Rockets

Let's see how much of a fight is put up to not increase fares.... BBC News - Government wants London Tube and bus fare increase https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93qnpvdwj0o

Mal, to be fair Will has been trying to address that for years as it has been part of his strategic goals and it is clear whatever he has been doing hasn't been working - cycling still has a massive diversity problem and that ultimately rest with him (which is probably why he is "weighing up" diversity targets as the buck ultimately stops with him and Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!) Just take a look at the LCC's leadership team - it's very much reflective of the problem cycling faces.....https://lcc.org.uk/team/

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2024/oct/31/cycling-clampdowns-city-councils-danger Interesting article as councils try to wrestle with the problem of bad cycling and the risks to pedestrians and balancing that with the need to promote active travel.

And I think therein lies one of the challenges - it appears (part of) Lordship Lane (and one presumes the part is the high street part) only gets it's first collection of the autumn on November 11th which may explain why, last year for example, there was such a problem with leaves as so many have fallen by then. Perhaps the council should prioritise high footfall streets as a matter of urgency.

I sense, because of the budget challenges the council are facing, that they have reduced the amount of street cleaning. It seemed last year that, Lordship Lane, for example, they wanted to let the majority of leaves fall before clearing them.

They seem to be popping up everywhere again.

Court Lane and surrounding streets are always good - in fact, many are already putting their decorations up now.

Mal, what are you going on about? The point I was making is that, like Boris, regional mayors often use their roles to springboard to bigger jobs. If you spend the whole time picking fights (ostensibly on behalf of your constituents) with the government of the day (who happen to be your political opponent) and then the moment the government changes to your own party and you stop fighting (on behalf of your constituents) then you look like a bit of a hypocrite and clearly you were only fighting because it suited the party agenda. The TFL funding issue looks like a prime example of this and, to be honest, the last thing Labour HQ need right now is a regional mayor kicking off and fighting on behalf of what is right for their area.

FM do you have the link to the session?

So given the below what happened between the letter Sadiq sent begging for money to the Tories and the £250m or so he will be asking Labour for.. ...and politicians wonder why no one trusts them anymore... Ahead of the last government’s autumn statement in November last year, Khan had said in a letter to then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt that Transport for London (TfL) “needs £569m in capital support for 2024/25 to support critical network upgrades and investment in critical road assets”. He added: “Failure to secure this funding would put vital upgrades at risk and be detrimental to long-term infrastructure investment in the capital’s transport network, with consequential negative impacts on the wider UK economy.” However, asked earlier this week what he will be requesting from the new government, Khan said: “I’ll be asking for north of £250m. The £250m we got last year was before the £22bn black hole in the government’s year-to-year expenditure.” So does this mean then that if he gets £250m then critical infrastructure upgrades are at risk and there will be negstive conseuqences and if so why isn't he fighting for more? And if you think Sadiq (like his cohort Andy Burnham) don't have political aspirations beyond city leadership then you are very much mistaken...I mean, it's not as if previous mayors haven't used it for bigger personal goals! 😉

So he isnt doing any negotiation this year then? Or is he negotiating like the haggling scene in Life of Brian this time round? This isn't looking for dirt - it's highlighting hypocrisy.

BBC News - Mayor halves transport funding request from Budget https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dp7w6p775o Amazing how the narrative has changed with a new government...is Khan still fighting for Londoners or rolling over and putting party politics and his own political aspirations ahead of what Londoners need? This seems to be one hell of a u-turn...so what gives?

Has RaptorTruckman gone full circle?

Malumbu, correction - this thread is about dangerous and concerning misinformation being circulated by Dulwich Roads. P.S. it's probably a good time to remind you that you have posted in all of those said threads on numerous occasions and have been a major contributor....just saying....

P.S. there are also two big red cyclists dismount signs on the approaches to the pavement outside of the cheese shop in Dulwich Square, no doubt put there by tje council for those cyclists that, ahem, missed the road closed and cycle diversion signs. Needless to say this morning many cyclists were missing the cyclist dismount signs too as they tried to squeeze their way through in front of the cheese shop.

And Dulwich Roads has been back onto this site again in the last 24 hours but is, again, resisting the invitation to share the content of the tweet they retweeted..... One can only wonder why......

One of the responses asks whether bins are left in dangerous positions by the refuse collection teams so I suspect Veolia is going to get a ticking off!

Permitted to ignore...surely morally obliged to obey? This whole...the rules don't apply to us... is nonsensical. In fact, the Dulwich Square signs are mandatory Road Closed signs with yellow cycle diversion signs - making them very much mandatory.

I am pretty sure Southwark have said that the new Dulwich Square has been re-designed to, amongst other things, slow cyclists - I am pretty sure it was in the consultation documents. And the whole advisory defence is a one-way street for guidance to become mandatory.

I see Dulwich Roads has been back to the site but has not posted or responded to the request to share the content of the tweet they retweeted. Let's see if they do...if I was a betting person I know what my money would be on..... P.S. Raeburn, you came on here defending Dulwich Roads on the basis they tweeted a "correction". By doing so you validated my very first point that Dulwich Roads needs to engage brain and fact check before sending out incorrect and misleading information - thus agreeing with the subject of this thread.

Okey dokey Raeburn....whatever you say....

Not according to Dulwich Roads slide - was 2019 just a particularly bad year for deaths caused by cyclists? There seems to be a lot and they killed more than motorcycles and mopeds 50cc and under.

Goodness me Earl, I posted that exert because of what HorrifiedofHH says in reference to the “pedestrian fatalities” which was HH’s response to the misinformation that someone had been killed in that accident fanned by Dulwich Roads retweeting of the “under the covers” tweet. So you, like Raeburn, are admitting they made a mistake by tweeting the eye witness account without doing any fact-checking whether someone was “under covers”. Great, one by one you are validating my position that they need to take more care to prevent posting misleading info on their thread? We finally agree but, boy, it took us a long time to get here - I was right all along! No I accuse them of using news on accidents as a way to create awareness of their cause but they do not fact check what actually happened/happens and do not take a responsible approach to posting. Do I think they have a ghoulish fascination with accidents? Yes. Can I understand why an activist takes that approach? Yes. Do I agree with it? No, because in their keenness to make their point they are getting things wrong that, as in this case, causes undue concern to many in our community. I still think it would be good for Dulwich Roads to share the tweet they retweeted so everyone can see for themselves - I wish I had taken a screenshot because when people see it the rational amongst us will see the point I was making. They initially reported that there had been a “horrific and tragic” accident and they reported this by retweeting a tweet that said “someone under covers”. Over 5 hours later (at 10.30 a night) they then tweeted a correction on the location of the accident and then addd that someone had been taken to hospital; over 5 hours after their first tweet on the subject. The damage was already done by the first tweet. Also note the HorrifiedofHH post talks of a pedestrian death the day after Dulwich Roads’ tweet, so clearly their “correction” did nothing to quell the rumours of a death.

No they retweeted the "person under covers" tweet and amplified that and extended that tweet's reach by retweeting it to their followers with the message about it being a "horrific and tragic crash" which led many, not unsurprisingly, to think someone had died. In turn, this led me to suggest they needed to engage brain before tweeting and try to establish facts before sending this stuff out because no-one had died (which the police had to confirm due to the amplification of the message that suggested someone had). I am struggling to understand why so many struggle with this...it's not difficult... That was a clear distraction technique by you but, for the record, I don't think that person was right with that conclusion and no, I do not support the narrative that the LTN caused the crash. There you go, see how easy it is to be pragmatic and take a sensible approach to things, maybe some others should try it!

No, when you post a tweet it links to the realtime version of the tweet, so when I posted the link on here the "under the covers" tweet was showing. When the "under the covers" tweet was made "unavailable" so it would no longer show on here but the trail was still there with the user name of the person who tweeted the "under the covers" tweet. The user name has since disappeared (since Saturday) but you can still see the imprint left by that retweet - "You're unable to view this Post etc"