Rockets

So the same must then apply for anyone posting One Dulwich updates who is doing so on their own behalf?

And then I am sure DulvilleRes will be happy to let us know whether they are part of the Dulwich Society and what their interest is in the LTNs. We eagerly await their response.

Excellent - I look forward to it. I must admit, I am kind of disappointed because your post (which said: You continue to misrepresent the results and conclusions of both the inquest and court case in this death to suit your agenda) kind of suggested you had already done your research and were coming from a position of knowledge so I am kind of surprised you are having to go hunting for your defence.

I think, looking at their posts, that DulvilleRes clearly has a vested interest or some involvement in the Dulwich Society do they not? And the Dulwich Society is very much at the heart of the debate locally, representing the views of Dulwich residents and currently split between those in support of the LTNs and those not - so they are not too dissimilar to One Dulwich after all. And let me be clear, I don't give a hoot if they are the head of the Dulwich Society but given they seem so focused on the One Dulwich folks it only And I very much suspect that those posting the One Dulwich updates are also individuals - I know I am as, for full disclosure, I have absolutely nothing to do with One Dulwich - which will no doubt disappoint the usual suspecs!

But speed was clearly an issue was it not - I mean a newspaper can't spin court testimony can they? Anyway Snowy has all the facts and we eagerly await them to impart the things we missed..... To be fair Earl, if we were talking about a car you'd be taking a very different position. It seems that a healthy dose of hypocrisy might be being applied here. But I did clarify my position. Let's be honest my position was clear from the beginning and only you seemed to interpret things in a way to suit your, ahem, "debating" style....but that's what you do so no surprises there. Again, only in your mind.

Earl - but speed was clearly a factor in the accident wasn't it? And if this is a car driver that's a charge of careless/dangerous driving is it not....? Mr Fitzgerald told Inner West London Coroners Court this week that he had “zero reaction time” when he reached the traffic island where Ms Griffiths stepped out. He said: “I believe legally the speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists.” He added: “I’ve never seen any police in the park having any objections to the speed cyclists travel at.” Mr Fitzgerald expressed his “sympathies” to the family of Ms Griffiths. He additionally said he was “unsure” if there were any road markings warning cyclists to slow down. A photo shown to the court showed there had been one on the approach. However, Mr Fitzgerald said she had not looked when stepping out from the traffic island and this left only 2m for him to break to a halt from a speed of 25-29mph. A jogger who witnessed the incident backed up his account, saying it was not his fault. Do feel free to redress the balance then....

That reads like a cop out from you Earl....;-) Here's the detail: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-avoids-conviction-fatal-crash-dog-walker-regents-park-b1155776.html have a read, educate yourself and then respond! 😉 How exactly? Surely if you are raising revenue from bad cycling that can be channelled into making improvements to cycle infrastructure etc. That's how is works with vehicle PCN revenue-generation so why not cycling? Ha ha...no you're not. I am not convinced anything you have said backs this up. You're interested in only one part of the problem and are happy to turn a blind eye to the other.

And then you ignore the clarification I posted especially for you and refuse to answer my question!!! 😉 #facepalmemoji I think I prefer you when you pretended to be One Dulwich!!! 😉

Yes, double-yellows is a clear notice that parking is not allowed. But you have to admit Calton, where parking is also now restricted, there aren't clear signs. Why is that do you think?

No. I can see you are trying to put words into my mouth...again....please stop doing that it does you no favours. So let me be really clear to you: There is a serious risk still posed by vehicles (the data shows that the risk is declining and at it's lowest on record - bar lockdown) but it is still something that needs addressing to reduce it to zero There is a growing risk posed by cycles (and there appear to be a lot of people who don't want to acknowledge this or address it). Why? Because they think it might hinder cycle growth. Is that clear enough for you? Let me ask you a question to get a direct response: do you think it is ok to cycle over 20mph, hit and kill and pedestrian due to the speed and there be no recourse because "the speed limit does not apply to cycles"?

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach but according to TFL in their 2023 report, deaths and serious injuries caused by cars in London are at their lowest ever and continuing to decline. Of course, there is still risk and more needs to be done but, I bet if you polled pedestrians in Dulwich they would say they feel an increasing threat from cyclists. Just wander through Dulwich Park around school drop off or pick-up and look at the number of pedestrians looking over their shoulders as a cargo bike (with the pilot doing that really scary cargo bike lean you see so often) hurtling past them with great velocity or a heavy Lime bike being ridden by a school kid at top speed weaving in between pedestrians. Yes and the tribalism seems to come mainly from those who only want to focus on cars and aren't prepared to admit that there is a growing problem with bad and dangerous cycling. Vision Zero will only happen when ALL dangers are acknowledged, understood and actioned. Only when an offence has taken place. A cyclist was jailed for 18 months for killing a pedestrian because he was riding an illegal single-speed bike with it's front brake removed - that's what made it illegal and why he went to prison. The guy in Regent's Park who killed Hilda Griffiths could not be arrested or charged by police because the speed limit "does not apply to bikes" - yet is was his speed that caused the accident. You see why people are saying the laws need to be amended?

Bicknell and First Mate - completely agree - there is a determine effort by some (who inevitably are on the pro-LTN side of the argument) to try and shut down the argument and they try to do that by any means necessary. It's not in their interest to have a public, democratic discussion about the things they lobbied to have imposed on residents. Someone like DuvilleRes is happy to come on here and suggest One Dulwich is a political tool but no-one knows who DulvilleRes is, what their links to the Dulwich Society might be, whether they have affiliations to Labour or any other political party. And I really don't care and not advocating that but if you come on here trying to shut down democratic debate on the basis that your opinion is an organisation is party-political only do so if everyone is aware of what your vested interested is.

But do you think that if you do hit and injure or kill someone whilst cycling at high speeds then you should be charged with dangerous cycling? The guy who killed Hilda Griffiths was shown, from his own Strava, of AVERAGING 25mph around the park with peak speeds of 29mph and he was ignoring slow signs. The coroner ruled it accidental but clearly his speed was a massive factor - and in the car world, at a minimum, that would be a charge of dangerous driving (and rightly so). Apparently Hilda had been telling her son how dangerous she felt the park had become due to cyclists travelling at high speed when she walked her dog. You'd be hard pressed to find a cyclist in Dulwich Park observing the 5mph speed limit and I have seen accidents as a result. Just a few weeks ago I saw a Lime bike rider hit a small child on a scooter in Dulwich Park (down towards the DV entrance around the area adjacent to tennis courts and toilets where cyclists have gathered the most speed) - thankfully both suffered no worse than cuts or bruises but still, if the Lime bike rider had been going under 5mph the accident would have been avoided. Granted we don't have pelotons of Stravas full kit wallies in Dulwich Park but there is still an issue.

No i haven't. I have said he killed her. He killed her by hitting her when he was travelling at high speed on his bike around Regent's Park. That's fact not opinion - the coroner recorded the death as an accidental cycling collision. Come on Malumbu, why are you so afraid to answer the question? I think I know why because you know perfectly well that if it was a driver travelling at around 29mph in a 20mph zone that hit and killed a pedestrian they would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving. So why not cyclists? Why should cyclists not be held responsible for their actions?

Malumbu, let's spin this on it's head. Can you tell me why you think cyclists should not observe speed limits? Anyone walking around Dulwich Park will see the vast majority of cyclists going above the 5mph speed limit - why do you think that is acceptable? Also, do you think you should be able to be charged with causing death by dangerous cycling? A contentious politicised law change proposal pre-election but surely if anyone kills anyone else the individual has to be held accountable. Brian Fitzgerald killed Hilda Griffiths, was travelling way above the speed limit in his peleton, ignored a slow sign and walked away from court. If he was in a car he would have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Why not on a different mode of transport. Is that right?

But it was a CPZ consultation was it not? March - out of interest do you think the current signage clearly alerts drivers that parking in Calton is subject to restrictions?

People only ever do this when they have no thoughtful or rational argument! Or they call people names. Either way it's a clear sign of weakness, childishness or madness - take your pick! These are the types of posts you see before celebs say they are: "taking some time away from social media". 😉 And this is why admin does need to step in because if everyone behaves likes this the forum is dead.

Whomever One Dulwich is, and hats off to them, when they see this type of reaction I do hope they take it as validation that they are doing exactly the right thing. These types of reactions shows they are doing exactly what they need to and are really needling those who blindly support the council and their plans. But for everyone's sake, and seemingly for Earl's own benefit, it might be time for admin to intervene here and direct Earl back to proper forum etiquette or tell them it might be time to follow Mr Chicken, LTNManatee and LTNBooHoo to another forum!

If this is the new way forward there can be no doubt what the council's intentions are and how they are putting shameless revenue-generation ahead of fairness. Shame on them if this is now their approach - and they have the gall to refer to themselves as socialists.

Well done. Congratulations on your new role. At least Dulville can now stop banging on and on about who is running it because it appeared to be becoming a bit obsessive!!! 😉 Earl, I am not sure changing your forum name and picture is really in the spirit of what the forum was set up for and I am sure admin won't take favourably that you are now masquerading as someone else completely - we have had bouts of that sort of thing before and they got themselves banned.... Maybe I will claim the Earl name to really confuse people....

Probably...but despite continued attempts to undermine them by somehow suggesting they are a political trojan horse they keep fighting and clearly aren't going away so it looks like some of you are just going to have to gnash your teeth, call them names and just live with them! #powertothepeople!!! 😉

Hang on, so are you saying this isn't in fact a CPZ but a RPZ? Did we not have a consultation on CPZs - were RPZs ever mentioned? I am sorry but if those two signs are the only notification that you are entering a CPZ/RPZ and you can get fined for parking there then that is an absolute joke and clearly designed to generate revenue by not making it clear. If this is the case then how the council get away with this is beyond me. It's entrapment.

Perhaps it's a revenue-generating trap - (cue council apologists any second now....) What I don't understand is that on Townley there are repeater boards making it very clear parking times and hours and clear road markings which would be very difficult to miss. This is Cllrs Newens and Leemings patch isn't it?

You would expect so - especially if they are ticketing cars with such frequency.

They have to be adding more signage as if you were driving there is no way you would see that sign - especially as your attention has to be on the crossing and in a car the sign is so high-up you would not be able to see it. There are none of the usual council signs saying any further work is due to take place - do any of the council-fans know whether this is still work in progress - I would have expected someone to have jumped to the council's defence by now from those who are close to the council and their plans?