Jump to content

Recommended Posts

After nearly being knocked off my bike by a local hooligan who thinks it's funny to swerve at cyclists I was a bit annoyed....


If said hooligan is reading this - cyclists are allowed to go up that road... there is a tiny tiny sign that says "one way - except cyclists".


I duly attended Peckham nick and put car details and reg number on the appropriate form...


I've since seen the same person wheelspinning at a zebra crossing (I imagine to scare pedestrians out of the way) and was wondering how best to deal with this.


I know that London is an infuriating place to drive and can give the most civilised person road rage, but this kind of behavior is a bit much.


Anyway, grumble over...


What are the thoughts of the collective ED mind.


- Would it be helpful if I post details of the car which is tearing up the place, and where it seems to live (locally) so people can keep a lookout? or

- Should I stop complaining and get on with my life?


Ta,


S

Now people will start posting that you should not identify the person's car details publicly because that person may have mental health issues so its unfair. We have to account for the smallest possibility that that person didn't know they were doing wrong...

ah! Yes both Copplestonn and Oglander are marked with cycle contraflows but it took me nearly being taken out by another cyclist who was going north on Oglander as I turned right out of Everthorpe into Oglander to realise!


As I come south I take this route as I'm moving with the motor trafic after a similar incident on Copplestone that you describe.


Similar issues on Spurling Road off Goose green roundabout re cars driving straight at me and drivers yelling about me going the wrong way along a one way street.


This is the kind of behaviour that makes me think of changing the signs recently seen on Southwark Bridge going north of "Cyclists get off and walk" to "motor vehicle drivers get out and push with person with red flag walking in front"

yes... there is no need to be pouring paint stripper anywhere...


Perhaps a word with the local planners (who are they? are there local meetings with the council like we had in merton?)about pouring a green stripe of paint on the contraflows is required?


In summary, if you see hooligan-ism (or hoonigan-ism if you are Australian) write it on a "966 form" and hand it to your local policeman... + if you do, copy the blank form and send me a PDF... they are a bugger to get hold of!!


And ratty, stop running all the cyclists over!!

Not the mental health issues for me, just caution.


I don't like getting involved on a personal level (especially when I don't know who I'm dealing with)

- a crime should be dealt with by the Police IMHO - at least until it gets to court.




KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Now people will start posting that you should not

> identify the person's car details publicly because

> that person may have mental health issues so its

> unfair. We have to account for the smallest

> possibility that that person didn't know they were

> doing wrong...

True enough, John L. But -- without vigilantism, a "We see what you're getting up to, and we don't care for it" worked wonders on my behaviour as a village lad. What Mrs Brown didn't care for ALWAYS found its way to my parents' ears. "The driver of the Citroen C3, silver, licence OYP 2X -- bit of a cowboy, watch out", if posted on this forum as a way to get the information "You're being watched" back to that driver, is unobjectionable. That's our licence and car, by the way.

John L has the right idea...


(1) go to police station; (2) fill out form 966; and (3) get on with your life.


The more people who do this (i.e. the more separate individual witnesses), the more chance of a calming visit to our local hooligan by the cops...

Someone with mental health issues driving a car at cyclists....that would be really worrying!!!!!



KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Now people will start posting that you should not

> identify the person's car details publicly because

> that person may have mental health issues so its

> unfair. We have to account for the smallest

> possibility that that person didn't know they were

> doing wrong...

I'm with you, but previously there was a thread by someone who'd had someone staring into their lounge through the front window, they'd take a photo and there'd been a discussion about whether they should post the picture locally / on EDF to flush-out who it was. Some posters thought that'd be unreasonable in cae the peeper was suffering mental health issues.

nunhead_man Wrote:

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

> ah! Yes both Copplestonn and Oglander are marked

> with cycle contraflows but it took me nearly being

> taken out by another cyclist who was going north

> on Oglander as I turned right out of Everthorpe

> into Oglander to realise!

>

> As I come south I take this route as I'm moving

> with the motor trafic after a similar incident on

> Copplestone that you describe.

>

> Similar issues on Spurling Road off Goose green

> roundabout re cars driving straight at me and

> drivers yelling about me going the wrong way along

> a one way street.

>

> This is the kind of behaviour that makes me think

> of changing the signs recently seen on Southwark

> Bridge going north of "Cyclists get off and walk"

> to "motor vehicle drivers get out and push with

> person with red flag walking in front"


So why does Spurling Rd have a one way sign on it when you enter going towards the roundabout and a no entry sign coming off the roundabout and cyclists believe they can disobey both those signs? Why would motorists expect to find cyclists going the wrong way? Am I missing the point of the road signs?

That is appalling- driving at cyclists- unfortunately -as a colleague pointed out to me after a minor altercation- there are people on the road who do not think ahead, they drive 'assertively' and you need to take into account that they are not going to have manners and keep well clear.

The thoughts of the collective ED mind?- as the Borg say-'resistance is futile- you will be assimilated'....

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

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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