snowy

I suspect that you are simply trolling now because I mean De Beauvoir, in hackney was what - the 1970s, Newtown, Exeter, lots of LB Merton, the Lanes in Brighton, lots of historic ones in Lambeth, Carnaby St, lots of Edinburgh, bits of Leicester, Station Approach in Herne Hill etc are all just clamouring to go back to cars everywhere aren't they?

I thought Rockets loved an uber?

The cars shouldn't be parked there - do you agree with that?

But on page 1 you say there is no parking pressure: What are you saying Southwark has created? By preventing drivers from breaking the rules they're creating pressure?

Of course it's a thing - go and have a hunt on tik tok or instagram and see kids pushing lines of them over...

It's clearly not deflection to ask for your answer before answering your question. It's just politeness. My point was that you evidently haven't hired a lime bike. To end the contract you have to upload a photograph of the bike parked upright in a safe position. They're geofenced to prevent them from being parked in prohibited areas. Unless the photo is approved then the hire stays live and you continue paying until its parked in a way that meets their t&c's. If you leave it lying on the ground you can't just walk away. Or you can but you would end up being charged hundreds of pounds and lose your lime account. Rows of bikes lying in their side have been pushed over.

Please answer my question first.

Please, as clearly an expert user tell us - what do you need to do to end a lime bike ride on their app?

Drivers are already massively subsidised by wider tax payers. You have got to the point now where you are arguing: 'boo hoo, it's outrageous, i just had to park my car on a double yellow line, on a dropped curb, which means a mum with a buggy / wheel chair user has to bump down the curb into road traffic to get around my car because the beastly council made me pay 60p per day to store my private property on public roads'.

But at the start of this thread, it was said that they were being implemented to create parking pressure that didn't exist before. then there's a series of posts pointing out the illegal parking on junctions without extended yellow lines. Not only making the junctions unsafe but removing access to dropped curbs and tactile paving for Disabled people. These illustrate that drivers were ignoring the Highway Code. Putting in yellow lines is the only way drivers are going to realise they can't just park where they like without the risk of a consequence. And you have never been allowed to park over drive ways. It's literally listed on the previous page under rule 243. It's almost like rule breaking is being justified for cars by some posters.

Hang on, earlier on you said there was no parking issue and now you are saying that there is one...

Are you seriously saying that car drivers should be allowed to ignore sections of the highway code and park illegally next to junctions? the last point is just 'but cyclists'.

The application of existing laws under the highway code is now a Southwark war on motorists? Such a strange take for someone apparently committed to improving road safety. Cars legally shouldn't be parked there as has been pointed out three times in the posts above. Drivers can get a ticket if they do (irrespective of DYLs or not). That clearer signage has to be done suggests that drivers are unaware contents of the test they passed or are just ignoring rules of the highway code. I would love to think who you perceive will hold them to account. DFT for applying the law? Or the electorate who didn't vote for Tory Clive Rates who is also coincidentally campaigning on this issue.

Its 243 - do not / must not stop within 10m It really isn't. It's Its the minimum distance set out by the highway code.

It still exists, just because you are unaware of it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen: https://www.bikeability.org.uk

What are you on about now? The original post made no joke if it: the blue sky post makes a comment about how illegal driving was now happening in real life on Lordship Lane. Perhaps ask your children what GTA IRL means?

The original post hasn't been edited - so it's unlikely that the poster removed it clandestinely. I've no idea how to embed posts, but here's another version of it https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1886046149640958391 i'm neither the original poster or the sharer of it on here btw.

Again, you're missing the point. The joke in the post & picture is about the poor quality of the driving which caused that BMW to land on a wall and how normalised that has become. Something that is normal (incredibly bad driving) in a game where you follow no rules has become ever more normal on our roads as there's dangerous drivers everywhere.

Sorry Sue, GTA is a reference to a game, Grand Theft Auto where bad driving is an integral part of the gamr.

Again, another post that embarrasses you. You're now saying that someone who has held Regional Authority or national governmental role in the field since 2017 as an active travel specialist and who has been awarded a CBE for their 'services for active travel', isn't qualified and is in your terms a 'lobbyist'? Then again, i suspect that his mother being killed whilst cycling by someone subsequently convicted of death by dangerous driving might compel them to advocate for safer walking and cycling.

And thereby completely missing the joke that was in the original photo...

Those famously emotive people - insurers - use 'collision' to include incidents involving objects: https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/auto-insurance/articles/what-is-collision-insurance#:~:text=Collision covers incidents involving objects,all covered by comprehensive insurance. As do the Met: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/#:~:text=The law defines a reportable,the driver of that vehicle The car is missing its front skirts and the bonnet is lifted up and forced back. You might not know the three letter acronym, but the writer was suggesting that the car might not have been driving to the full standards as outlined in the Highway Code.

A post intentionally ignoring what you have previously been told. He's employed by a government organisation, sponsored by the department for transport; https://www.activetravelengland.gov.uk/about to implement government plans and strategies, not to influence them existing. Here's the government definition of a lobbyist: https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lobbying/#:~:text=To lobby is to make,Contact an MP or Lord "To lobby is to make the case for a particular policy, cause or group directly to a government minister or a member of either House with the aim of influencing their decisions."

The forum rules: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/guidelines Seem to be in two general types; a) don't break the rules / the law b) don't be a dick Your post was moderated (under point 4 and / or 7) by an administrator. Which of those two reasons are you saying applied to the editing of your post?

It's still up here: https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1884160510628872211 but most likely the sacking of most of the staff at twitter has affected how links get embedded on other sites occasionally. An administrator edited your posts most likely as they broke forum rules. It's their forum so 'policing' as you put it, their own rules you signed up to.