Rockets

??? 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....

Latest One Dulwich update - posting this on my own behalf and I have no link to One Dulwich, have no link or membership to any political party, not a member of the Dulwich Society, London Cycle Campaign or any pro- or anti-LTN lobby group. I am a cyclist (who has never worn lycra), I hate Trump, detest what has happened to the Labour party but I love Dulwich. P.S. Unlike some on here I am also a resident of Dulwich living within an area benefiting from an LTN. 🙂 One Dulwich Campaign Update | 17 Jan Dulwich Village junction: Southwark promises access for emergency vehicles A huge thank you to everyone who wrote to Southwark’s Highways department about the dangerous lack of access for emergency vehicles through the junction. News reaches us that the London Ambulance Service has just received notification from Southwark that Court Lane will be reopened to emergency vehicles on Friday 24 January. We continue to ask for updates about the trial closure of Calton Avenue. One Dulwich urges the government to change the law on LTNs Working with campaign group Social and Environmental Justice, One Dulwich has brought together fifteen grassroots campaign groups from all over the country to call on the government to change the law on LTNs. Together we have written to Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander to urge the government to introduce a strict regulatory framework for both new and existing traffic management schemes, in order to ensure that local authorities do not disadvantage groups with protected characteristics, such as the disabled, and cannot implement or maintain schemes that do not have community support. The Times published our joint letter and accompanying article on 14 January, and there were follow-up reports in the Standard and ITV News London. Thank you, as always, for your continued support. The One Dulwich Team

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"?