Earl Aelfheah

It's ridiculous to suggest that if you drive a car into an object on the pavement, that is the fault of the object. If that's what you think, then you should hang up your keys.

I am certainly concerned with constant misinformation around supposed increases in pollution, collisions, pedestrian safety and crime, as well as suggestions that the road filter on Calton Avenue has reduced footfall and damaged business. There is no evidence for any of these claims. In fact quite a lot of evidence for the opposite in many instances. There has also been constant insinuations of foul play, illegality and conspiracy - again with no evidence offered, and deliberate misrepresentations (or wilful ignorance) about proper democratic process. It's been going on for years now and it's driven by a handful of individuals from what I can tell (for example, the man calling himself 'One Dulwich' and claiming to represent the whole community, as well as a one particular monomaniac on this forum). I think it has a negative impact on the community to sow unsubstantiated fears of crime and to suggest that pedestrians are facing great danger where they are not. It's particularly stark when you consider that the some of the same individuals repeatedly minimise or play down actual crash data / road danger.

The cycle Lanes of central London were absolutely packed yesterday as people found alternatives to the tube. Proper rush hour bike congestion in some places! Lime must have had one of their best days for rentals I would imagine. Great to see so many taking to two wheels - perhaps having discovered how easy it is to get around by bike, some will be encouraged to stick with it.

Pretty sure you are allowed to park north of Stradella road, outside of the restricted hours (12-2 weekdays): https://streets.appyway.com/lambeth Unless you mean it's difficult to find a space, which may be the case. There is also a parking bay outside the shop. Max stay 1 hour

It is not a function of modern vehicles to allow for them to hit something (or potentially someone) situated on the pavement with enough force that it could upend a heavy metal bollard set into the ground with concrete (or in this case, to turn the vehicle onto it's roof). Your vehicle is not allowed to drive on, or cross the pavement when turning, even if your wheels stay on the road.

The number of posters defending driving across the pavement says a lot about our road culture.

Awful. Cowardly behaviour by these thugs. I hope he recovers quickly.

I'm just asking what Rockets actually wants? Beyond unspecified people being 'held accountable' in unspecified ways, for unspecified crimes. It's not too much to ask considering that he's been complaining about a road filter on Calton Avenue across almost every thread in this section, over a period of many years now. What does he want? Do you know?

Oh you're right. driving into a wall at under 20 mph is totally different. 🙄 The references to bikes is actually a parody of people like you, who constantly raise 'serious concerns' about dangerous 'near misses' involving bicycles, but rush to minimise the significant number of serious collisions, mostly involving motor vehicles.

You really need a hobby. This doesn't remotely suggest what we all know you're trying to suggest.

Driving into a wall at 20 mph is an example of dangerous driving. The cause of the dangerous driving is another matter. People expressing shock, disbelief, or concern at a car turning onto it's roof on a residential street, seems perfectly understandable to me. What is not, is rushing to minimise / or downplay it. With tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our roads every year, we are in danger of becoming inured to it - a car on it's roof in a residential street is not something that should be considered unremarkable, or just 'one of those things'. The suggestions that hitting a bollard that is on a pavement is unavoidable is concerning. It's not unavoidable. It's not even difficult to avoid. Most people don't drive into things on the pavement. As usual, Rockets is hugely inconsistent, repeatedly claiming to be very concerned about anecdotes of push bikes 'nearly' crashing on other threads, whilst seeking to minimise a car on it's roof in a residential street (something that has actually happened) on this one.

Nope.

I do not agree. If your vehicle is overhanging the pavement as you turn, and you're unable to see what's on the pavement, then you are driving dangerously. The same is true if you're reversing.

Still can't say what it is you actually want - beyond boring on across multiple threads. It's just one long tedious tantrum.

A bollard on the pavement does not represent a 'dodgy obstruction' when driving.

After 5 years? You think 'opposition is growing'? Do be serious. I get that you're aggrieved that you didn't get your way, and determined to paint the square as some sort of dangerous, dystopian, hellscape (it's not, it's actually quite a nice space). But 5 years on and it's just relentless, undirected, simmering resentment. You still can't actually say what you want. You don't want to reverse it, you just seem to want someone to say you were right. OK. The council behaved appallingly and the square is awful. Do you feel happy now?

Yes, you’ve said. What does that mean? It obviously doesn’t mean at the ballot box. They have already stood for re-election and won. They haven’t broken the law, so there is no legal sanction I can see. You have said before that you are not calling for the road layout to be reverted back to how it was before. So again, what is it you are demanding happens? Or as I suspect, are you just going to moan endlessly across multiple threads to zero effect?

Why don’t you just read up on what representative democracy is, how it works and the difference between a consultation and a referendum? I have already explained this so you're going over old ground again and, as usual, deflecting. Well that's ironic. You dodge the question, by claiming that asking it is deflection. What is it you actually want, if not to reverse the changes made 5 years ago? You want them to stand for re-election on their record? It's already happened? You want them 'censored'? For what? How? What does that mean? You talk about ‘taking the fight to them' - I hate to tell you, but the 'fight' ended half a decade ago. All you're doing is endlessly complaining and trying to justify why your inability to move on isn’t just the unhealthy fixation it appears to be. What do you actually want?

This is just nonsense. I don’t want Reform in power, but if they’re elected I’m not going to claim it’s anti democratic. No one says you have to be happy about the changes made to the road layout many years ago now. But when you say you want people (both councillors and their 'cheerleaders') held accountable, censored, or 'disciplined', what does that mean? Councillors have stood for re-election and won. There is no evidence that they acted outside of their powers or broke the law. People who enjoy the square are perfectly entitled to. You’ve stated that you don’t want the scheme reversed, so what is it you want?

It's on the pavement. No one should be driving their car on the pavement.

I haven't said that Rockets must support the changes that were made years ago to the road layout on Calton Avenue. I've just asked that he stop insinuating that Southwark have somehow acted outside of their powers, or in ways that are undemocratic. They have not. I also think that half a decade on, if he isn't actually calling for the decision to be reversed, and can't say what he wants to happen in response to his grievance, then it really is just pointless noise. Again, what is it he wants?

They get their democratic mandate through elections. We don’t have a system of direct democracy where you get to vote on every decision. This is basic stuff. You still haven’t said what it is you actually want.

You still seem to think that the council needs to have a referendum in order to make changes legitimately. They do not. You really should Google ‘representative democracy’.

No, I don't think it's fine. but firstly I don't believe they have done and secondly, if that is your belief, recourse is through the ballot box. To suggest they do not have a mandate, because you don't agree with a decision they've made (even though they've been returned to office since that decision), is just nonsense. It's not that they don't have a democratic mandate, it's just that you don't agree with what they've done and are unhappy that they were re-elected. Don't try to wrap it up as though it's anything more than that. You're just upset that you haven't got your way. Well that is how democracy works sometimes.

You've said you want people to be held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - not just unspecified councillors but also their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois'. What does this mean? You're clearly not satisfied with councillors being held accountable at the ballot box - as you know they have stood for re-election since the Dulwich LTN was implemented and increased their majority. So if not the ballot box, if not through legal routes (despite your insinuations there is no evidence they've acted outside of their authority), what is it you're actually calling for? I don't agree. They have a democratic mandate, the power and authority to implement such schemes, and they're held accountable through a legal and regulatory framework and through the ballot box. You say they don't have a mandate because a consultation is actually a binding referendum, or should be treated as one in it's absence. This is just ridiculous. It seems that you are just upset that you didn't get what you wanted and that the council got re-elected. That's it. It's just an endless, pointless grievance, with no resolution that you can articulate.