Earl Aelfheah

The absolute state of this thread.

You may notice infractions by people travelling on bicycle more readily than the endemic law breaking by people driving cars, but this is partly because the latter has become so normalised and partly because of your obvious confirmation bias / inability to reflect rationally for even a minute. There are numerous studies which look at this objectively and all conclude that there is no difference in the instances of rule breaking (in fact most show that people are generally more compliant on bicycles). For example, the DfT believes that 85% of drivers regularly break the speed limit in 20 mph zones. Phone use behind the wheel is common place, as are many other offences. And most relevant of all, is the impact of bad behaviours on others. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that cycling (as I've said above, one of the most benign forms of transport) is some sort of unique menace on our roads. If you genuinely believe this, then you are really not paying attention to road traffic accident statistics. There are tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries every year on our roads. They are not caused by bicycles.

To suggest that the majority of people are uniquely anti-social when they travel by bicycle is nonsense (you don't have to believe me, there is plenty of research which shows people are no more likely to break the rules when they are travelling on a bike than by car). Using a bike is one of the most benign choices you could possibly make when it comes to getting around, bar walking. It creates minimal pollution, takes up little space, doesn't cause the thousands of deaths and serious injuries that motor vehicles do each year, and improves ones fitness / general health (which collectively reduces strain on the health service). Your post perfectly demonstrates what is so tedious about all the 'anti-bicylce' threads; full of basic prejudice and poor thinking (confirmation bias and group attribution errors).

Great post Malumbu. Agree with your points. There are people who are anti-social and we need to address anti-social behaviour, which includes times when it takes place by someone travelling on a bicycle. I don't subscribe to the 'cyclists are a scourge' narrative. For one thing it's patently nonsense (if we're talking the dangers posed to others in terms of ones choice of transport, cycling is about the most benign choice possible, after walking) and for another it's a classic case of group attribution error. You just wouldn't say there are people on foot who are mugging people in the street, therefore we need to crack down on pedestrians. It's so obviously ridiculous - and yet that's the logic that many of these really basic, 'bicycles bad' threads adopt.

What's 'recommended'?

Thanks, that's interesting. I had a feeling it must have been late 60's / early 70's.

They've also lost the pool table, which is a shame. Still the cheapest beer locally though!

With all this talk of the bygone days of ED... I just noticed on my profile that I joined the forum on this day - 26th September 2007! A lot has changed in the that time. Trying to think what hasn't... The EDT perhaps?

I suspect the through traffic ceased in the 60's or 70's speaking to my dad, but not sure.

This is interesting, I've struggled to find exactly when they stopped through traffic. It looks like you could still drive around the park up to 2004, but (I think) only by entering from the Old College Gate: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20040622/Agenda/Item 07 - Limitations onAccess to Dulwich Park for Motor Vehicles a Report.pdf

I'm not ignoring it. I literally posted a picture above which shows the amount of room it takes to transport the same number of people by private car, bicycle and bus.

No one is being stopped using a car. Southwark have not said that they aim to ensure people 'cannot use a car'. You are correct that it is often quicker to use a bike, but that is simply due to congestion caused by too many cars. More bikes = less congestion. In terms of more people getting about by bike meaning more people cycling carelessly - it also means fewer people getting about by car and driving carelessly. Whilst neither is desirable, the former is substantially less problematic than the latter. To answer what one should do about poor / dangerous road behaviour - it should be policed effectively. And yet, still there are substantially more road accidents, serious injuries and deaths caused by cars. So even with those extra measures, the danger posed to others is significantly higher by several orders of magnitude (which obviously explains why we apply stricter standards in the first place).

Lime bikes have a top assisted speed of 14.8mph, at that point the motor switches off. You can obviously go faster than that, but the motor doesn't help you (and the weight of it actively works against you). I apologise, that was not you, but Heartblock. My error.

As DogKennelhillbilly says, this is absolute nonsense. SUVs are much more dangerous, most notably because the high bonnet height leads to more head and upper body injuries. Some studies suggest that they are eight times more likely to kill a child in a collision (compared to a passenger car) and more than twice as likely to kill an adult. They are also much more likely to mount a kerb and smash through barriers etc (they were originally designed to be 'off road' vehicles after all). We saw the tragic consequences of that in the Wimbledon nursery crash. Their growth in popularity is nothing to do with safety regs and all to do with marketing.

You're right, cars are an endangered species, can't remember the last time I saw one in London. You've claimed that if we have more people using a bicycle to get about, then: This logic (from a 'scientist') is just so basic / laughable I can barely bring myself to point it out. But here goes. If you increase the number of people travelling by bicycle, you will see an increase in the number of people demonstrating bad behaviour when travelling by bicycle. You will also see an increase in the incidence of good behaviour. This is basic maths. The issue of bad behaviour however, is one of bad behaviour. In so far as the form of transport is in any way relevant, a badly behaved individual on a push bike poses significantly less of a risk to others than they do when in a motor vehicle. Again, if you doubt this, I direct you to the basic laws of physics and real work road casualty statistics. On the final point, about illegal electric motorbikes (bikes with a motor and a throttle); No one is in favour of unregistered, uninsured motorbikes on our streets; it has nothing to do with bicycles. Your attempt to conflate one with the other is cynical and transparent.

Do you really believe that we have engineered our roads to 'force' people to use bicycles? And that this in turn is to blame for illegal motorcycles? This is such an obviously spurious argument you should feel embarrassed. We have a small number of bike lanes which attempt to make it (mildly) safer for those who choose to travel by bicycle, at least some of the time. The vast majority of our road network is designed for, and dominated by, motor vehicles. Attempts conflate illegal motorbikes with bicycles, so as to insinuate that people pose a great risk to others when they are traveling on a push bike, cannot seriously be made in good faith. Or if you do genuinely hold this view, I direct you to look at road accident statistics and just think a second on the physics of it (you've previously claimed to be a 'scientist'?).

The cut through from the south circular to the village, was a major rat run at one point, so much so that the Dulwich Society formed to challenge it: I think the square has been very successful at creating a place to socialise to be honest. lots of people sitting outside the cafe's there and a focal point at Christmas, with the procession from the church to the square, where a carol service takes place around the tree. It's definitely created a welcome community space. It's interesting that the argument has now switched to the cost of creating the pedestrian area. Clearly the amount of money spend is far too high. But perversely you have the same people saying it's cost too much, demanding it all be ripped out, and the old layout re-installed at even more cost and disruption. The fact is that had Southwark not been so timid in the face of a vitriolic, obsessive minority who oppose any change, they could have implemented the improvements more quickly and more cheaply. Either way, in 10 years time, the idea that a small line of idling / queuing cars were ever prioritised over the square will seem as ridiculous as cars being allowed to cut through the park does now. In fact to most, it already does.

It was a through route. One of the main causes behind which the Dulwich Society formed https://www.dulwichsociety.com/the-journal/winter-2023/the-dulwich-societys-first-year I don’t personally remember it, but my dad does. I actually haven’t been able to establish when they closed it to through traffic and he wasn’t sure. he did point out that when they did it you heard almost exactly the same arguments you hear now in relation to the creation of the seating / pedestrian area outside the shops. Namely, ‘it’s an outrageous imposition on my right to drive wherever I want regardless of everyone else’.

Exactly. When they stopped people cutting through the park from the south circular it had the same effect. No more care workers. They should concrete over the whole area and reclaim it for car parking. Could put a warehouse style pizza hut and a Frankie and bennys around the perimeter. Because, we’re all in favour of supporting independents, but only in so far as it aligns with prioritising cars in all circumstances.

Over a 1,000 affordable homes, a new park, jobs and businesses where there is currently a huge car park? I’ll take the former, yeh. I know you’re obsessed with encouraging more cars everywhere, but we actually need housing and this is not a sustainable or desirable vision for London imo: [Edited to add an image of a local 'strip mall', as apparently these only exist in the US']

😂 You OK? I don't believe anyone at all is arguing that illegal 'e-bikes' (actually more akin to an electric motorcycle than a pedal assist e-bicycle, as they have a throttle) should be 'forced through' (whatever that means). These are effectively motorbikes which are being driven illegally and from what the article suggests, are being rightly 'cracked down on'.

There are quite a few other cinemas nearby, and may well be one in the new development as I understand it. The bowling alley is a shame, but again there are others (Lewisham and Greenwich). As for pizza hut. I mean come on, seriously? If your vision for London is more strip malls / huge car parks with warehouse style chains dropped around them, well I don't know what to say tbh

Apparently the commitment to 'affordable' homes (we could have a whole thread on what 'affordable means in this context) is: Seems a better than the current, huge expanse of car parking imo.

This is so weird. London desperately needs new housing. They're taking a massive car park and creating 3,000 new homes, a 3.5 acre park, revitalised wetlands, new shops and offices. I hope that the designs are decent, and that there is some affordable housing, but whilst it's often true that the 'devil is in the detail', it's very hard to argue that the below is a better use of space than new housing, jobs, retail and public realm: ..some info on what's proposed here btw (a bit scant on detail): https://www.canadawater.co.uk/canada-water-masterplan

Not much detail, but has to be better than the massive car park that takes up most of the area currently: https://www.canadawater.co.uk/