malumbu

Perhaps the OP could change the title of this thread as clearly nobody is being scammed. Or Admin.

Oh dear Hen, get one and enjoy the benefits, Although I am afraid it is unlikely that you will be breaking the speed limit.

This was a fascinating meta study carried out under the Tories when there was general support for 20mph. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bf2bab940f0b6078acc6f4d/20mph-headline-report.pdf It's a bit difficult to wade through but shows that around half of drivers exceed 20mph in residential areas, and 16 % when 20mph were adopted on roads that run freely ie where there is more congestion drivers adapt better to 20mph as they are used to doing lower speeds. There are threads discussing 20mph and I have posted it before, but with the interest on this thread in somehow enforcing a 20mph limit for cyclists when very few do this speed I thought it worth reminding you. Shame that more wasn't done after the publication of this report. 20mph zones have been with us for a number of years and new drivers will have learned on these roads.

Barmy conspiracy theorist, the flu jab causes cancer and Covid was a hoax to control us by the international Freemasons/wokerati! Climate change is real, just think about the last 25 years. C40 is aspirational and I doubt whether cities have many powers but eating less meat (I'll let David Attenborough explain that to you) and reducing air flights is something we all should be doing.

Do you cycle? Unless (a) you are a competitive racer (b) going down hill with no traffic (c) on an illegal bike few cyclists do this speed. Rather than daft suggestions like this start of with getting motorists sticking to 20mph And, has been said too many times not practicable to have speedometers on bikes.

Not particularly interested in the application, unsure on what the planning officers views are, maybe that it is rejected or recommended for rejection in any case, although ultimately developers appeal and often get decisions overturned so better if the planning officers work with the developer to get something more suitable. With so many objections I expect that there will be some action. My only point is the many comments on student accommodation. I am sure that some of you were students once, and that does not always mean you can rent within walking distance of the college. Particularly so in London. If you feel developers are cashing in too much on the easy option then please do write to Ellie to try to influence the government's agenda. Whoever lives there then they deserve suitable space, light, windows, common areas etc. If it is students I would expect that not many will be bringing cars. A development closer to me was paused as council wanted more family accommodation rather than one and two bedroom apartments. Developers got this decision overturned. and that was it, after the building had been left as a concrete skeleton for quite some time. View is that all the apartments were sold off plan, to overseas investors, buy to rent. Again an issue for government, particularly where investors are money laundering. There is much empty new build in London I understand owned by overseas investors. https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/why-so-many-empty-homes-in-london-b1077385.html

Ah the CPT, yes I time travel back to the time when it was very different. Quizzes were splendid.

So there are 3 threads complaining about cyclists, three complaining about LTNs, four if you include pedestrianisation/Dulwich square, two complaining about enforcement/driving penalties, one complaining about a possible CPZ and if you go back a little further complaints about the ULEZ extension. And this one where there is a complaint against an X feed about dangerous road users. Many of these are interchangable such as this thread now complaining about cycling. An alien from another planet may surmise that the citizens of SE London are very car centric. Fortunately there are many of us who consider the measures above that encourage less driving and more active travel, with all the benefits that this brings, are a good thing.

This thread is about an X feed that highlights dangerous behaviour of road users. There are other threads for people who specifically dislike cyclists.

To put the boot on the other foot it amused me in the 90s into the 00s when the Dulwich Woodhouse very much welcomed families in the day, particularly at weekends, when the garden was open, but not when the garden was shut. Happy to take the money when the sun shined. I remember one cold but sunny day being told that kids were unwelcome, but then made them open the door to the garden. Still a much better pub in those days, as was the Clock and all of the Young's estate, irrespective of the old couple who managed it for years. I met them in the Morpeth near the Tate when they had moved to there's about 15 years ago, and they complained about running the Woodhouse There is a sensible balance in letting families in it can go wrong in both ways.

So?

Good luck! A feature of the new millennium is pubs pretending to be restaurants, but just serving generic food, with much of it, if not all of it, preprepared. And at near restaurant prices. Sad that when I eat in pubs my expectations are low ... But.... Sometimes it's a nice surprise and hope Cherry Tree delivers. Bit late but the Waverley in Nunhead is good in my experience.

Bit of a daft thread, or a fun one until people started to be serious

Good please boycott. I'll enjoy my evening drink with adults. I've done the pub/kids stuff, but not entitled!

Wheels for Wellbeing do a wonderful job, thanks for raising. Do visit them at Herne Hill Velodrome https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/our-campaigns/campaigning/guide/

Babur but maybe sold out

Upper Dulwich bottom Describes locations just off Dulwich, that pretend they are. And a private joke from another community site on a distant planet.

The comments in the BBC article are telling, sentiment along the lines that why did it take the UK so long, and a no brainer

When I moved to London many moons ago I was shocked that people bought sandwiches. Surely, I thought, everybody makes their own. Still haven't got my head around it. I'd be disappointed if M&S threw sandwiches away. Pret for example is known to donate unsold ones to charity. https://foodservicefootprint.com/pret-a-manger-fighting-food-waste/ Maybe I should write to Ellie asking her to speak to the Food minister.

South Dulwich, the new front line

Yes, and there is a great discussion about this on the South Dulwich Forum, apparently some people from Sydenham Hill are a bit grumpy about the name change.

Wow, That was weird, first time I knowingly have had a question answered by AI: Stock management Housing associations may sell properties to invest in improvements or develop new ones. Funding Housing associations may sell properties to fund new developments, such as in expensive central London. Profit Housing associations may sell properties to generate profits that can be used to fund affordable housing. Housing associations are non-profit organizations that reinvest profits from the sale of properties into developing and offering more affordable properties. They may also use the funds for maintenance or improvements to their existing properties. Some say that housing associations have become more like property speculation outfits. They argue that residents and communities should be informed about which homes are being sold, why, and how the money is being reinvested. There are also shock horror articles too, from the Guardian and the like

Personal experience is relevant, it informs are views. Some perceive cyclists to be swarming the pavements. Others that this is not an issue at all. Some the middle ground, like me, yes it happens, it is an annoyance, not a particular danger, but the benefits of cycling far outweigh the harm. Not really sure why you are picking a fight.

I don't use Deliveroo, and similar companies, due to how they treat their delivery riders - gig economy, little or no training and happy for them to use illegal vehicles etc. If they employed them, provided them vehicles, lights, paid the London Living Wage and the like I would think differently. Both the Tory and Labour government ignore this, but good on Louise Haigh for calling out P&O for their employment record. Just let me check Bob, you did want a political lecture? If so I am your person, and it is free of charge on this forum, although in the pub you'd need to get me a drink.

Thank you for your explanation. Stepping back I still do not see why such a strong reaction, so strong you felt the need to post here. It seems to depend on the interpretation of "a person under covers" and "horrific and tragic crash". On the first from a search on Google this is not a common term for death. The second is subjective, and where anyone is seriously hurt then I consider appropriate. People speculated and there was community chatter long before social media, I expect the citizens of ancient Rome would gossip at the baths about the latest chariot crash. My perspective is that Dulwich Roads is providing a useful service to the community highlighting poor behaviour from road users - I expect that this could include to all modes including pedestrians on the road and skaters, This then brings me to the question of how you were aware of the X/Tweet. Are you following Dulwich Roads because you are concerned about road safety? Or is this part of your ongoing issues with Southwark, road restrictions, and cyclists. If so this appears a little removed and this matter, The post on X by Horrified of HH is particularly telling - LTNS are no excuse for bad driving. I also said that I would give the link about the increase in prosecutions due to dash cams and helmet cams. It wasn't helpful for the BBC to just refer to cyclists in the article as it is motorists providing evidence too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly29m5rrd4o I've posted on the loading bay thread about driving standards, it's probably better here so cut and pasted relevant sentences. Very few drivers get any refresher or advanced training after their test. A few years ago, I think it was under Labour, young/new drivers were encouraged to do further training, and I recall that this can reduce what can be enormous insurance premiums. But not sure that this took off and there is also resentment about black boxes. So you can pass your test at 17 and have no refresher training for 70 years or more. For most the only post-test training is speed awareness courses. Now if you had a programme of random retesting 90 percent plus would fail. Poor observations, poor signalling, poor positioning, poor anticipation. But the resistance to any compulsion to improve driving skills would be massive and lose any government significant votes. Added - this refers to poor driving standards rather than dangerous driving, ie those that know what they are doing is wrong