first mate

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.

It is never wise to assume Earl and 'improvement' is very much about perspective; if only life were all about aesthetics and how 'pretty' something looked could be our only priority. But, Vanity Square, the money wasting folly you want to roll out elsewhere, has been foisted on the area by an alleged cash-strapped council. Not only that, I doubt it will look as appealing or be as user friendly once careless cyclists come barrelling through in greater numbers and it becomes a handy Lime bike dumping ground.

Who are 'we'? Quite how you can support this huge expenditure in one of the wealthiest parts of the Borough, in a cost of living crisis, is astonishing. However, in similar vein to Alice's view above, it seems as though you are being deliberately provocative by raising what you know to be a traffic issue in the main section. Now why would you do that? Admin do you want to move this thread into the traffic section?

Of course, missing the point, if nothing is done to stop this rise in careless cycling behaviour people will eventually get hurt. That is the point. It is not a contest of which is worse, but and especially if you have your way, more and more people will cycle. If cycling on pavements becomes the norm it will be a problem. Lime etc... want to ramp up e-bike use and because these are not owned I believe those using them are more likely to do so in a cavalier fashion. We can already see this happening, not only in how they are left lying around but also the manner in which they are ridden.

Ah, Vanity Square, the multi million pound, unnecessary reconfiguration of a major junction, on the basis that Dulwich Village just has nowhere for people to meet and socialise, or children to gambol and play. And it is a wonderful place to pop a Christmas tree. Mind you, with the daily examples of careless cycling I have witnessed recently, pedestrians will need to keep their wits about them, as nowhere on Vanity Square is off limits for anyone on two wheels. There is also the emerging issue of where the lovely paving, unique to Vanity Square, was sourced, which seems rather at odds with this alleged jewel in Southwark's 'green' crown.

And still, nothing from Malumbu and others about the cyclist I encountered a few evenings ago on a narrow residential street path. He made me step back onto the kerb to let him through. The road was empty. The silence of most speaks volumes, you all clearly think this is fine. Of all the pro LTN folk on here, only Earl has said this kind of behaviour is wrong. On a thread about cycling on pavements, to choose to ignore a relevant comment and instead meander off into some monologue about advanced motoring skills is deflection of the most blinkered kind.

I also agree.

I have always been clear that I think dangerous/ careless driving is abhorrent and would support higher penalties as well as more compulsory courses. I do not seek to minimise the issues caused by irresponsible driving behaviour. I was also struck by how many of the examples of problematic vehicle use cited earlier by another poster involved those used for delivery or work. That is part of the problem. We are dependent on vehicle use in complex ways and simply trying to punish or shame users into 'compliance' is not the solution. The behaviour of organisations like Dulwich Roads seems to draw a lot on the stick approach and comes over as tribal, simplistic and a great way for spleen venting- little more. But, all that said, what I also find objectionable is the largely dismissive approach to careless cycling behaviour by those who seek to rid our area of cars. I actually find it bizarre. The same sort of behaviour that drives careless driving is likely to be behind careless cycling. Why wait for the second to increase and get worse? From where I am sitting that is exactly what some of you seem to be doing.

We are cyclists who are criticising certain cycling behaviours which are on the rise and need to be addressed. Why do you have such a problem doing the same? What do you think about the cycling behaviour I described above? Okay, not okay? Or will you just do your usual deflection routine " yeah but what about the cars and why are you all so angry"...?

Because Earl, this is a thread about careless cycling and cycling on pavements in particular. What about incidences like the one I describe a couple of posts above? What say you about choosing to cycle on a narrow pavement, no intention to dismount, even though you see two pedestrians in front of you on the same path? Instead, merrily making them step aside to let you through...oh and this next to a residential street that is completely devoid of any traffic? This is the thin end of the wedge. Surely even you can see that? What do we do about it? Or is point scoring with another poster your priority?

This evening, on one of the smaller residential streets off Lordship Lane, a cyclist trundled towards me on the narrow footpath and smiled at me as I stepped back onto the kerb to let him continue past - I did not really have much choice. The road was completely empty. I am reminded of Penguin's earlier post that many cyclists now seem to think they are simply pedestrians on two wheels. Quote

Deleted

Watching scrutiny sessions is the best way of determining what might happen. Southwark do have concerns about Lime and these have been articulated in meetings, but Lime are holding out one big fat carrot, which is funding infrastructure for hybrid use. It's going to be hard for the cash-strapped council -allegedly, except when it's Vanity Square and its Indian import paving- to turn that offer down.

I am aware of a spate of penalty notices being handed out to cyclists in the City of London, but not locally? If this is happening then that is a good thing, however from what I have seen locally it is not having the desired deterrent effect.

Remind us, where did Rockets say they "absolutely hate" Dulwich Roads? Why the casual misrepresentation? We have legislation and penalties in place to address careless driving; there is virtually nothing to address that of careless cycling. The "solution" seems to be to wipe out all cars (totally unrealistic) and just ignore the growing cycling issue.

I have to repeat Rockets question as to how many accidents, collisions or RTAs Mal had been involved in, especially those where they have been at fault? It sits oddly with the frequent advisory tone to others. I still cannot understand why it is so problematic to look at the relatively recent issues associated with careless cycling. Recent because more people are cycling, especially those using e-bikes, hire or otherwise. How would you address some of the emerging problems with careless cycling?