Dulwich Park - (dog) walkers and cyclists

[richard tudor]

You really are becoming boring now

[rendelharris]

richard tudor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You really are becoming boring now

How very charming of you to say so - if you don't want people to respond to your posts, don't post. You know as well as I do why you're being so rude - go and get your "friend" Dullywood to pitch in on your side like before!

[richard tudor]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> richard tudor Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You really are becoming boring now

>

>

> How very charming of you to say so - if you don't

> want people to respond to your posts, don't post.

> You know as well as I do why you're being so rude

> - go and get your "friend" Dullywood to pitch in

> on your side like before!

"You know as well as I do why you're being so rude"

Why and who is Dullywood?

[rendelharris]

richard tudor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > richard tudor Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > You really are becoming boring now

> >

> >

> > How very charming of you to say so - if you

> don't

> > want people to respond to your posts, don't

> post.

> > You know as well as I do why you're being so

> rude

> > - go and get your "friend" Dullywood to pitch

> in

> > on your side like before!

>

> "You know as well as I do why you're being so

> rude"

>

> Why and who is Dullywood?

You know, the person who joined the forum when you were called out by me (and several others) for making racial implications about who was responsible for knife crime? The person who joined the forum that day, left a message defending you and hasn't been seen since? Nothing to do with you, of course...or maybe I'm wrong, maybe you aren't trying to take petty revenge for that - maybe you're just a naturally rude person?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1660848,page=2

[richard tudor]

No idea who that person was, nothing to do with me.

"You know, the person who joined the forum when you were called out by me (and several others) for making racial implications about who was responsible for knife crime?"

Hyde Park. Burgess Park. Ring any bells?

Perhaps you should park your ego and re-enter the real world.

"It's not a "horror story" by any means, that's just silly nomenclature, but it's the honest truth that today I had to come to a complete stop as a lady walking a Jack Russell was doing exactly what I said, walking on the outside of the road with her dog on the bridlepath the opposite side with the lead stretching the width of the road - and it's not the first time."

Sorry, you now live in ED, well not ED but close enough, not the real world.

There you are plenty of scope to continue responses. Am sure I have got something wrong. Await your red pen

[rendelharris]

richard tudor Wrote:

> There you are plenty of scope to continue

> responses. Am sure I have got something wrong.

> Await your red pen

No thanks, there are plenty of clever, entertaining, polite and witty people on here - including some whose views are diametrically opposed to mine - with whom to enjoy sensible debate. Ooh you did sting me with the comment about not really living in East Dulwich though, that hurts so badly, crying into me beer as I type. Give it a rest, is my advice.

[DulwichFox]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I had my first lesson in Peckham Rye Park, but

> doing U turns on the relatively narrow paths was a

> bit hairy.

>

> That's why I'm moving to Dulwich Park to build up

> my confidence.

Think you are doing the right thing Sue.. It would be a safer place for everyone if ALL new cylists took a few lessons.

Safer for them and safer for pedestrians. Too many people jumping on a bike 30 - 40 years since they last rode one as a kid.

Well there is a lot more traffic these days.

Good on you.

Foxy

[rendelharris]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Think you are doing the right thing Sue.. It would

> be a safer place for everyone if ALL new cylists

> took a few lessons.

> Safer for them and safer for pedestrians. Too many

> people jumping on a bike 30 - 40 years since they

> last rode one as a kid.

> Well there is a lot more traffic these days.

>

> Good on you.

>

> Foxy

Second that Fox - inspired by Sue's mentioning it Mrs.H is going to take the same course.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Admin - is there a cyber equivalent of the Naughty Step?

[camberwell70]

.

[edcam]

Cyclists, quite rightly, don't have any precedence in a park.

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cyclists, quite rightly, don't have any precedence

> in a park.

Did anyone read what I asked in the first place? I simply asked if it would be possible for walkers not to take up the whole of the perimeter road so that cyclists wouldn't have to keep stopping for them. Not asking for precedence, special treatment or anything else, just asking if one group of park users could share the amenities sensibly with another. Apparently in most people's view this is an entirely unreasonable request.

[keane]

😴

[rendelharris]

keane Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 😴

Thanks for that, well done.

[Toffee]

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"?

[edcam]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Cyclists, quite rightly, don't have any

> precedence

> > in a park.

>

> Did anyone read what I asked in the first place?

> I simply asked if it would be possible for walkers

> not to take up the whole of the perimeter road so

> that cyclists wouldn't have to keep stopping for

> them. Not asking for precedence, special

> treatment or anything else, just asking if one

> group of park users could share the amenities

> sensibly with another. Apparently in most

> people's view this is an entirely unreasonable

> request.

But why should they? There are very few places, especially in London where people can walk freely without having to make allowances for those on wheels of any description.

[keane]

Exactly edcam v well put.

[rendelharris]

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.

[keane]

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.

[rendelharris]

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.

[keane]

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!

[aerie]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nxjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I only know the original meaning of the word

> which

> > means something very different.

>

> Indeed, I was, I assure you, using it in its

> secondary sense. From the Latin incubare meaning

> "to lie upon", which accounts for both meanings, I

> suppose.

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.

[rendelharris]

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.

[rendelharris]

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.

[Curmudgeon]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Cyclists, quite rightly, don't have any

> precedence

> > in a park.

>

> Did anyone read what I asked in the first place?

> I simply asked if it would be possible for walkers

> not to take up the whole of the perimeter road so

> that cyclists wouldn't have to keep stopping for

> them. Not asking for precedence, special

> treatment or anything else, just asking if one

> group of park users could share the amenities

> sensibly with another. Apparently in most

> people's view this is an entirely unreasonable

> request.

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