Rockets

Usual deflection. Usual porky pies. Usual Earl. And they bizarrely think they are somehow furthering their cause - laughable. Anyone arguing with these folks can always tell when they land a pertinent point because of the bizarre deflectionary responses from the usual suspects. I refer you to Exhibit 2,653 above! 😉

Only in your world March. For the rest of us who use the Square without wearing cycle-tinted glasses the increased risk is very real. The junction now feels more dangerous to pedestrians than it ever did, it's just the risk now is from cyclists and the new design does not try to reduce the risk posed by cyclists, it actually makes it worse. As Penguin said, when the junction was open to cars there was a clear order to it. It was (awfully) congested which also added to the order. The risk to pedestrians was minimised because of road layout, the traffic lights and the congestion. And before the usual suspects suggest this is some lobbying to reopen the junction it isn't. Since the junction has been redesigned to prioritise cyclists that order has been lost and the biggest risk to pedestrians is now from cyclists. The design of the junction, without any speed mitigation for cyclists, further increases risk to pedestrians. Add into that the fact that many cyclists ignore basic traffic controls and you can see why many feel safe walking through the junction now. The new cycle parking places also encourages cycling on the pedestrian part of the junction. The Highway Code says that pedestrians have priority over cyclists yet the majority of active travel interventions reverse that and prioritise cyclists. Why? Because they are designed and influenced by the cycle lobby who are blinkered by their own self-importance. So, clearly it's not disingenuous nonsense. Far from it, in fact, it's an issue the council is unwilling to address as they pander to the cycle lobby - they have been repeatedly asked to slow bikes down through the junction (but, to be fair, they were asked repeatedly to allow emergency vehicles access and they ignored that too). Anytime anyone calls for better monitoring of cycle vs pedestrian accidents the cycle lobby comes out with their usual "But what about the cars" distraction techniques and I think we all know why they are terrified of proper monitoring. Now was it Chris Boardman whp said there was no need for monitoring as you had more chance of being struck by lightning...now that seems massively disingenuous and wholly self-serving as clearly there's a problem that the cycle lobby refuses to acknowledge.

Bravo FM, bravo!

Earl, are you just playing daft for the audience, the giggles or the trolling? I am taking offence to how you wilfully misinterpret everything anyone who dares disagree with you says. What you continue to do is ludicrously transparent. If you really still don't get it ask someone to explain it to you.

Earl, you've completely misinterpreted what Penguin, and I, are saying. Have a re-read and see if the penny drops...

Penguin68 gets it! Let's see if others can engage the parts of their brain not controlled by the cycle lobby brainwashing! 😉

I think the wilful ignorance is actually on your part - time to take your head out of the bike hanger I suggest. So are you saying that bikes only do harm when carrying the same kinetic energy as a car? What absolute myopic codswallop. Speak to the woman hit by a bike in Regent's Park about that...oh you can't can you because she is dead. The cyclist got off charges because he said the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists but it's pretty clear he wasn't having to do 200mph to do harm. Honestly this path the cycle lobby goes down to compare everything to the harm done by cars is so stupid because the argument only applies if cycles do no harm. Jeremy Vine was at it yesterday where Iain Dale said he was nearly hit by a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing. Jeremy's response: "imagine if the cyclist had been in a car". Grow up Jeremy. The cycle lobby does themselves no good and it is no wonder they are looked on with scorn by so many. It's almost as if their plan is to deliberately alienate themselves and aren't prepared to acknowledge any issues within their own community because, well, cars do more harm. Time to grow up a bit.

Where have I ever said that? You're making things up again Earl. I have said I do not want to be hit by anything. Even March46's picture validates my point. Is there more danger to pedestrians from stationery traffic at a junction or from fast moving bicycles moving through a pedestrianised area? Therein lies my point and thanks for illustrating it March46 so well with your picture. The risk now to pedestriansin Dulwich Square is from bicycles and when you try to mix bicycles and pedestrians that risk increases significantly. Would you not agree that some sort of pedestrian crossing at the top of the square might be good to reinforce to cyclists that pedestrians have the right of way and to slow some cyclists down?

Ha ha, Earl of course....we saw what you did (again)! 😉 Caught red-handed (again). You seem to like facts that have zero relevance to the discussion taking place but allow you to scream "But whay about the cars"! Of course accidents involving cars decreased at the junction - cars no longer pass through the junction but with the new design of the junction the risk to pedestrians is now posed by cyclists....but that's OK because people prefer being hit by a bike than a car.....sigh....

Ha ha, you just edited out your nonsense stats on the number of car accidents at that junction over the 5 years before the LTN.....nothing like a bit of Earl post exposure editing - did you suddenly realise your mistake after re-reading my post properly... At that junction the danger is now posed by cyclists to pedestrians and i would argue that the risk to pedestrians is now greater than when the road was open to traffic. More than happy to argue with you on why that might be.

Earl, if you had bothered to take time to read what I wrote you wouldn't then try to use random stats to try to demonstrate I am wrong. Or maybe you would. Re-read what I wrote....try not to knee-jerk all the time...

Only ever so slightly lurching into bigot territory...or is it just an enlightened liberal being "factual"! Ha ha, now Earl trying to lurch into it too....;-) And yes, Earl I would argue with you that for pedestrians that junction is now more dangerous than it was when it was open to cars. The build and structure of the original junction was designed to seperate pedestrians and moving vehicles and it worked very well. Now before you accuse me of it I am not saying we should go back to that. The new junction design throws moving vehicles into a pedestrian space and that is what is creating the problems. There seems to be an obsession by active travel planner to mix cyclists and pedestrians and it doesn't work and increases risk for pedestrians. If anyone bothered to monitor it I bet you there would be far more cycle vs pedestrians incidents in that area now than car vs pedestrian indicents when it was open to cars. Every day I see pedestrians having to take defensive action due to cyclists. They really should put a pedestrian crossing at the entrance of DV from Calton as it might slow some of the cyclists down a bit.

Dulwich Square is not, in itself, a dangerous space. The cyclists who abuse the rules make it a dangerous space. Malumbu, I love it when you jump on your high-horse and sound off about an area sharing your "What I fink" enlightenment....it just projects you in such a negative light...there's a real nastiness in some of the posts.

As we have said time and time again, no-one wants to be hit by anything. Since the DV junction was closed to traffic the risk to pedestrians is now created by cyclists. Some seem to want to minimise the risk whilst pointing at cars and saying...but we don't hurt as many people as they do. Of course this is correct but also a tactic used by many on the pro-cycle lobby to deflect attention away from issues being caused by a, growing, number of their community. If we are to get to Vision Zero you have to deal with all forms of transport that harm people. You can't exclude cycling on the basis that they don't kill or injure as many as others.

Malumbu, glad you can admit it at least, some pretend they aren't biased - at least you acknowledge you are and we can now apply that filter to everything you post...

Mal, your latest post is laughable. Happy to turn a blind eye to cycling infringements yet get angry when cars do what you are defending for cyclists. And then you throw in a blatant lie about Bromley for dramatic effect. Thanks for posting; you validate the very problem many of us have with some folks on your side of the argument. No doubt many are happy to turn a blind eye to cycling infringements around Dulwich Square.

Uh-oh...now the teachers are upset.....

I would challenge anyone who spends any amount of time walking around the Dulwich area - especially Dulwich Square - not to have had incidents with cyclists. If they haven't then they clearly aren't spending much time in the area at all or they are choosing not to see things. To be fair there is probably cognitive bias on both sides - some of us see it more frequently because it grabs out attention and confirms our position whilst others will choose not to see it because by doing so it confirms their position that it is not happening. It is happening and by pretending it isn't some are making a rod for their own back.

What does everyone think of the relaunch? Is it an admission things have not gone well?

Earl - you didn't jump to a conclusion did you.....where have we seen that before, seems to be a lot of folks partial to bit of knee-jerking ;-)

I didn't say there was any issue - I was actually commenting on what a god idea they are. You seem to have had a bit of a knee-jerk aggressive Pavlovian reaction and seem to think anything I post is having a go at things. Calm down...I was agreeing that they were a good idea......

Does anyone have any realistic ways of making that happen? Great to say it, much harder to do it. Legal e-bikes are limited but that doesn't mean they are safe - accidents happen (with any vehicle) and speed is not always the sole factor for an accident - clearly the faster the speed the higher risk of accident and the bigger the negative impact. If a vehicle is being driven badly or a bike being ridden badly then the risk is still high. Interesting article in Cycling Weekly on the illegal e-bike market. https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/it-seems-to-me-that-no-one-who-buys-one-of-these-electric-bikes-is-planning-to-pedal-very-much

Well we do. You don't Still no response to my question I see....what a surprise.... BTW let me answer on part of the question on what the Highway code says about cycling on pavements: Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

And on this? Just remind us, what does it say in the Highway Code about cycling on pavements?

Malumbu, any response?