rendelharris

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I accept your apology. That's such a relief.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a matter of interest how did people manage to > co exist in the past > > Was it just old fashioned common sense? > > 4 pages on how to use a park. Magic I and I'm sure all other commentators apologise for forcing you to open this thread and then comment on it. Several of the comments making up those four pages are your own, by the way - if the discussion is so pointless why did you feel the need to join in? ETA: In the past, as you know, the road was open to motor traffic, so the question of how to share it nicely didn't arise.

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I meant the one through the bushes, at the back of > the court lane house gardens and further round. I > have seen quite a few mountain bikes there and it > always surprises me. Well, that's out of order I think - there's neither enough width nor long enough sightlines there for responsible cycling. Quite happy for all bikes to be confined to the perimeter road!

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are cyclist allowed to go on the dirt path that > runs round the park on the dog area starting by > Court Lane, behind the gardens? I don't see why not - it's a bridlepath for horses really, isn't it, but they seem to come into the park very rarely these days. But it would only be suitable for mountainbikes and even then it would be a bit like riding through treacle, and not easy to keep control on either - imagine trying to ride across a beach! Or do you mean the outer outer path that runs through the bushes? If that one I'd never ride on it, that would certainly lead to a danger of collision with dogs and their walkers which would then be entirely the cyclist's fault. Contrary to the impression certain people have tried to give, I don't want all the park for cyclists, in fact I think they should stay out of nearly all parts of the park, just a clear 150cms down one side of the carriageway would be nice, leaving the other 6 metres free (yes I'm that sad, I measured it on Google Maps). I love Mako's idea about turning the pavement into a cycle path, as apparently pedestrians would rather use the carriageway. I can't see Southwark funding that though, with a broad car-free carriageway to the side of it. Perhaps just a couple of signs - Cyclists stay within 150 cms of right kerb, maybe? Though as stated previously, 99% of park users are polite and mutually respectful already...

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So why not stick to cycling on the segregated > cycle paths that you "can't recommend too highly" > and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the park? > You seem to want it all, but there again, you > obviously have a strong sense of entitlement. As others have noted, you really are quite unpleasantly aggressive, aren't you? Cyclists are permitted and indeed encouraged in Dulwich Park, and nobody has to justify riding there, particularly to those who aren't really interested in discussion but for obscure reasons of their own seem to get a kick out of being rude to strangers whilst hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did and have (in Dulwich Park as it happens!!!) > just need to get on my bike again! Good luck - the new segregated cycle paths have added a massively pleasurable new dimension to cycling in London, can't recommend them too highly.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thanks, that's what I thought you were asking for, > but it seems to have blown up into Kennedy v > Khrushchev! > good luck to your wife - I can sympathise from > being in a similar situation. I do hope she's > soon confident enough to venture onto the street! Cheers, appreciate it - we got separated at RideLondon at the weekend and she got back to ED from Blackfriars OK, so she'll doubtless soon be outstripping me as she does at everything else! Have you thought of cycle training for confidence? She's doing it this Saturday and next at Burgess Park BMX track - all free, great initiative: http://www.cycleconfident.com/

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No-one wants to use the pavement so maybe this > could be put to better use e.g a cycle lane Now there's a thought!

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris, a pity that your polite request has > spawned war, but as a timid cyclist myself, I > wouldn't choose a park to practice my moves, and I > especially wouldn't expect special attention from > grown-ups in a park, let alone children and dogs > > the park-user hierarchy is the exact inverse of > the hierarchy of road users - parks are the only > public apace where children and dogs can hope to > have priority of use, and be able to run around > freely and safely off lead, so long as they are > not actively being a nuisance. surely you can't > disagree with that? > > I agree with the other posters - just as > pedestrians and dogs and children have to look out > and defer to cyclists on the road, it's up to you > (or your wife) as a cyclist to do the looking out > in the park, not the other way round! Thank you for a rare reasoned response! I've tried to convey the fact that I entirely agree, the onus is very much on the cyclist; all I was asking was that we could meet, well, not even halfway, but a little bit of the way. Case in point today (in Burgess Park rather than Dulwich, but in much the same situation): a young 'un was riding her bike with stabilisers, wobbling across towards my line down the left of the road. I slowed and prepared to stop, mum called out "Just come back left darling out of that man's way." She did, I passed, gave mum a polite thank you and we all went on our way perfectly happy. That's what happens nearly all the time, just the occasional parent one comes across who doesn't pay the slightest attention to what their charge is up to, which can be aggravating and is irresponsible I think, because, without wanting to be holier than thou, not all adult cyclists are as careful and sedate as we are, so for the child's own safety a little more monitoring would seem sensible. When you say: "I agree with the other posters - just as pedestrians and dogs and children have to look out and defer to cyclists on the road, it's up to you (or your wife) as a cyclist to do the looking out in the park" - absolutely spot on, but when I'm on the road I don't think I don't have to watch for pedestrians as they have to defer to me, I watch out for them. I've just basically been saying can't we all look out for each other, everywhere, for all our benefits, though certain people (those who I suspect would be happy to see cycles banned from the road as well) have chosen to interpret this as some sort of declaration of aggression and a demand to be allowed to do as we please. It wasn't!

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe parents with children and people with dogs > should walk backwards around the carriageway so as > to see rendelharris coming & get out of the way, > or maybe that won't be necessary as everyone not > on a bike will be on the pavement leaving the > carriageway clear! Ha. Ha. Ha. How utterly hilarious. Of course that couldn't happen as you've made it quite clear that nobody in the park should take any responsibility for their children, their dogs or indeed their own behaviour, all responsibility and all blame is attached solely to cyclists, about whom you appear to be somewhat fixated.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have hundreds, possibly thousands of miles of > cycling possibilities in London. Unless you're a > kid, who needs a safe learning space, knock > yourself out! I do, and in a perverse way I rather enjoy riding in traffic at high speed. As per my original post, Mrs.H has just got back into cycling after a thirty year hiatus and doesn't like cycling on the roads, so the broad carriageway in our local park, where cycling is permitted and indeed encouraged, is the ideal place for her to potter. You apparently think cycling should be banned in Dulwich Park, well you're entitled to your opinion. But until it is, which I hope will never be the case, how is it unreasonable just to suggest that cyclists should look out for dogwalkers and children and that dogwalkers and parents should extend the same courtesy to cyclists? It's a shame that you seem to regard a polite request for common courtesy as some sort of attack on the "rights" of others.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most here have seen the odd racers who > seem to think they have right of way in the park > over and above those that have less impulse > control ..and perhaps they are colouring you with > that brush I believe you're right - even though in my original post I did try to stress that I wasn't trying to offend anyone and in fact said: "There are a few cyclists, I know, who treat the road like a velodrome, charging round it at 25mph. They're jerks, and we are definitely not of their ilk!" Yes of course children and dogs can't be controlled at all times and yes it's absolutely the job of the cyclist to watch out for their unpredictable behaviour - but isn't it also the job of a parent or dog owner to do the same? Even if they couldn't care less about cyclists' safety, surely they should be watching out for that of the child or pet? As I said above, most do a fabulous job of doing so and are highly considerate and polite, there's a tiny minority (most engrossed in their mobiles) who don't and aren't.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it behoves cyclists in public parks to > cycle at a sedate pace and be constantly aware of > small children, dogs and pedestrians and adjust > accordingly > > So yes, your OP was, in my view as a cyclist, > mother and dog walker, unreasonable We do, and we are. And apparently it's entirely unreasonable to ask others to extend the same level of courtesy to us, hey ho. I had a silly idea that society works best when we all look out for each other. Very naive of me, I now see.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more pleasant > actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich > Park. Well there's not much point in discussing unselfish sharing with you then. May I use this thread to thank the 99% of dogwalkers, children walkers et al in Dulwich Park who are absolutely lovely, polite and don't assume they have a Godgiven right to lord it over other legitimate park users. You're good people.

ken78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so is nunhead in peckham any one know ???? No, Nunhead's its own unique area with a parliamentary ward and everything.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to note that the East Dulwich Electoral ward > (which is what has been shown on the map, I > believe) is a voting, not a societal boundary. The > ED Ward does not (Mr Barber notwithstanding) ED > make. Agreed, but I think everyone would consider Forest Hill Road and East Dulwich Road as sensible eastern and northern borders respectively, which puts the new Jaflong, being on the north side of EDR, into Peckham Rye I'd say.

Not according to Google maps...everywhere in East Dulwich has an SE22 postcode, but not everywhere with an SE22 postcode is East Dulwich. http://i.imgur.com/eqPI293.png

If prepared to move a little further (about a mile and a half) out (to a lovely area) the views around Telegraph Hill are stunning.

aerie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I thought? incubare - to lie on, was in the > context of a productive heat, ie to incubate? > Incubus provides flashes of Fusili, demons, horses > heads and nightmares. To incubate, to sit or lie upon - hence the incubus demon, which lies upon its victims. ETA: or, in the meaning I intended, something which lies heavily upon one in terms of obligation or responsibility.

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think this happens already but it doesn't need > to be 'formalised' and in your proposal > pedestrians have to stick to a pavement which is > exactly the opposite of what the park is for - > it's one of the few places in London where as a > pedestrian you don't have to stay on a pavement! I refer the honourable lady or gentleman to my original post: I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists? That way we can all enjoy this wonderful amenity without getting in each others' way. "Or even just stick to one side rather than the centre." I don't want it formalised, for the very last time, I was just asking the small minority who insist on walking four or five abreast down the middle of the carriageway, or who let their dogs/kids zigzag all across the carriageway, if they might consider being a little more aware of cyclists. That's all, I can't really understand how some people have managed to work up such a frothing head of indignation over it.

ontheedge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for this pressure bar does drop on boiler > so maybe if I fill that a bit it will work, dou > think? Outside my knowledge that I'm afraid, changing anything to do with the boiler makes me nervous!

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course everyone has to share the amenities but > in a park that doesn't mean pedestrians only being > allowed to walk on the pavement! It's a shared > space. Alternative is that the council do what > they have in the Meadows park in Edinburgh where > they have a clearly marked cycle lane but I don't > see that is necessary in a park with the width of > the carriage way in Dulwich Park, where they also > hire out Go carts and smaller bikes that all go at > different speeds. I am sure you could go & cycle > at the velodrome down the road on a quiet day with > no fear of pedestrians. In my apparently offensive original post I did ask if maybe pedestrians could just use one side of the carriageway rather than the middle of it - an informal arrangement which would work for everybody. Herne Hill velodrome is only available a) by paying for it and b) for fast sport riders on specific fixed wheel track bikes which take a good deal of experience and skill to ride. Again (feel free to post your amusing zzzz icon again), I was only asking that perhaps pottering cyclists and dog walkers and pedestrians could all look out for each other to their mutual benefit as fellow park users. As per previous, sorry if this was too much to ask.

Diverter valves stay up on pressure, so is there anything lowering your water pressure - washing machine on at the same time, for example? If not might just be a case of a leaky washer which is easily replaced, or as you're not planning to keep the tap long term you could do what we did in a previous flat when the landlord was dilatory in making repairs, just pull out the knob then gaffer tape a small piece of metal to it to stop it dropping back. Worth having a good look round to check if there are leaks elsewhere which have lowered your water pressure though - lavatory cistern, garden taps etc.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for pointing me in the right direction for > your absolute pointless whinge. Dulwich park is a > TX park owned by southwark council. In all my 60 > years of living in dulwich I have never known > anyone complain about anything. I certainly have > never witnessed what you suggest. PS have you ever > heard of the character "victor mildew"? Actually no. Friend of yours? Edcam, Keane, et al, I heartily apologise for what, if you actually look back, was a perfectly polite request that different groups of park users (all legitimately permitted in the park) could look out for each other and share the amenities nicely together. I now realise it was a quite appalling liberty even to ask such a thing and I hang my head in shame.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, its not me whose aggressive, neither are > you. Re your posts about cycling in dulwich park, > it is a public park, it is not exclusive to > cyclists. I have never, ever witnessed a dog on a > long lead crossing a cyclist. Neither have I ever > witnessed a parent not keep aneye on a child on a > recumbant bike. We all have to live and let live. > Ps. I have lived in Dulwich for 60 years and ha e > always enjoyed the park. Well if you want to tell me that, why not tell me on the appropriate thread? What's it got to do with this discussion? The sentence: How damn selfish and inward thinking can you be. Well, come on, waiting for replies. is unnecessarily aggressive.