malumbu

There used to be a brothel opposite the Crystal Palace Tavern. Apparently I'm led to believe. A person in the street told me I think the LTN stopped drive past business

Very relevant. Piles of bikes. I see this as a good thing. Up to local and national government, users and the company to sort it out. I'm simply pointing out that a number of you always post negative things. From my understanding users have to park Lime bikes responsibly, and take a photo. I don't know why the system is failing. I expect it can and will be sorted out. Why don't you write to the Transport Secretary and report back?

A photo of Oxford, not sure when, this was a common sight when I lived in the area many years ago. What did I think, wow, all those students cycling, all those cars not on the road. I'm sure there were grumpy people gnashing their teeth.

Who gives a fig about so called parking pressures, whether in your imagination or not. Can you not think of something positive to say about anything? A challenge - start a happy thread.

You are speaking as if Lime bike users are (a) a homogenous group and (b) from another planet. What is really sad about this forum is the sea of negativity. Hire bikes serve a really useful purpose. And I am not a user.

Well if they don't why not step up? I believe it for the police to enforce speed limits but if local community groups want to do similar I have no issues. Surely there is enough of you who are very angry who could get together.

Reading an old copy of London Cyclist I found an article on the best hill climbs for cyclists. Canobie Road and College Road were included. I can't find an electric version so have attached another article which gives Canobie/Westwood as number 1! https://www.broleur.com/top-ten-toughest-cycling-climbs-london-bergs/ Neither mention Sydenham Hill from the South Circ as that is dreadful due to the road surface and being so narrow. Keeps you fit cycling round here. May put old copies of London Cyclist up on this forum as you may find them interesting

??? my near misses have been on roads when pedestrians walk out in front of me. I have learned to tell when pedestrians are not looking so I can either brake, swerve, shout cheery warnings, or not so cheery warnings. It's the same as when I know that a driver is on their phone, or going to turn without indicating. It's because I am a courteous and safe cyclist, driver, motorcyclist and pedestrian. I recommend this to all road users.

So parking in a dangerous position trumps road safety? This obsession with Southwark doing everything to 'rip off 'the motorist is clouding opinion. They could have ticketed cars parked there in any case, it makes more sense to actually show where you can't park,

Parking near to junctions reduces the line of vision, as already discussed, and well shown in the photos above. Whatever you think of LTNs, CPZs, Southwark Council and the like surely none of you can be opposed to the minimum of parking 10m, as in the Highway Code, away from junctions. If anything you should criticise Southwark for not doing this right in the first place.

Why should I? It doesn't bother me both as a pedestrian and cyclist using the square. If it bothers you set up a neighbourhood cycle watch. Action not words.

I have no idea if it is being monitored and I don't care. If loads of pedestrians were being hurt I would expect action from the police and Southwark. Is this happening? I don't think so or else I would have heard about it. As you are concerned I have suggested that there is something you can practically do.

You could set up a local neighbourhood cycle watch, this would be similar to local speed watches, speak to the community police at their next safer neighbourhood meeting. I wont be joining you but I am serious about talking to the police if you believe this to be a such a major safety issue I did a parking watch outside a local school for a week, which the police supported. It deterred unsafe parking, and for some they stopped doing it after the end of the watch.

Absolutely, in the same way that road users should not cut junctions, taking left turns well away from the curb to maintain good site lines (not crossing the centre line except if there are obstructions (illegally parked cars, narrow roads or where there is an obstruction such as road works), and the right turn do not cut into the left hand lane. Its actually rule 242 Rule 243 DO NOT stop or park: near a school entrance anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space near the brow of a hill or hump bridge opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles in front of an entrance to a property on a bend where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities The other relevant section are worth a refresh too for example checking over your shoulder after stopping before opening the door.

This is brilliant. There are discussions elsewhere that we should have more faith in drivers as they will have to have demonstrated that they know the Highway Code. Thanks for alerting me to R 250, which I had to Google: Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 2500 kg laden weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are: at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow Well if you asked the majority of drivers they would be unaware. And I have passed both the car and motorcycle test. So extension of the double yellows will ensure that drivers do not fall foul of this regulation, parking without their lights on. Older motorists will recall a time when cars were in deed fitted with parking lights, ie a back light and side light on the drivers' side. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/parking-lights/ Nice one! Thanks Just shot myself in the foot as this will not apply to 20 mph roads.

You make a statement that you would trust a motorist over a cyclist. I question this. Then you are abusive. That speaks for itself

What do you base this on? Have you proof of Southwark lying? If so complain to them. Seems to be a sweeping generalisation on this site.

I expect for many of us this is the case. I'd start a separate thread but I imagine this is already as far as it will get.

This is getting unpleasant and not encouraging any debate. Have a safe day.

I still don't agree with your point. So at a point in time a driver has to show that they are familiar with the Highway Code. It doesn't stop most exceeding the speed limit. Do you really think that cyclists are not aware what a red light means? By all means discuss the relevance of ignoring red lights but don't suggest that cyclists are unaware. If you look back at various threads you will see that there is much complaining about cyclists by a few people who post prolifically. I and others consider this disproportionate to the harm and ignores the wider benefits of cycling.

What would George Washington said about all of this?

It's not a simple correlation, drivers have past their test therefore they are safer than cyclists. As has been said numerous times a motorised vehicle colliding into you will do far more harm than a bike. Many cyclists are also drivers/have past their driving or motorcycle test. Overall drivers are solely responsible for around half of cyclist fatalities and even more seriously injured. Numbers are skewed as for children and young cyclists, the cyclist is more often at fault. Ditto for pedestrian fatalities, ie the pedestrian is more likely to be at fault the younger they are. That said driving at 20 mph will reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and seriously injured whatever the primary cause eg crossing into traffic or drivers not paying attention. Worth a read, using DfT stats. https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists As said numerous times road user behaviour (including pedestrians) and reducing collisions is a political matter (obviously notwithstanding that the individual and society has a duty to prevent harm to themselves and others including parent's and carers educating their children). Government/Politicians can and should do more, but there are numerous good initiatives and programmes at national and local levels including cyclist training cycle routes and 20 mph zones. I'm sorry that you don't feel safe cycling. There is someone advertising cycle training on this site. I recommend advanced training to drivers and motorcyclists. I think there should also be a test for pedestrians! But this and cycle/cyclist registration ain't going to happen.

Gosh, do you look for an opportunity to make a political comment on every occasion? Do you limit yourself to shops paying higher wages with better working conditions for staff and accordingly higher prices?

The answer is to drive less. Most drivers couldn't give a fig about air quality and only raise it when they are unhappy about restrictions on motoring.

Used to be called heavy rock, more Blues inspired. Metal feels very different.