used as a factor. That is wrong and surely even you can acknowledge that?

No-one is pitting pedestrians and cyclists against each other - don't be so daft. We are highlighting that pedestrians are at risk from cyclists. Let me introduce you to a new concept "Cycle Brain" - where cycle lobbyists refuse to acknowledge that there is an increasing risk to pedestrians from cyclists. Let's take a look at a classic example here from our dear friend at the Guardian Peter Walker: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/article/2024/may/21/uk-dangerous-cycling-offence-achieve-nothing A piece purely designed to throw attention back onto cars - we see it every time anyone dares to suggest to the cycle lobby that can we please, as well as dealing with the issue of damage caused by cars, look at damage caused by cyclists. Immediately there is a pavlovian BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!! response - seemingly to deflect attention away from cars. Now, here's another piece featuring someone called Peter Walker (not the Guardian journalist) but someone whose wife was killed by a cyclist and how ludicrous it was that her death was not investigated by the police accident investigation team because..."it wasn't involving a motorised vehicle". The police concluded that no crime had been committed by the cyclist but the bar for cycling offences is very, very high - way too high if you look at the case of Hilda Griffiths. Given that you can ride at any speed on a bike and cite that as a defence it's clear the laws needed to be reviewed. Allied to that if anyone does get charged for injuring someone on a bike it is more often than not, under a law from 1861 entitled Wanton and Furious driving. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr7rkgrpldo So let's all agree that more needs to be done to reduce car accidents and death and injuries from that - and let me be clear for the 1,000th time - no-one is minimsing that or denying that. But can we also agree that the laws in relation to cycling need to be updated and that it is in all of our interests for people who kill or injure pedestrians whilst riding a bike face the full face of the law if they have been found to have cycled irresponsibly or that excessive speed was involved.

And the fact is that some on here come complaining about One Dulwich are actually part of an organisation which seems to have become increasingly politicised. You know what they say about "those who shout loudest have the most to hide....."

Is Solve The School Run being used as a political lobbying tool? Trying to pin the congestion on Croxted Road on private schools seems to be a stretch to say the least and we need to remember that the very same Croxted Road was the subject of a most unholy argument between TFL (who said that Croxted Road congestion was caused by the Dulwich LTNs) and Southwark Councillors (who angrily said it wasn’t - they made TFL staff cry and Will Norman had to jump in to keep the peace). Now Solve The School Run state, on their website, that they are supported by Southwark Council - coincidence or cosy?

You certainly are aren’t you, almost obsessional. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you I am not One Dulwich, I have never spoken to anyone from One Dulwich, I do not know, nor care, who is behind One Dulwich. I am sorry, what? Clearly the pro-LTN branch of The Dulwich Society. Are you a member of the Travel and Evironment sub-committee per chance? Are you a member of the Labour Party as well? This is fascinating and the plot thickens….read on…. Now remember back in June there was a thread on the shenanigans taking place at the Dulwich Society which you started Dulville Res? Well there were suggestions from others during the discussion on that thread that the Travel and Environment sub-committee gained a new chair some time ago and the DV councillors started attending the sub-committee but not any others. That sub-committee also gained a lot of new members and some suggested the sub-committee had been hijacked for political purposes and to push the DS to support the DV LTN. In June I did some research from publically available and posted documents and found that the sub-committee chair was Laurie Johnston and I posted details of her roles as an active travel lobbyist. Someone appears to have then contacted admin of this forum to have her name removed as you can see below. You bleat on about transparency in One Dulwich but someone clearly doesn’t want any transparency within the Dulwich Society or at least details of the lobbying that has been done by said person. I would love to know who requested to have the name removed…..and why…..@dulvilleres do you know? Now why on earth would someone not want Laurie’s name mentioned in relation to her active travel lobbying efforts or her award from the LCC as Active Travel Campaigner….? I wonder….. Maybe One Dulwich isn’t the only organisation you should be obsessing about the political influence within…. Post from June 7th 2024 Wow...just read the SGM of 2021 and it is very interesting particularly where it says in bold: The Travel & Environment Sub-Committee does not make decisions on behalf of the Dulwich Society. Was there some sort of takeover of the sub-committee by active travel lobbyists? Very interesting to see that new chair was <name removed> who is: Volunteer Chair of Southwark Living Streets A member of Dulwich and Herne Hill Safer Routes to School which cites partners as: Dulwich Society Living Streets A seemingly now defunct group called Clean Air Parents Network - I wonder if this is any relation to Clean Air Dulwich? who won London Cycling Campaign Campaigner Active Travel Campaigner Award: LCC said: "<name removed> from Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School was awarded active travel campaigner of the year for all the work she’s done, particularly around Our Healthy Streets Dulwich and the Streetspace measures that brought us Dulwich Square." on accepting the award she said the below (I did read it and thought is Clean Air Dulwich a group - it seems to be more an anonymous online lobby group but very interested that she called them out specifically amongst actual groups.......: She said: "I've learned at the feet of greats like Alastair Hanton and Jeremy Leach. We are proud to work collaboratively with amazing groups such as Mums for Lungs, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark Cyclists, Lambeth Cyclists, London Living Streets, Better Streets groups, the new love my LTN groups that we're getting to know, and more." who made deputations to Southwark Council on behalf of Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes in support of changes to Townley Road in 2015 Edited June 13, 2024 by Administrator Name removed under request.

Calton is clearly (or not due to it being so poorly signposted) a revenue generating trap laid by the council.

??? What? Edited to add: Ah I have just worked it out. Because I added more detail to make my point in response to Malumbu you think I did that to make you look like a cold-hearteded person to make it look like you were saying "so sad" to the number of serious injuries caused by cycliats..ha ha, don't flatter yourself and I am not that scheming...my update was to make my point to Malumbu with actual data on injuries after his incorrect claims. Thanks for reminding me though because Snowy promised us an expose of how they thought I had manipulated the findings from the Hilda Griffiths enquiry...Snowy? So what do you think of those stats...two serious injuries a week is a lot and something we need to deal with or perfectly acceptable when comparing with injuries from cars?

As I was saying....

Ha ha...spoken like someone who knows there is a problem....

Clearly One Dulwich are doing a great job as it is making some people so irate for exposing the lies and manipulation that have been part of this process from the council and their supporters. When people start saying things like "it's been 5 years let's move on" you know some are afraid of scrutiny and accountability. They sound like a politician trying to bury a scandal.

Earl, Two things. No it does not apply to TFL if you challenge the PCN - TFL will give you 20 metres grace. Secondly, answer me this. Southwark say you must not touch the line at the junction of Overhill and we know that 100 metres down the road TFL allows you to at Underhill and stops their bus lane far enough ahead to allow for 20 metres grace. But just 50 metres down the road from Overhill, still in Southwark, to park in front of the shops or go to the builders merchant everyone has to break the bus lane - is this then a revenue opportunity in waiting for the council? The bus lane is not broken there at all. So are all these vehicles liable for a fine too?

Yes it is, that even when presented with stats showing just how big the problem is there are those who will try to turn a blind eye because of their cult-like obsession. There is clearly a problem that needs fixing. Those stats from the DFT show that, in 2021, at least two people a week were being seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists. And the DFT data was derived from police reports so the number could well be a lot higher as these are only the most serious incidents where police attended, not just an ambulance. Additionally I did read reports that said the NHS were starting to monitor it as it was a growing problem but I could not find any definitive stats to back that up. Of course, nowhere the number of accidents seriously injuring or killing people involving cars but still something that needs to be acknowledged and actioned, not ignored because "it might impact the growth of cycling".

Says who - Malumbu? Honestly....you're getting ridiculous now. What data is that? Are you sure because a quick Internet search I just did suggested that is not at all correct. If you are correct do you not fear that you may actually be illustrating my point because, of course, the case of Hilda Griffiths did not go to court. Why? Because the police said there was little chance of conviction. Why? Because speed limits do not apply to cycles. Your stats are wrong Malumbu as my very quick search found at least three people jailed for killing pedestrians whilst riding bikes in the last few years. In fact the stats are quite shocking. Apparently the DFT released data in 2022 that showed: Statistics from the Department for Transport (Dft) showed that 531 people were involved in incidents with cyclists last year – 15 per cent up on 2016 and the highest since recording collisions involving bike riders was introduced in 2013. Of those involved in collisions, three were killed and 120 seriously injured.

DulvilleRes...I declared my hand, maybe you should return the compliment....you seem to be trying to avoid playing yours...what vested interest do you have in this...come on it's only fair.....? What role do you have in the Dulwich Society and local politics...?

Malumbu. What on earth are you babbling on about? For the world to see....what?....you do realise don't you that both Hilda and Brian were named in every newspaper article that followed the case....even the Guardian wrote about it and them..so not sure what your issue is - their names are hardly a secret. This seems to be a clumsy deflection technique on your part...again. Clearly the issues raised are something you would rather not acknowledge. And at the end of the day it was the cyclist's Strava app that showed how fast he was going before he hit Hilda. It was that data that was used in the coroners hearing and why Strava removed that circuit around the Park because it was encouraging cyclists to cycle fast and beat their own and the course personal best - and this was putting pedestrians at risk. The park had basically become a cycling drag race track.

Penguin - spot on. They tell us there isn't an issue. They tell us it doesn't happen. They tell us bikes do not pose danger to pedestrians and that a bike can't do the same damage as a car and so there is no need for a change in regulations or laws because "it might hinder the growth in cycling". They tell us there are far greater risks so we should not try to remedy or mitigate the risk. We show them it happens. We show them that cyclists can pose a threat to pedestrians. We show them a very real example where speed of the cyclist was a key factor and where a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist. We show them how the law offers no protection to pedestrians when this happens and how there is no way for tje law to hold cyclists to account in such circumstances. They tell us we have manipulated the facts of the case and they promise proof. They chastise us for talking about the case. They try to force everyone to refer to any accident involving a car as a crash yet refer to bike crashes as tragic incidents. Any yet, despite all of the above, they have the audacity to accuse us of manipulating things to wage a culture war. This is the cult of cycling.

Malumbu, I was asking you as didn’t you teach cycling to school children? I didn’t say I had run courses…..

One wonders if Lambeth have re-run this exercise on consultations that went in their favour......I doubt it somehow 😉 And probably also important to note that even when "cleaned" the result still went against Lambeth....

But I did chuckle to myself with the picture Earl had used of the driver biting the steering wheel in anger and wondered if it was a selfie from the time they complained to James Barber as they were really annoyed about speed bumps going in and how uncomfortable it was going over them in their car....granted that was a long time ago but my how the worm has turned!!! 😉 Perhaps they are actually a closet petrol-head after all!! 😉

So I am sure you'll be applying that to any research you find where you cannot identify the funding source, or local lobbying groups where you don't know who is behind them - like Dulwich Roads etc? I am looking forward to you practising what you preach..... It seems to me that some on here just want to try and silence a group opposing their plans....