Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> 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.



Yes it does work best when we all look out for each other, the point you are missing is that as a cyclist you are a functioning adult with reasoning skills and full control of your actions ..unlike a toddler, small child or dog who has seen a squirrel


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

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.

edcam Wrote:

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

> Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more pleasant

> actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich

> Park.



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!

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.

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!

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.

You have thousands of miles of walking possibilities in London, that is hardly the point.


edcam Wrote:

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

> edcam Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more

> pleasant

> > actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich

> > Park.

>

>

> 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!

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!

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!

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!

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/

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.

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.

Sorry toffee but agree with rendal there. you accuse rendal of wanting it all despite numerous posts where they suggest sharing and co-operation but then indicate you want the track all to yourself. the cycle paths are very good routes for going places but not the same as the park for beginners. I am surprised that particularly in summer more people dont walk on the grass (esp with their dogs) and leave the tarmac for those who are in more need of it-i.e cyclists, disabled drivers, scooters, trikes, rollerblades, buggys, pushchairs, and those less able to walk on less flat surfaces. not that others shouldnt use it but surprised they wouldnt actually prefer the grass.

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...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But it was under our electoral system in 2019! This must be part of the right-wing media conspiracy that did for Corbyn....;-) Corbyn was very closely allied to Unite and Len....
    • Goose Green Ward Panel Meeting   Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...