Rockets

No it is your logic that is flawed...I have explained this to you before - remember it is recorded only if the police were present or someone alerted the police to it - I am not going over that again and I will let you try to work it out for yourself.... No. Wrong. Again. Go back to where I explained it to you how the STATS19 are collected. Because the high footfall crossing area in front of the shops feels like having to run sniper alley sometimes with bikes hurtling towards you often doing 15 - 20 mph. You may not feel it or you may just be blind to it but it's real and it is a problem and the council should really address it. Something needs to be done to slow bikes down at that junction - especially those hurtling down Calton - often with zero regard for the fact that it is also a pedestrian area and supposedly a shared space but a growing majority of cyclist show scant regard for this.

Of course they are because motorised vehicles no longer flow through there and your data is based, in the main, on motorised vehicle collisions. This is a bit like the council monitoring, and then heralding, a drop in traffic along closed streets.......it's kind of a "you don't say" moment. I bet if there was data collected on every collision involving cycles then that would have increased as much as collisions involving motorised vehicles has decreased - maybe more so. But that data is not collected which is why your argument is so fundamentally biased - because the dataset you are referring to is incomplete. It's funny isn't it - the active travel lobby come on here and laud the new crossings around Melbourne Grove and defend them yet when someone suggests something to help pedestrians deal with cyclists they're vociferous in opposition. Why is this? There is an increasing weight of evidence that pedestrians needs more protection from cyclists yet the active travel lobby won't ever entertain it.

@Earl Aelfheah I explained this to you this months ago so no need to go over it again but to what you refer is police reported collision data which does not (by the very mechanism it employs) record all collisions (it is skewed to vehicular accidents) - all of the sites to which you refer and get your data use only those incidents to which the police either attend or someone reports it to them. When we look at what's happening near Melbourne Grove this is clearly not a valid reason not to add more - there is clearly a natural crossing point in the area where it looks like there was going to be a crossing. I really can't work out why you are so against it - can someone explain the rational?

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But for those not part of the active travel lobby and more balanced in their assessment it can feel unsafe for pedestrians with cyclists either approaching at break neck speed (usually Lime bikes) down the hill from Calton into the Square or cutting various corners by bombing across the paved areas. You're right, it is a pleasant calm space until cyclists appear - then it becomes a bit wild west and as a pedestrian you have to keep your wits about you - as crossing the cycle track really feels like a bit of a gamble. So many times I have witnessed the classic rumble of a cargo bike or Lime bike approaching and the ring ring of the bell alerting people to get out of their way. A pedestrian crossing would, hopefully, slow some of the bikes down (although that video I posted clearly shows they may have negligible impact) and given how keen the council is to put them in elsewhere it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest it should be considered. It actually looks as if it may have been considered as the paved area is different at an ideal crossing point. Is the objection from the cycle lobby that it would slow cyclists down?

@march46 of course we do. It just so happens that the biggest menace to pedestrian in Dulwich Square is cyclists - do you not agree? Would you support calls for a pedestrian crossing over the cycle track - one suspects you would not? It's almost as if the existing road layout was designed to accommodate one but it was never put in. I am not sure why anyone would object to one - seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to better protect pedestrians.

To be honest the lobby group was said in jest - council investment in replacing a well used and loved bridge in a park should not have to rely on lobby groups. Surely someone in the council would have enough grey matter to say...hey, given we have a £17m surplus from all the fines, parking permits etc we have issued let's maybe spend some of it on repairing the bridge in the park. Or are they not interested as it is not something to keep the cycle lobby happy? Also, is the park not Margy and Richard territory as it falls in their manor? I bet if people contact them they do something about it as we are less than 12 months away from an election.....

Someone needs to start a wooden bridge lobby group, cosy up to the local councillors and get the Mayor's office to pay some activist researchers to write a report on how good a wooden bridge is compared to a metal bridge thus justifying the investment in said wooden bridge.......;-)

I think you hit the nail on the head - if the council can spend a huge amount of money on numerous redesigns of Dulwich Square we have to ask the question why some of that money could not be spent on replacing the footbridge. It seems that the council is happy to throw tax payers money at some projects and not others.

@malumbu oh dear.....the TFL review into their floating bus stop concept clearly isn't aligned to the real world....did you actually watch the video? I doubt it. I am still laughing you are actually trying to defend the actions of the cyclists in that video...denial is not a river in Africa! Anyway before you try to divert this thread it's probably a waste of time putting a pedestrian crossing in the cycle lane in Dulwich Square as clearly very few cyclists pay any attention to them....

Sue, I was correct - Projects in Parks comes from the same pot as CPZ and LTN revenue - the council spent 244,000 on Parks last year from a surplus of £17m....perhaps they could find the money to replace the bridge by using some of that surplus as they spent £2m on LTNs alone......

If the Qatari's decide to retaliate then it's all going off...but I suspect the Iranians are hoping for this - one inaccurate missile and the Qatari's may have to. I think the Iranian leadership is working on fast-tracking their own demise and the Americans and Israeli's planning for regime change, maybe with the many political prisoners the Israelis tried to free from the Elvin prison today. What a mess but clearly Iran was becoming a big threat to not only Israel but many of the other Gulf States and was clearly doing scary stuff with nuclear weapons that required action.

Flea darts...now there's a thing from my past I had long forgotten about - goodness our ! This thread title does always bring a smile to my face as I can't help but think it suggests a campaign to prevent the removal of someone's stash!

I was lobbying for a pedestrian crossing to be put in place in Dulwich Square but by looking at the latest NFBUK video it seems like it would be a pointless exercise...I dare anyone to watch that video and give any sort of defence for that behaviour - and, unfortunately, it appears to be the very large majority of cyclists using that section of road. I love the bit at 0.49 seconds when one of the few cyclists to stop gets rear-ended by another cyclist and the cyclist who stops seemingly has to point out that it is a pedestrian crossing - a clear voice in a sea of overwhelming ignorance. Seems like pedestrian crossings are optional for cyclists....so I take back my request for one in Dulwich Square...it's probably safer without one as pedestrians will approach the crossing disregarding the advice of the Highway Code that they have priority.

BBC News - 'E-bike crash ruined my life - rules need to change' https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70nl7np0v9o

Are you sure? From memory parks is under the same pot that is being funded by the revenue from the CPZs and LTNs. There are two things that stand out in that area now: 1) the urgent need for a pedestrian crossing at the apex of the chicane to try to abate the speed of some cyclists coming down Calton. 2) How the owner of Rose Cottage has had a street sign made proclaiming Dulwich Village Square and put it on the side of their house. I am sure Knight Frank are sharpening their estate agent thesaurus in eager anticipation of being given a shot at marketing the house being proposed to be built in the garden....in the newly proclaimed Dulwich Village Square! 😉

But don't forget it was also enacted to move or close the half a dozen coal fired power stations (like Battersea and Bankside) that were very close to the city centre and were the major cause of pollution.

We are not the only ones: BBC News - Residents feel 'forgotten' after Royal Mail delays https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n90q8lx7o

To be fair @malumbu you took a global discussion down to restrictions on motoring so maybe you should practice what you preach! 😉

And the riders have been announced.....https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/seven-councillors-formally-submit-bids-for-southwark-council-leadership/

Yeah @malumbu a couple more CPZs and some more journey length increasing LTNs ought to do the trick....

I am pretty sure the letters CPZ and LTN were nowhere near their manifesto. There was no mention of anything to do with transport or active travel in the documents Labour pushed through our door….in fact they were more concerned with telling people how awful Boris was and how a vote for them was a vote against the government….I suspect they may return to local issues this time round but they will no doubt proceed with caution. A protest vote against the government would be funny this time round!

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it. Come on @Earl Aelfheah - your not so subtle editing and manipulation of my sentence to try and create an angle to attack me on is really telling.....

No. The problem here is you refuse to differentiate between spin/propaganda and fact and you presented spin/propaganda as fact to suggest there was a majority in support of the Dulwich LTN in the consultation. Clearly there wasn't and the polar opposite was, in fact, true - that there was majority opposition to the LTN. We have seen these tactics so many times before from the pro-lobby - when exposed for feeding people incorrect, erroneous or down right misleading information when challenged they then try to divert attention onto something else. Again, it is this type of behaviour that makes many look more deeply into what is actually happening as they question whether the council and the active travel lobby are telling them the truth or are they just feeding people lies to suit their agenda. The more that decisions like that of the High Court goes against councils and their lobby friends the more evidence there is that some of us were absolutely right to question the motives, lawfulness and execution of these programmes by councils.

This is exactly the issue and such a familiar pattern. People parrot the council narrative and say "look, look you have no argument because the majority supported the LTN", then someone points out that is utter tosh and cite a different stat from the same report and we hear...."time to move on"...this is why people draw parallels with the fascist Trumpian regime and their tactics based on lies, misinformation and distraction. The bottom-line remains that there are some who do not want any accountability because they are happy with the current status-quo and I can guarantee that if it wasn't an issue they supported they would be out in force demanding accountability. It's blinkered hypocrisy and aptly demonstrates why so many people have such an issue with the way many on the pro- side behave - defending the indefensible and happy to turn a blind eye.

@Earl Aelfheah but you chose not to use that did you - why? Because the council had spoon-fed people that there was support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55% stat - out of interest where did you read that stat - was it in the report that then (on page 18) referenced the opposition? One presumes you had not seen the actual opposition detail (or chosen to ignore it) when you made the claim for support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55%. Of course you can't because the figure you were touting as "proof" of support for the LTN was nothing of the sort but was presented by the council as such and repeated it. Absolutely not. I am not the one trying to convince people that there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN based on misleading and erroneous data. I actually bothered to look at the detail the council didn't spoon-feed people.....so my perspective on this is based on actual data from responses and not on spin or wishful thinking. To be fair - you keep posting misleading and incorrect information which was have to correct so you have a role in prolonging this too.......;-) Time will tell if this is a noble resistance or not but the fact people are still talking about it suggests the efforts are worth it - and there's an election coming up soon so, per you, surely it is important to remind people of things councillors have done so they can be judged at the ballot box as there is no other form of accountability.....;-)