first mate

An interesting article for another thread perhaps but this one is about a specific incident that was drawn to our attention to make a point but where there is scant detail on the specifics. If you know more about that please do say, otherwise maybe start another thread on how to use the word accident. Otherwise, it just looks like more deflection.

Snowy said: Given the driver ran away we don't know if they were insured, whether the car was theirs etc which is why that blog says that the tax payer will have to bear the costs of the repairs to a memorial thats been there, unharmed, on a pedestrian island since the late 19th century, plus the costs of the emergency services etc If driver fled the scene there may be grounds to apply to DVLA to find out who legally owns the car etc. On the other hand, if it seems likely the car is not registered or is stolen then tracing the driver will be difficult and multiple illegal activities apply. The tax payer has to bear the costs of many types of crime but appreciate your need to highlight this example. Member 3.9k Posted 1 hour ago Rockets said: DKHB.. I am not the one fixating on the use of the word accident! No that was raised again by a Pro LTN poster, so perhaps have a word with them?

Do we know if the driver who fled the scene was also the owner of the car or was it stolen? It is not clear either if the vehicle was insured? As for speeding, put certain individuals into a car, onto an e-bike or e-scooter, and you'll get speeding and reckless behaviour- like running red lights and using powered vehicles on pavements. Yes, a car can do more damage but, as we already know, even a cyclist can kill someone if cycling at speed.

Of greatest interest is how this thread has shifted from one of outrage at an incident where it seems those most outraged were not clear how the incident occurred, to a discussion on how to correctly apply the word 'accident'. Go figure. Do we yet know if the incident involved accidental damage?

Except most people are not ward councillors. You'd hope your local rep wouldn't be so ready to take to social media before being crystal about the facts, but it seems that is what you Dulwich Roads lot do.

Not at all, it is really distasteful to see a local councillor have such a knee-jerk ( as well as predictably self-serving) response to an incident like this. I also agree with Rockets that it sounds out of the Dulwich Roads playbook, so much so that some of us now wonder if much separates Dulwich Roads and Dulwich Ward Councillors?

Leeming's post came off as making an assumption this was a bad driver who deserved to be punished and foot the bill for damage caused. I'd prefer my local councillor to hold off until in full possession of the facts, especially before using the incident as an opportunity for some self-congratulatory spin.

But if we are talking path users ...I have had to step aside for more cyclists recently than has ever been the case before. You just did not get so many people cycling or e-biking on non cycleway pavements. Back on thread, surely, especially where e-bikes are concerned, surely insurance is a good idea? They are powered vehicles and while they may not cause as much damage as a car I still would not want to be hit by either an e-bike or someone travelling at speed on a pushbike.

You may be missing a point here, as the inference seems to be it is the fault of the owner for even owning a car that might, in theory, be stolen and driven dangerously/carelessly:)

This seems a rather self-serving inflammatory post by a local councillor. I guess he must know exactly what happened or he would not be so eager to comment?

Great, so there should be a way to issue penalties.

The way this is described makes it almost sound deliberate- was it? If the result of dangerous or careless driving the driver should and I don't doubt will be suitably penalised/ prosecuted. However, there may be other reasons; a medical event, avoiding a dog or cat etc.. On balance I would guess it is careless or dangerous driving but it is a guess. The hope is someone knows exactly what happened?

I do think e-bikes should be licensed or have some form of i/d, especially hire bikes. In this digital age there must be way, surely? The cost could be shared with the various companies that hire them out.

Mal you started a thread on the subject of licensing, can you continue your discussion on there? I erroneously posted this on the wrong thread: The thing is, it is already the case that cyclists can be fined for cycling on paths that are not shared, so why not add this to the work of community wardens as they do their CPZ rounds?

The thing is, it is already the case that cyclists can be fined for cycling on paths that are not shared, so why not add this to the work of community wardens as they do their CPZ rounds?

Cardinal flaw in your point is that One Dulwich are not 'my spokespeople'. Are LCC and Southwark Council yours? Your snipe about transparency is laughable, especially when this Labour Council has been anything but where the LTN/CPZ saga is concerned. A lack of transparency is precisely what so many of us are angry about. You carry on and take comfort from your delusion that this is all a Tory plot managed by shady and opaque figures with a hidden agenda. Politicians of all hues will always jump on bandwagons, after all. I hate to break it to you though, but me and probably all the other naysayers on here are nowt more glamorous than hacked off local residents.

Ditto, except I'll skip the meeting up bit. The likes of DR find it excruciating that a group posting online manages to accurately reflect the views of many local residents without those residents necessarily being involved with said group. I think it is so scary for Council cheerleaders like DR because they cannot pin down, undermine or control the dissenting views and the objections just keep coming. As for the conspiracy theory that dissenting views voiced on here are all part of a secretive political group spinning an agenda, seriously, get a grip.

I know you have had a couple of rather condescending replies, advising you to get to grips with technology and live in the modern world. I sympathise with you. I think some of us should try to be a bit more empathetic and acknowledge not everyone is a technophile. Try to see things from a perspective that is not just our own. Also, why give the banking sector carte blanche to remove any sort of human/public facing role. Is this really what we want?

Seems other people also have eyes and are seeing things differently. I am waiting for the Lime bikes to arrive, which they will. Most likely spring/summer. Cyclists still careering onto the pedestrians areas. Yesterday a young male cycling on pavement in the Village made me step aside for him.

Your presumption is incorrect.

Mal is so transparent and predictable, exhorts posters to stay on subject but allows himself the freedom to get in all his usual digs: Posters that dare say anything critical about cyclists are "angry", then in virtually every other line we get the following "cars speeding, speeding drivers, freeflowing traffic speeding, the behaviour of motorists, the need for more bike lanes, cars speeding, parked cars blocking". It is almost like brainwashing. So really this is a thread about Mal's favourite subject...cars. Wow, if the cycling instructors cannot get this right, then we have no hope. Were these private or Southwark Council paid instructors? As a cyclist, I would like to see more fellow cyclists stopping at red lights and dismounting when they get to pavements. I would also like to see those using e-bikes take more care when they overtake slower cyclists at speed and mire care when they finally park the bike. These things would make cycling better, as far as I am concerned.

Oh yes, and just wait until the Lime bikes start to be 'stored' (dumped) there.

The ones I see are never used as seating, have weeds sprouting at all angles and look like something a child would knock up from old, rotting pallet wood. It really is not a great look and in such contrast to lovely Dulwich Square, with its (Shhh, India-sourced) sandstone paving.

Rockets said: "These are elected officials entrusted by us to do the right thing - they have not done that here and it makes a mockery of their environmental stance and is beyond embarrassing - you have to ask just how much oversight and governance the likes of Cllr McAsh are providing. They have also embarrassed those supporters who have blindly stood by them with their support for the changes in DV." Greening the environment, one of the justifications posited for the extraordinarily expensive and multiple reconfigurations of Dulwich junction, has really been undermined by this latest revelation. Has the Council or McAsh made any kind of statement about this?

Given the government's stated desire to create more housing and general loosening of planning laws, this seems very contrary of Southwark.