first mate

What they demonstrate is what happens when you deliberately create parking pressure by any means possible, as Southwark Council is doing.

I take it this is not being monitored then? How odd, given the rollout of e-bike TMOs , all over the borough. If you conduct experimental, large scale changes to the environment, surely you should monitor for negative as well as positive impacts?

Are you seriously denying Southwark's stated aim to reduce car use while also monetising it? It is a cynical pursuit of money by creating problems. You know that very well. Again, there was no parking issue in the Dulwich area until Southwark started to create one. Also such intense concern about an alleged sightlines issue, but intensely relaxed about the growing issue of cyclists and high powered e-bikes riding in pedestrianised areas- and seemingly no monitoring of this.

I would suggest that this is now an unsuitable site for this event. Not only are they now extending the length of the event but changing of the entrance/ access may have a much greater detrimental impact on the park environment and on other park users. By allowing this, can the council really claim to be green?

Do we know if cycling impacts in pedestrianised areas, like pavements etc is being monitored?

Nail on head. Extended double yellows are just one example of how the council deliberately create parking pressure. It is so cynical.

Of course they are doing it to create parking pressure, they want that CPZ revenue.

Is data collected for pedestrian spaces (pavements; Dulwich sq pedestrianised areas) as well as roads/cycle ways and does all data include impacts from bicycles and all types of e-bike?

Given that e-bike TMOs are still being rolled out and use of these likely to increase we should also pay attention to how pedestrian/ cyclist incidents data is being gathered and emerging trends.

Isn't it the case that there may be misreporting or under reporting of pedestrians experiencing physical impact or even injury from a cyclist, because incidents occurring in public spaces ( places like Dulwich Sq, pavements) are not included?

This is the very essence of cyclist myopia! You are so resistant to any sort of testing or regulation for cyclists but want pedestrians to pass a test. Good grief.

If the combined policies only appear to improve air quality, that is not a very convincing result. We need to be clear that there is a quantifiable, consistent improvement in air quality.

If trees are being removed to facilitate event trackway and vehicle movement that is worrying and flies in the face of Southwark's alleged environmental concerns. I take it, the tree pictured above was not diseased?

And yet, it is fine to post about dangerous driving? Grassroots opinion drives political decisions. I think people should post on here about whatever they feel strongly about. Please consider your constant advisories surplus to requirements.

Stop making excuses for dangerous cycling behaviour; addressing this does not take away from the real menace that is dangerous driving- both are issues that require attention. Roads are dangerous; let's not allow footpaths to also become dangerous. Perhaps we should all start asking for more enforcement of all road users, or find other ways of enforcing. Malumbu, Can you also stop using your trademark hyperbole about other posters to ramp up your own position. The OP was not 'raging' they were making a totally valid point and deserve to be treated with respect. Thanks March 46 for a helpful link. A number of us refuse to use these delivery services but I do not think it is likely to have enough uptake to make a difference.

So glad you are sorted, Sue. Such an easy mistake for some of us to make 🙄

Oh Snowy, still you persist. What is it you are trying to achieve? Just when this thread had moved on to more sensible ground you try to take it back into weird territory again. The fact remains, making a post about an incident that on the one hand you want to be an example (quite rightly) of dangerous driving but then also say the post contains a funny joke, just dilutes whatever message it is you are trying to make. Why not stick to the fact that this looks likely to be another example of dangerous driving. We can all agree that is serious and not a joking matter. Apologies Snowy, I see you have now clarified. Let's just stick to this being another worrying example of dangerous driving.

FWIW, concern at the growing number of bikes and powerful e-bikes, consistently exceeding 20mph, while riding on pavements as well as jumping red lights- even at busy junctions, is also very much about safety and concerns about this and about dangerous driving in cars and larger vehicles should not be mutually exclusive. If you view the roads as already dangerous, do you also want to see pavements and crossings at red lights made even more dangerous by turning a blind eye to reckless cycling behaviour? Should this thread be in the traffic section?

There is another post on this in the main section and someone said there was an incident with a Mercedes in the same area recently. That seems odd. I do not know much about cars but this most recent looks very expensive. As you say, let's hope no-one was injured.

Yes, posting a picture of an apparently serious incident involving a car, then removing the picture and saying it was meant to be drawing a jokey parallel between dangerous driving and a computer game, is a massive deflection.

I think that pales into comparison with describing it as like a computer game and making it into a joke.

It is hard to believe this was not considered well in advance, either by the council or by GALA. Cllr Catherine Rose is adamant she wants to monetise parks, so this is a way to justify changing the event footprint and creates precedent for yet more changes and park event creep.

I think most of us were focussed on the potential seriousness of the issue. Likening that incident to a computer game was the last thing that would occur. Weird.

I think quite a few people will be confused by the purpose of March46 's post, now with picture removed, but which some of us thought was meant to be another example of dangerous driving (a number of us hoping there were no casualties). But apparently, according to Snowy, this post involved a hilarious joke? Eh? On a thread titled "Dangerous drivers everywhere". Bizarre!

Don't think e-bike crime is a joking matter.