Earl Aelfheah

No, it's now incredibly dangerous. You literally can't go there without being knocked over and sworn at. Although it does depend on which of the equally valid versions of reality you frequent, so you may be ok.

No. You implied that we should get just as angry by similar infringements whether committed by cars or bikes. Again and again weasel words and false equivalence. You take the car, I’ll take the bike. Let’s see who comes off worse. Does anyone actually believe that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space? Or that the area is more dangerous now than it was when it was dominated by motor vehicles and kids cycling to school had to battle with traffic? Research has shown road casualties to reduce by half in LTNs. There is hysteria and hyperbole, and then there is reality.

You think the two are comparable? A 2 ton motorised vehicle breaking the rules and a 10kg push bike powered by someone pedalling? There is the problem. He's not saying it's OK for people to break the rules on a bicycle, he is saying he is much more concerned by people in motor vehicles speeding, which. He is objectively right to be so. The latter leads to tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year and millions of pounds of property damage. It's a very odd person who doesn't see the difference, or a very cynical one who seeks to draw false equivalence. As I said, and issue of perspective, proportion and reality. And again, here is the problem. There is an objective verifiable reality. You just aren't interested in it. Dulwich Square is not dangerous. It's actually quite a pleasant space.

It depends what you mean by 'incidents with cyclists'. As I have said above, I have no doubt that some people wheel across the square on their bikes, when they should fully dismount. Those who argue issues of transport and safety largely through the prism of ‘car versus bike’, might suggest that people on ‘the other side’ as they see it (myself perhaps) are just as likely to be looking out for and placing more weight upon the bad behaviour of by those travelling by motor vehicle. But you’ll notice that I don’t relay endless anecdotes about things I've seen drivers doing. I don't assume my personal observations mean very much. We will all of seen people being inconsiderate, putting themselves or others at a degree of risk on our streets, whether travelling in a car, on a bicycle or by foot. But only one of those is likely to lead to very serious consequences for others. Neither the actions of people travelling by push bike, or foot lead to tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year, or millions of pounds of property damage. This is a primarily a matter of verifiable fact and of physics. So the point I make is one of perspective, proportion and reality. I didn't bring up bias, that was firstmate. But I will answer his quip. Whilst I have no doubt that you have noticed people cycling across the square, it stretches the bounds of probability that you have come close to being hit on multiple occasions. I suggest that your antipathy to 'cyclists' and the creation of the square may be leading you to be hyper vigilant when it comes to misdemeanours involving bicycles and prone to over interpreting inconsiderate behaviour, as regular, and dangerous 'near misses'.

This is probably true. I didn't bring up cognitive bias - you did. You do this all the time. Ask a question and then object that the answer is taking things off track. If you don't want to discuss cognitive bias', perhaps don't bring them up? Just a thought. How many near misses have you experienced and what constitutes a 'near miss' exactly? If this is a daily, or even weekly occurrence then you must be unbelievably unlucky (emphasis on 'unbelievable').

That is not what a cognitive bias is. I'm not saying that people have never experienced a near miss in their life. But individuals suggesting that they regularly experiencing such events, stretches the bounds of probability. It seems far more likely that their antipathy to 'cyclists' leads them to actively seeking out examples of people on bicycles breaking the rules and then to exaggerate those experiences, claiming constant 'near' misses are occurring. This actually is a classic example of confirmation bias. Despite the threads claiming that 'cyclists are taking over the paths', or that individuals are being mown down by people on push bikes all over Dulwich, there is no evidence of this being true. And I don't actually believe anyone genuinely thinks it's any more than hyperbole from the usual suspects, with an axe to grind.

I walk and run regularly. I cover. A lot of miles on foot each week. Not once have I had a cyclist nearly hit me on the pavement or swear at me. Yet some people claim it’s an almost daily occurrence. It somewhat stretches the boundaries of probability tbh.

Fair enough @Rockets, my bad. I read it as sarcasm. I can't imagine why I'd assume anything you post in relation to the square is having a go. 😉

Nice before and after shots courtesy of ‘clean air Dulwich’.

Wow, this does happen to you a lot! It's like you're constantly dodging rogue cyclists / being sworn at. How has this never happened to me once? Weird How can you tell it runs through the junction if there is no separation? Pretty sure it's on a different level, stepped down from the pedestrian area no?

What’s the issue with SUDS now? You’d prefer that would rather there was less planting and less drainage? How is there no clear definition? They’re at different levels with a kerb?

100%. The same section of road at the junction of heber road and lordship lane is falling again. Thames Water have dug it up maybe half a dozen times and will clearly be doing so again soon. I don’t get why they can’t fix these things once.

No idea who 'our active travel leaders' are. But yes, that's a terrible design. I suspect you'll find most people travelling by bike are not particularly keen on that layout either, but of course, you have to to make it 'us versus them'.... on that, do you have to keep reposting divisive anti 'cyclist' stuff from Twitter on here? If people want to follow you down a Twitter rabbit hole, they can do it on.. err, Twitter? That platform is toxic and you're going a long way to making this section of the forum just as bad.

This is a bit silly. You can hardly blame anyone else for immigration levels in 2023.

So there is a new place next to morons that accepts cats? Have I got that right?

Agree. Very nice place

If you're in to running, there are some good local run clubs / meetups - runhead and peckham pacers.

The lights were out at the junction of Lordship Lane and the S Circular at the weekend. When i say 'out', I mean they'd been destroyed. Probably someone rode into them on a push bike. An incredibly big, heavy and fast moving push bike perhaps.

It's not Thames Water's responsibility to keep Peckham Rye free of water, no. But the recent works designed to to hold water in the park: “capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly”, were undertaken to stop houses from flooding. The increased risk of houses flooding is the result of a drainage and sewage system which are in dire need of upgrading / modernising, and unable to cope. And this, Thames Water are responsible for. We are paying for their under investment (over many, many years) in the drainage and sewage system; In cash terms - funding the works to modify the park to hold more water in it, and through the loss of amenity that follows from the park being waterlogged more frequently.

Large parts of the drainage and sewage system are in dire need of upgrading and modernising, and are unable to cope. The privatised companies are not going to invest what is necessary in this work. So we pay to have our parks converted into surface water storage areas.

They're not. But the work to build bunds which hold significant amounts of water in Dulwich and more recently Peckham Rye parks, was undertaken to mitigate the impacts of poor drainage and sewerage infrastructure (which was under invested in for years) causing flooding to properties. The latter is (as I understand it) the responsibility of the water companies. I believe taxpayers have paid for the underinvestment in infrastructure by the water companies in two ways; firstly, by paying to have the changes made to the parks (I never got a clear answer from Renata on this forum when I asked, but think this is the case); and secondly through the loss of amenity those schemes inevitably create when those parks are waterlogged through the winter months. As I said, privatised profits, socialised costs.

The water companies don't do their job. The council (i.e. us) pay to remedy their underinvestment in drainage and sewerage infrastructure and we give up our open spaces for the purpose of mitigating the impact. Privatised profits, socialised costs.

Yeh, I heard Badenoch banging on about how 'nothing works' at PMQs, as if this was a charge that could reasonably be laid at the feet of a recently elected Labour government. She's right that things are in a terrible state, but it was her government which left the country so. Labour have a huge uphill struggle to try and halt the decline of public services and restore our finances. People need to wake up to the legacy that the Tories have left us.

Labour won a landslide victory less than 5 months ago. Those demanding ‘another go’, need to grow up. Labour are in for the next 5 years or so, you’ll get your chance then. The petition is embarrassing.

When you start quoting the magna carta you’re in trouble imo. Maybe step back from Twitter. We just had a general election. Labour won a landslide. Demanding another election straight away because you didn’t like the outcome and because a bot farm demands it, isn’t how our system works. 🤖