Earl Aelfheah

So we've established that 'pavements which are never cleared' are in fact regularly cleared, and that the real issue is autumn / trees? Any other seasons we're unhappy with?

Three - I don’t have any issues with reception

Seems a bit late as others have said - although don't appear like unreasonable standards to have imposed had they done it at least a decade ago. Also a bit weird when they're still allowing other bits of laissez faire development - including developments of glorified shed conversions in back gardens (for example).

I had another case of a postie trying to hand me a recorded delivery package for a completely different street. Luckily I clocked it before he jumped back in his van and managed to hand it back. I get the impression that they're under a lot of pressure to drop and run - perhaps it's being target driven?

Automatic traffic counter. They're monitoring traffic volumes

More Twitter ‘war on motorists’ conspiracy nonsense leaking into the EDF. 🙄

What 'deflection tricks' are those exactly? I've simply pointed out that it is a massive exaggeration to say that 'cyclists are taking over paths'. It's clearly not true. How is this 'deflection'? Or do you think that disagreeing = deflection?

Yes and East Dulwich is now South Southbank

Do I support people cycling on pavements? Of course I don't. Luckily, the claim that 'cyclists are taking over the paths' of East Dulwich is ridiculous hyperbole, so I don't feel the need to start numerous threads wringing my hands over the unique and significant danger push bikes represent to the denizens of East Dulwich. If you see someone cycling on the pavement, maybe just have a word with them?

No. I'm not. This is what I said. The point above is a response to Rockets claiming that bicycles are not 'one of the most benign forms of transport' and posting a chart which shows that in fact they are. Speak to your mate about it if you don't want to discuss comparative data.

If you look at the numbers behind the chart, for pedal cycle and motorcycle under 50cc they are in single digits. One or two accidents in any year will therefore change how that end of the chart looks. What the graph shows is that there is one type of vehicle that is massively, disproportionately likely to kill or seriously injure pedestrians. It's not push bikes, or low powered scooters / motorbikes.

Where did I post about the LTN being to blame for the crash as a distraction technique exactly? I believe it was you who posted it. Considering you are complaining about people reposting misleading information, don’t you think this is a tad ironic? So Dulwich Roads reported that there had been an accident, that the road was closed and that someone had been taken to hospital. All correct. They also reposted an eye witnesses account (which was taken down). We have no reason to believe it was posted on bad faith. You accuse them wishing someone dead, because they campaign for greater road safety? Absolutely outrageous/ bizarre.

Got it. So it wasn't something that Dulwich Roads said. They just reported that there had been an accident, that the road was closed and that someone had been taken to hospital, whilst retweeting an eye witnesses account. Because you accused them of effectively wishing someone dead, to suit a narrative? Not sure what narrative that would be? Perhaps that there are far too many serious injuries and deaths on our streets as the result of dangerous driving? Because that seems like a matter of fact which I would be very surprised if you didn't agree with. I notice that you don't take issue with someone claiming that the crash was the result of an LTN. In fact you reposted that without criticism on this thread. No thought to whether that nonsense claim might be being used to suit a narrative. What do you think? 🤔 Could it be that you should just spend less time down your 'war on cars' Twitter rabbit hole? Or better still, stop trying to turn the forum into an extension of it?

Sorry to push the point, but I’m confused. You haven’t edited your original post and one can’t edit a tweet. So has the link you posted redirected to a different tweet than the one you were originally commenting on?

OK. So you linked to two tweets and one was taken down?

Your original post is on the 14th and links to a tweet from 11th?

So you’re using the forum to complain about a deleted tweet? Making no mention of this now unavailable tweet in the original post, but instead linking to a different one? Are you sure you're not just trying to redirect having realised that the word 'tragic' doesn't mean what you thought it did? This is indeed outrageous. Imagine regularly doing this.

The most important fact is that 'cyclists' are not 'taking over paths'. Something that you seem to accept. So why do we have 18 pages discussing it as if it were true? We have multiple threads railing against what is objectively one of the most benign forms of transport bar walking.

There is nothing in the tweet that you have shared that seems misleading, or alarmist. It's pointing out that there are road closures in place after a distressing crash. I'm not sure why we have a thread on it (beyond your obsession with minimising the regular destruction caused by people behaving dangerously when travelling by motor vehicle). It's also interesting that you've posted comments blaming (ridiculously) this horrific crash on an LTN, without judgement. Yet you've admonished the individual simply pointing out that a crash has happened and that someone has been taken to hospital. It's clear to me that you're just using a tragic crash in which someone has been injured to 'score points'. Please stop trying to recreate your Twitter 'war on motorist' echo chamber on to this forum.

Fair enough. It's the title of the thread and you seemed to be broadly supporting the premise, but perhaps you didn't agree with that part of it.

And yet you rely on your personal experience to claim that the paths are being ‘taken over’ by ‘cyclists’. I invite anyone in East Dulwich to step outside, walk up and down their street and see how many experience someone flying past them on the pavement, on a bicycle. I would be willing to bet that the number that would experience such a thing would be close to zero. I would also be surprised if you Alice, would challenge this as the likely outcome of such an experiment (?). In light of this fact, I am suggesting that the claim that the pavements are being 'taken over' by 'cyclists' seems hyperbolic. That is not to say that you have not seen someone cycling on the pavement, which would be an entirely different claim of course.

...well perhaps. Except that if the pavements were literally being taken over by 'cyclists' then it would be an issue impossible to avoid for those who walk a lot. It would also be something one could observe objectively in the data. The fact that neither of these things are true makes me conclude that it's there is either a great deal of hyperbole, and / or some issues of perception / perspective at play.

What I find so weird about threads like this is that I walk almost everywhere. I spend a lot of time travelling the pavements of East Dulwich and surrounding areas. I can't recall a single instance when I've had someone cycle past me on the pavement. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's certainly not something that has happened recently, or regularly, or that I felt sufficiently threatened or alarmed about to notice or recall. I have never had anyone travelling by bike knock me over, or come close to it. All available evidence is that it's extremely rare for people to be injured by those travelling by bicycle. In terms of the risks posed to pedestrians safety (and over 400 are killed every year in the UK), push bikes are nowhere near the top of the list. So how can it be that some people genuinely believe that this is an endemic issue? That the pavements are literally being 'taken over' by 'cyclists' and that it represents a significant threat to pedestrian safety?

Thames Water have dug up / resurfaced that section several times now. the issues always seems to come back. In terms of rivers - I think the Effra river basin covers some of Lordship Lane, so could be some long covered / redirected tributaries? The culverted Effra itself runs further to the west though https://turneyandburbage.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/ever-wondered-about-the-route-of-the-river-effra/ [edited to add] Found this 'interesting' (all relative of course) map on some of London's covered waterways. If you zoom in, you can see where they run, overlaid with modern street layout: https://www.hiddenhydrology.org/london-barton-the-lost-rivers-of-london/

Surely this is a parody post