first mate

The issue is already muddied because regulated e-bikes look like non-regulated e-bikes and may behave in the same way, by mounting pavements and running red lights. Because they look very similar legislation has to apply to all or none. I prefer the former and, obviously, this would include push cycles. Glad you agree there is a difference in cycling culture over here. I think we all know the reasons why that may be, but we are where we are and the more 'unhealthy' speed obsessed aspect needs to change.

Earl, please cut it out. I am not lying or making things up, as you keep inferring. You keep saying you want a 'good faith' discussion, so try to practise what you preach. I very much doubt you know what 'everyone in Dulwich Village' experiences or thinks, not least because you do not even live in the area. Does it occur to you that I see stuff you don't because I am a local? What are the dates for the data you are looking at and what is the data you are comparing it to? Do we need really need to wait for a couple of accidents to happen before we address this? If as many cars were daily running red light, I am sure you would want it addressed. Doing some spot checks would be a great idea and once word gets around it might act as some sort of deterrent. of course, if we can do spot checks for running red lights, without the need for licensing, we could probably do the same for exceeding 20mph (using bye laws). Despite your statements that changes to the junction are five years old, I must remind you that there have been major changes in only the last 6 months. Visually the area looks very different and I think that may be contributing to some of the behaviour.

Given your recent behaviour, Earl, I think it is a bit rich for you to be calling out others. Leaving that aside, I think if we were talking only about push cycles, you would probably have a point but the issue is muddied by e-bikes, some of which do not go faster than 15.5 mph and others which do. You and others slide around that point by saying that the souped up variety are legally not bicycles but scooters. The problem is they behave exactly like cyclists, driving on pavements, running red lights and so on. Do we really have enough data about the behaviour of the whole range of e-bike riders, to support your assertion, given how new the e-bike phenomenon is over here? I also read research somewhere, cannot remember exactly, that cyclist behaviour in the UK was very different from that in say The Netherlands, where cycling behaviour tends to be more sedate and more respect given to pedestrians, with many more sit up and beg type bikes. The assertion was that over here speed and getting around as fast as possible dominates. It was felt that a 'lycra lad' culture contributed to this.

The notice boards are a reasonable size, surely there should be room for both types of leaflets, after all we are meant to be a community? Unless space is extremely limited, it feels a little divisive for a councillor to say private businesses cannot post. All businesses are important for the lifeblood of a community too, aren't they?

Thank you for finally acknowledging these events are happening. I am asking what should be done to address these issues? This is a genuine question? I honestly believe it an example of an accident waiting to happen.

Whatever you are then Earl, cycling activist, born again cyclist, I find it odd you have zero response to the behaviour I witnessed yesterday and that I am seeing with increasing frequency. As someone that wants to massively increase the volume of cyclists on our streets, how do you think we should address the issue of cyclists running red lights and cycling on pavements?

I am surprised that our cycling activists, Earl and Malumbu, have absolutely no comment about me being chastised by an e-bike rider for being in his way as he ran a red light, followed by 5 other cyclists, two carrying children. Don't you think this is careless/dangerous or is it just another 'shoulder shrugging' moment, as far as you are concerned?

This evening, as I was crossing Dulwich Square at the red lights on foot I was warned by a cyclist on an e-bike, "to be careful" as circumvented me and went sailing through the lights. He was followed by a group of cyclists, around 5, two carrying children, who also all went through the red lights.

I think Earl you miss the point, your constant deflection, obfuscation, nitpicking, messing with forum etiquette, are ways to detract and sabotage, we all know that but repeatedly trying to rubbish points made by others, by almost any means you can dream up, in the hope they will eventually give up, is akin to censorship. Admit it Earl, you want to close down all objection to LTNs, CPZs, Dulwich Square and anything that threatens your views on those subjects. You seem absolutely desperate in your attempts to do this, even going so low as to accuse me of lying and making stuff up. It all began to make sense when Rockets revealed your shirty post to James Barber about how local speed humps were spoiling your driving experience, many years ago. I guess you must have experienced something akin to a religious conversion around cycling and like many converts you now feel it necessary to cajole others to join up.

My guess is posters might think you have set up an online clothing emporium of some sort. I do like your new portrait by the way, it is alarmingly similar to how I have pictured you, in the past.

Earl you are hilarious, your sheer wit and invention are wrong-footing us all.

Perhaps it's one of those alternative 'facts'.

I guess for the conspiracy theorists on here at least if the One Dulwich updates appear largely on a thread called One Dulwich updates, it means you can hold your noses and ensure you don't click. For others, it means they know where they can read the updates. Some forumites may not be aware of One Dulwich, it might be a welcome surprise.

Hang on, given current trends in cycling behaviour locally the risk to pedestrians might increase if more people cycle as they are doing. For the most part, cars do not routinely drive on local pavements, nor have I seen a cars running red lights with the same frequency, locally; granted that is just what I have seen.

As I said, LTNs, CPZ, Dulwich Square, One Dulwich, all interlinked, so any could pop up on many of the threads really.

I feel sure it would be easy to get an app that provides a beep, when a speed limit is exceeded. So you do not have to carry the phone in one hand at all, you just need to be able to hear a beep. That aside, many cyclists mount their phone onto the handle bars. As we know, hire e-bikes already have speed limiters. That said, if cycling speed is not an issue, I wonder why that is? On the contrary, far from disincentivising cycling, a bit more structure and regulation might make it feel a bit less like the wild west, where anything goes. This evening, counted 5 cyclists, two of them younger teenagers by the look of it, running red lights at dusk.

I reckon if One Dulwich were being awarded and proclaimed as anti LTN and CPZ campaigner of the year by something like the 'London campaign for increasing cars on our roads', plus enjoying multiple meetings with local Dulwich Councillors and then seeing their vision turned into a reality as the cash strapped council ignore local consultations against but somehow find resources to build lots of new roads with free parking, then yes, I think we would all want to take a closer look. As it is, One Dulwich is a voice, a perspective, that is all. It feels to many locals that the imposition of many of these road changes has been extremely undemocratic, high-handed and paternalistic.

20mph is largely self-enforcing; intermittent/ random enforcement works in other scenarios, so can work in regard to cycling too. Small children are likely to have an adult to guide them, though is toddlers can cycle over 20mph then that is impressive! Older children can make use of a mobile phone with speedometer app but training by some of your fave organisations might also help here. No reason why parking wardens could not be trained up to ticket traffic offences like jumping red lights as well as speeding 20mph zones, cycling on non cycle pavements. I think 20mph zones can be controlled via bye laws? Just don't see how applying the same speed limit to all road users would makes roads more dangerous, nor can I see how it would deter people from cycling? One of the most risky aspects of cycling I have encountered while cycling is having another cyclist zoom past, at close quarters, with no warning at all- these are generally, but not always, e-bike users. You already know about my experiences as a pedestrian on the receiving end of careless/ reckless cycling behaviour.

Perhaps you count yourself among them; But the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee Chair was allegedly not that open or transparent, as when they were named in this forum I believe admin was asked to remove their name. No problem with that, of course, but it rather shows that some are not as open and transparent as you would have us think.

Well maybe not the best way to make your point Earl, it just looks a bit silly. I think largely threads have been recreated when they were locked. Aside from that, I think you have issue with interlinked topics being mentioned on multiple threads. You object because you feel LTNs, CPZ and Dulwich Square are all completely discrete entities that are completely unrelated. Whereas, we have shown they are all interlinked.

Just noticed that Earl, one of the posters who has complained long and hard about there being multiple threads discussing LTN, as well as repeatedly stating that related changes are 5 years old and to desist, has just now started another thread about LTNs?! Bizarre.

Yes and by some accounts in quite recently, which makes inclusion of that information all the more relevant.

People are free to subscribe to any groups, whether One Dulwich or those with influence/ contributing to the agenda of the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee. Posters are also free to contribute to threads, however hard you try to censor those views. The above is relevant to this thread because One Dulwich gives voice to those locals who object to/question imposition of an agenda by a council seemingly overly influenced by cycling lobby groups like LCC.

Because, as just explained, they are all interlinked and One Dulwich addresses those links.

Thing is, as we now know, CPZ, LTN (and Dulwich Sq) all interlinked, so showing how LCC in cahoots with Labour has successfully managed to get both measures installed locally, against the will of the majority of residents consulted, can be placed in threads on local CPZ, LTN or Dulwich Square.