Rockets

Perhaps Admin could confirm? No-one has outed the sub-committee chair and their work in the active travel lobby....it's all published public record - Dulwich Society published minutes and then search for thier name and you'll read about their work and awards for active travel lobbying. Someone clearly doesn't want the link to be acknowledged and that's fair enough - I am not going to go all conspiratorial but that does seem a little odd don't you think? The name keeps being redacted. Clearly something very odd has happened in the Dulwich Society and some don't want a debate about it. But DulvilleRes you are being utterly hypocritical as someone who comes on here demanding transparency over who is behind OneDulwich, you have also thrown names onto this forum about who you suspect it might be. And then you post the above - is that not the very definition of hypocrisy? What this all goes to show is the very point that I was trying to make. There are some who demand transparency -but only when it suits their agenda. Of course they did - we believe you, millions wouldn't! 😉 Perhaps share the link to the website to which you refer and we can see for ourselves?

Yes agree but at that same time technology is progressing to the point where it is very easy to assign ownership of a private bike to a single person. Agree but also there will be a tipping point where something has to be done. The focus on e-scooters was driven after people being admitted to hospital with injuries after riding them grew exponentially. I suspect it might be something like red light jumpers being injured or injuring themselves where someone says - how do we stop this. But it does take time. Look at floating bus stops which any rational human being can see are a really bad idea (especially in areas where cyclists are travelling at speed) yet all we hear from the cycle lobby is that they are great and they won't hear a bad word said against them. At some point someone will go (probably on a case by case basis) - this is dangerous madness driven by some blinkered nonsense about not wanting to inconvenience cyclists. The Calton entrance to DV is another example - cyclists carry too much speed into the Square - everyone can see the danger but the council ignores it. Why?

Snowy, how's that search going? Have you found anything to back up your claims that I was misrepresenting the facts of the case - you sounded so sure of yourself but your evidence hasn't been quite so forthcoming?

Yes Snowy, I also hear a DPD van also parked badly in Newcastle...but, a bit like Richmond Park nothing to do with Dulwich so not really a topic to discuss on the East Dulwich forum.... #pleasetrytokeepitlocal

It's not an attack it's the justification on why I see you as a pro-cycle lobbyist. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true and, to be fair, you have called me much worse. I am surprised you are not proud that I, and probably many others, see you as a pro-cycle lobbyist! Perhaps LCC might give you an award, like the Dulwich Society sub-comittee....nah I won't go there....;-) Quite, so if they wouldn't use bikes (as you suggest) because of regulation they aren't then jumping in a car to make the same journey are they? In central london Lime bikes are replacing walking and bus/tube journeys and Lime bikes are one of the biggest factors in the growth in cycling. Even out here I see neighbours who park Lime bikes outside their house so they can cycle to and from the station to which they used to walk. So registration and licensing is not that difficult is it - has that curtailed the popularity of Lime bikes?

I saw a badly parked DPD van today Malumbu!

No I use cycle lobby because there is a very obvious cycle lobby in at the moment - a group of people who care only for cycling and are utterly blinkered by it - the likes of Will Norman, Peter Walker, Rachel Aldred, Chris Boardman to name but a few. They speak, push, publish and promote cycle-centric narratives above, and to the detriment of, everything else. Why to I bracket you in that - because you come on here and parrot the things they speak, push, publish and promote - so you, and so many others on here, are an extension of it. In London I would argue the vast majority of them. I have argued for a long time that the "growth" of Lime bikes has come at the detriment to walking and public transport and given that the average Lime bike journey is still very short it seems to be backed up by data. And by your own measure you must agree then that if these are people moving to cycling from walking or public transport then the risk has been increasing? But we could see new legislation or laws for cyclists.....

The council's revenue collection officers were on Calton this morning - ticketing a load of builders vans. It's outrageous that there is no more signage and they are entrapping people. I am amazed the council signed this off and thought that this was ok - how this passes the legal threshold to be considered ok is beyond me. It's the front of the council to think that this is acceptable.

Yup, agree. The pedestrian crossing in Dulwich Village is a particularly bad one for this.

Firstly, I do not think that legislating against bad cycling will deter anyone from getting on a bike - it's a very weak excuse constructed by the cycle lobby - in fact it might encourage more cyclists as I know a lot of people are put off due to other aggressive cyclists - I have been chastised a hell of a lot for stopping at red lights by other cyclists. Secondly, you are making a huge presumption that if people don't cycle then they drive. In a city like London that is hugely misleading as a lot of cycle journeys have replaced travelling by foot or public transport - especially Lime bikes (which are very often some of the very worst offenders). I think you are trying desperately to create a reason for changes in legislation not to be considered but I suspect you're fighting against an incoming tide as authorities will be forced to do something (and as they also see the potential revenue stream). Some local authorities are starting to do so already on a localised basis and this will gather pace.

But this is exactly how you are using it. Only if you're starting point is that you are concerned more for cycling growth than mitigating the risk posed by cyclists. Legislation and laws are set on the basis of the latter not the former. This is why the debate has become so polarised because, on one side you have groups who care only for cycle growth and on the other those concerned about the risk posed by cyclists to other road users.

The controls are also to push parking onto other local roads to help the council push for CPZs as they take Dulwich one street at a time!!! 😉

Yes. We know. But as my mum used to tell me: "You only need one inch of water to drown". The impact on pedestrians killed by cyclists is nowhere the impact a car travelling at the same speed would have. Of course not. But it didn't need to be. So please, please, please stop using this as some sort of get-out for cyclists. Which is why it is important to consider the need for changes in legislation and laws when it comes to cyclists. But I am glad we finally agree on something: that it is not unreasonable to suggest we need injury/death by dangerous cycling legislation.

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/get-in-touch/media-centre/news-press-releases/regents-park-statement-royal-parks https://www.timeout.com/london/news/could-these-major-london-parks-soon-get-strict-speed-limits-for-cyclists-102124 https://www.royalparks.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/Cycling-in-the-Royal-Parks-policy-statement-May-2023.pdf It looks like Royal Parks are lobbying the government to set a speed limit for cyclists in it's parks. None of the above happens because of any culture-war on cyclists but because cyclists are posing an increasing problem and risk to pedestrians. I presume Dulwich Park is the same as the Royal Parks in that they can only ask for cyclists to respect the speed limit - which hardly any do. Clearly it's only a matter of time before the change happens - no matter how much shouting the cycle lobby do about harming the expansion of cycling. We have to put pedestrian safety ahead of everything else - I still really don't understand how increasing rules and regulations would hinder cycle growth - it certainly didn't do anything to hinder car growth all those years ago!

But do you not think that, because these private roads have felt it necessary to implement these measures, that it is only a matter of time before non-private roads adopt it? Does the 5mph in Dulwich Park apply to bikes?

And you're doing that thing where you post before checking the facts..... That doesn't matter because the act and what he was charged with refers to "wanton and furious driving" and was clearly updated for cars not cycles - and that is what we were debating. After all, that's what Charlie Alliston got 18 months for - "wanton and furious driving", not "wanton and furious cycling". Earl, your summary is a good one because I think, like many ludicrously lenient sentences for injuring or killing someone with a car, the maximum possible sentences are ludicrously short. What the Tories were trying to do, whilst kite flying and trying to blindly politicise the issue during their "war on the war on cars" was update and refresh legislation which happens all the time. I don't know any reasonable person who would not agree that there should be a charge of causing death or injury by dangerous cycling because people have to be afforded some protection from the menace posed by a small number of cyclists and if found guilty that a suitable custodial sentences can be applied. And I feel the same way about cars too - kill or injure as you drive or cycle dangerously and you pay the price.

Ok so how come Charlie Alliston got charged and found guilty of "wanton or furious driving"? He was on an bike.

You're back! Hurrah!

Earl if you are referring to the Hilda Griffiths case then I am sure Snowy will put us all to rights but speed was a factor - the cyclist could not be prosecuted by police because, as the cyclist said themselves in the coroner's court (as well as the police), the speed limit does not apply to cycles. If he had been driving a car though and breaking the speed limit surely he would have been charged whether it was his fault or not because he would have been breaking the law with his speed.

Are you absolutely sure Snowy.....? BTW I never saw your evidence regarding the Hilda Griffiths case you promised after you made your accusations against me. Did you find anything?

Only a few hours old March....

But it has pedals....when I cycle there are periods when I don't pedal.....there are some that look like motorbikes (are they Surron bikes?) but they have no pedals. It's careless and wanton driving not cycling and I do not think that can be used for speed as speeds do not apply to cycles. And it is very difficult for police to determine what is legal or not as the kits are sold to disguise the ability to go faster than 15.5mph and most are designed to be added to standard pedal cycles.

BBC News - Thousands of London drivers paying invalid fines, AA says - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7e8x510j9o

You're correct, which is why you can go from one borough to another and the implementation of 20mph varies massively and is often implemented in areas that the Highway Code classes as 30mph roads.

To be fair Earl you can't see if it has a throttle from that picture and if it is only 250w it is considered an e-bike. This is the problem - you can buy kits that propel bikes at 60/70mph which are very difficult to tell apart from legal ones - some even come with a keyfob to derate them to within the legal limits. The law has, as usual, not kept up with technological developments and, as car drivers have to with bad drivers, all cyclists may have to be policed on the basis of the few who ruin it for everyone else.