snowy

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.

So you haven't contacted anyone about it? Despite seeing it so often? And of course I believe that road users should be considerate and follow speed limits, its a park without public roads so not the place to be cycling at 20 if that ever happens - i pass through it regularly and haven't seen it myself. i wouldn't know what LCC say as I'm not a member. Does the AA or the Association of British Drivers do the same?

If people are cycling without being considerate of others they should be stopped. Have you asked the SNT or the friends of group to help?

^^and this is the reason why the person who hosts the Regents Park inquest on their website, asked me not to post it here. I believe they mentioned something along the lines of 'doxxing Ricks', whatever that means.

Your posts have this incredible ability to be constantly pompous and constantly wrong! It's an incredible evidently intentional approach designed to distract from the fact that the police found someone doing 47mph in a park full of people and animals. What's the thread title? And what were Admin's notes on this subforum: This forum board is for any topic related to transport or roads, so this can be related to East Dulwich, Southwark, London-wide etc. so perhaps wind back your forum bullying / policing and leave the boomer hashtags alone for a bit?

Topical: https://x.com/MPSRoyal_Parks/status/1882853755340849540 Officers have been conducting speed checks in #RichmondPark this evening, one driver was clocked at 35mph and another clocked at 47mph. Both drivers reported #20isplenty #20mphzone #naturereserve

They're standard incorrect cycling tropes though aren't they - pretty generic to the UK and the States where, thanks to years of motor industry advertising, cycles are seen as the leas aspirational poorer second cousin to cars, have less right to be on the road and are of a lesser priority. Much the same as pedestrians. A Tory London Assembly Member called pedestrian crossings 'woke' yesterday! Just think of the last tv car advert you saw - i'd guess the car promised unlimited enjoyment and going fast in a city setting without any other traffic, before easily pulling into a capacious parking space. Then think about how that compares to driving along Lordship Lane on a Saturday. You're sold the idea that a car is freedom and independence. The problem is everyone else bought a car too. So when you see a cyclist swanning by whilst you are sat in a queue of car traffic... Breaking the law in cars is conversely normalised - 80 on the motorway, 30 in a 20, using a mobile, amber gambling traffic lights, careless driving etc. That makes people think that walking and cycling are dangerous, so they drive. [and before anyone jumps in, cars can be great and serve a valid (and for some an essential) purpose, but are less good when we all want to use them for short urban trips].

Isn't that what they did - post a clickbait fb post and then harvest the rage post responses to form an article? I looked so you don't have to - as expected its full of 'pay road tax' 'fines for not using cycle lanes', cycling side by side' impotent rants. It's pretty cynical engagement farming.

Using a facebook sourced post as reliable evidence of anything is a bit embarrassing.

Well yes, that's what i said. The Royal Parks flip flop between stating that speed restrictions don't apply to cyclists and then lobby government to make them apply. But on your last paragraph: there wasn't - there was a proposal by the Sunak government around a new Death by Dangerous Cycling law, as it panicked towards an election that they knew they were going to lose. It was one of a series of policy statements latching onto current events intended to create clickbait headlines for electioneering. Mark Harper calling his own department's policy on 15 minute cities 'sinister' as part of his 'plan for drivers' being one particular highlight. They knew they had no time to legislate, or even to get it through the Green Paper process. And at the same time the conservatives in April 2024 in the House of Commons were still saying: "The Department [DfT] considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health." but nothing on speed limits - they do share the graph on decreasing convictions for dangerous cycling As for Labour, well i suspect that they are quite busy. There's a proposed paper on manufacturing safety for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of unregulated devices, but cycling or increased legislation didn't appear in its manifesto. Royal Parks are owned by Charlie, so they're not technically private either as he owns everything under the Crown Eatate But implement what measures? Ban the use of roads in them for trade vehicles as it currently says? Ban flying kites as it currently says? To graze animals? Or a personal favourite - prohibit you to "play any game or engage in any form of sport or exercise". They haven't implemented anything recently as far as i'm aware - as the Royal Parks Act hasn't changed since 2000. Perhaps you know of something different.