first mate

Have you stopped driving cars Malumbu? My guess is not. If you, of all people, are still driving every so often and making those long trips to France, then I fail to see how the car-free utopia you envisage will ever be? CPZ will not dramatically stop car ownership or journeys, it just costs the owner more. LTN will not stop car ownership or journeys they just displace traffic. Not a fan of Farage at all, but amusing, and possibly revealing, you would dictate how he should pronounce his own name.

A Council with absolutely no mandate for borough wide CPZ, or indeed a local DV CPZ, just needs to get on and impose a largely unwanted agenda on to us all. There you have it. It seems the majority of resident consultees are 'moaners' , in your view. But, as we know, consultations don't count. So majority views are just discarded and I would guess that Councillors also label the majority who disagree with their agenda as an inconvenience and as 'moaners'. We can ask what the point of consultations is and may conclude that it is part of a process that must be done for the council to move on with its agenda, that is it. But the majority against that council agenda are discounted as 'moaners'. What does count are the extremely influential pro LTN and pro CPZ pressure groups that seem to have the Council's ear. What they advise seems to be what is done. As we also know, many of them are not even local but they set our local agenda on roads and traffic policy.

The Council need CPZ in Dulwich Ward to put pressure on parking elsewhere. This is all about moving towards more and more CPZ...this is what the council want but it has been blocked in consultation after consultation, as in the most re cent Dulwich Ward consultation where only one road wanted CPZ. The council then ignore the wishes of the majority of residents and go ahead and install a CPZ that a majority of those consulted say they do not want. I'll wait for the usual replies that consultations are not votes; not every resident responds to a consultation etc. Let's be clear though, the stated council agenda is for borough wide CPZ and they will force it through. They do not listen to residents; virtually every move is box ticking to give the appearance of listening, including the DV consultation.

Yep, if it is not Earl's daily experience then it is not true. Earl the man who preaches about cognitive biases.

Is it still gridlocked up at Sydenham Hill/ Kirkdale or is it now resolved?

Not Earl's only bad, he has now insinuated that my recent experiences with cyclists on footpaths are not true. I actually find that really offensive. I can assure Earl that every case is completely true. It seems Earl can only accept something if it is his own experience and anything that contradicts that must be a falsehood. Isn't he the one that has banged on and on about cognitive biases?

It will be interesting long term to see how well the landscaping / planting is looked after. The beds at the Tessa Jowell Centre are a mess. Who pays for the upkeep? The main issue though is that cyclists are not adhering to the bits meant to be cycled on but using the pedestrian areas too. That should be the focus here. Yesterday, walking out of the park onto the pedestrian only footpath, I was nearly taken out by a male on a Lime bike, who had decided to mount the pavement. He swore at me for being in his way!

Hoping it has been shelved too. My view is that if people can get away with souping up an e-bike they will. Technically it ceases to be a legal e-bike but it still looks like one at distance, meaning some may be more incentivised to risk speeding without the responsibilities of owning a motorbike, especially when money is short. Applying the same speed limit to all vehicles just makes everything clearer and may be a bit more of a deterrent for some. What would be the downside? I agree about food delivery services. Never use them.

The advent of e-bikes surely makes the case for e-bikes adhering to same speed limits as cars. Can't think why there would be an issue with this. I also like to see all cyclists adhere to park speed limits.

But here you are; you are engaging with it. It is amusing that you, along with various other anti car/pro LTN posters on here, keep trying to shut this stuff down. Why? Why the need to even try? As I have said before, I am reasonably sure that most of the posters that disagree with your stance are annoyed local residents who dislike the way the council have handled their strategy on road closures, sometimes using less than transparent methods, spending millions on projects like Dulwich Junction in the process. Why don't you become one of those people you say cannot be bothered to engage with 'it' and stop airing your frankly outlandish conspiracy theories on here?

Was it though? It could also be read as just another very thinly disguised way to complain about motorists. If it really was purely about improving cycling routes then I am simply amazed you have not really addressed road surfaces, other than a brief mention of Sydenham Hill (too steep for me I'm afraid; I have to get off and walk). I find potholes and uneven ridges at the edges of roads one of the greatest hazards when cycling and this makes me very nervous cycling in the dark.

If not the case I doubt the govt would give the advisory I quoted earlier. Sorry your sentence not making much sense, are you saying that I leap to wild conclusions and this really upsets me?!🤣

✨

In situations like the above, the govt advises it may be useful to contact DVLA to find out the registered keeper/often the legal owner (as in having legal responsibility for the vehicle). I'm sorry if some of you think this advice is incorrect but there it is. It seems we are now into 'when is an accident not an accident' territory again, in fact any kind of hair splitting exercise to deflect from the original discussion. Malumbu, are you sure your involvement with DVLA was not something to do with the many speeding fines you seem to have accrued when you were a more regular driver of cars? 🤫

Phew! 😄

I think they are far more invested in arguing whether an accident can ever be an accident if it involves a car. Yes, I think Snowy may hold some sort of forum record for laughing emoji responses.

Not only that, permanent solutions (I am sure the OP does not mean this) are largely illegal: While foxes are not protected for conservation purposes in England, it is illegal to use the following to kill foxes (or moles and mink): self-locking snares bows and crossbows explosives other than legal ammunition for a licensed firearm live birds or animals, as bait or live decoys gas or poisons It is also illegal to: block or destroy fox earths if they are occupied use dogs to hunt foxes

One of the aggravated taking without consent- do you know which one applied or were you just guessing too? If you genuinely know then do spill? One of the aggravated taking without consent- do you know which one applied or were you just guessing too? If you genuinely know then do spill? On that second point, I and others are waiting to get the facts as opposed to what "appears" to have happened.

So you also think the govt advisory is wrong? Clearly they see a potentially useful relationship between a registered keeper and legal responsibility where a car has been involved in an accident. In terms of the Leeming stuff, unlike you and him, a number of us have kept an open mind about what happened, because, like the fountain accident, it seems at the time of posting, at least, no-one was sure. So no, I am not agreeing. However, it is typical of you and your chums to try to pretend someone has admitted to something they have not. So you know do you that the car was stolen? So what are you suggesting, that all cars should be banned because one might be stolen and then driven dangerously? Seriously? Or that numerous streets be made traffic free because someone might steal a car and drive it dangerously? What is your point?

Didn't say they necessarily were, we have established that, but they may well be, hence the govt advisory on how to possibly identify the registered keeper/owner/person with legal responsibility for a car, in the case of an accident involving a car, where the driver has left the scene. Or are you saying that the govt website advisory is incorrect? And...if by your example, if the damage is paid for then that is a result, isn't it? Damage having to be paid for by the taxpayer was one of the points being made about the fountain and Cllr Leeming in another example. So if going after the registered keeper means damage is paid for one way or another then good. I just do wonder if the fountain accident was the result of an untaxed/uninsured/ unregistered vehicle? In which case the real issue is much more one of criminality.

DKHB, if there was no chance of the registered keeper being or knowing the owner do you really think a government website would be suggesting contacting DVLA to find out the above? I mean, if ownership and registered keeper were two totally unrelated categories you might have a point. Come on. " Who is the legal owner of a car? The legal owner of a car in the UK is whoever has registered the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This person will be responsible for keeping all documentation up to date and ensuring that any road tax due on the vehicle is paid. It’s also important to note that just because someone has bought or leased a vehicle, they are not automatically considered to be its legal owner. To be recognised as such, they must register the car in their own name with the DVLA."

Request information about a vehicle or its registered keeper from DVLA Contents Overview Request information about another vehicle or its registered keeper Request information about you or your vehicle Request information about another vehicle or its registered keeper You can ask for details of another vehicle’s registered keeper. You’ll need a ‘reasonable cause’, for example: finding out who was responsible for an accident tracing the registered keeper of an abandoned vehicle tracing the registered keeper of a vehicle parked on private land giving out parking tickets giving out trespass charge notices tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services tracing people suspected of insurance fraud

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.