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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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