first mate

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.

E-bikes are currently more associated with other types of criminal activity.

Yes, but since m46 posted it surely they know a bit more, especially roughly when it happened?

Still interested to know when this happened? Any other information? There is no info when you click on the picture; you have to sign into something. So assuming whoever posted this knows more and can share?

Okay, so perhaps those on here who continually suggest that anyone that so much as entertains some of the views expressed by One Dulwich is a crazed, mail-reading, petrol-head, and probably part of some opaque right wing conspiracy to do goodness knows what (but some even have included vaccine denial) should desist. It is also the case that some of the very nastiest and lowest personal attacks on posters on here have been made by LCC/LTN supporters, and have included disgusting comments about mental health.

I also hope nobody was hurt. Awful for the homeowners and must have given them a fright, not to mention having to pay for a new brick wall. Is there any information on the date this happened and circumstances?

LCC and its various off shoots does present as a sort of community, working to shared aims, with lots of advisories/scripts for its members to use to achieve those aims.

I don't think you can really describe the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee, chaired by an award winning LCC activist of the year, as truly apolitical? Weren't a number of those committee sessions also attended and supported by incumbent Labour Councillors?

Glad you got sorted. Meantime, hoping for an update from someone on what happened at the GALA consultation meeting with local residents, a few days ago. Especially interested in thinking on their proposed event extension and footprint.

The vehicles shown in the photo above are bikes that are powered. It is hard to tell, just from the photos, how fast each bike can go. Glad we can agree that most would not refer to them as "mopeds".

I have no information on that. I'd imagine GALA would be happy to advise you direct. I am interested to know what happened at the consultation meeting a few days ago and am hoping that someone from FOPRP can share. The concern is that it is proposed to extend the event footprint and timeframe. If successful, this could set precedent for further extensions and for other events organisers to bid for slots throughout summer, in a scenario similar to what has happened at Brockwell Park. This is not a flight of fancy, Cllr Catherine Rose has stated intention to monetise parkland.

Yes, but wondering why the picture that is the reason for this particular thread has been removed? Just to add, Malumbu has posted before about incidents he has had with pedestrians when he was out cycling, caused, he said, by them not looking where they were going.

Did anyone manage to get to this? What was the feedback?

Why has M64 removed the picture to the alleged incident?