Jump to content

How to Normalise Cycling in East Dulwich

Jakido

By Jakido
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chillaxed

Chillaxed

Posted
Posted

I don't drive or cycle. Weaving is fine but not if you cause the car behind you to brake as you weave across them. Jumping reds is never OK. If you're in a mixed zone, give way to the pedestrians.


And there really is no excuse to wear lycra or shave your legs if you're a bloke.

titch juicy

titch juicy

Posted
Posted

Chillaxed Wrote:

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

> I don't drive or cycle. Weaving is fine but not

> if you cause the car behind you to brake as you

> weave across them. Jumping reds is never OK. If

> you're in a mixed zone, give way to the

> pedestrians.

>

> And there really is no excuse to wear lycra or

> shave your legs if you're a bloke.


This ( except I do cycle)

northlondoner

northlondoner

Posted
Posted

catfood Wrote:

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

> it is not illegal to 'weave' in and out of

> traffic, it's called filtering.

>

> cyclists ARE traffic.


Neither is it illegal to walk backwards down Oxford Street for instance . But it's still dickish and dangerous.

northlondoner

northlondoner

Posted
Posted

catfood Wrote:

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

> what a load of specious shit. try again.

Ok I'll try to break it down for you.

Just because something is not illegal does not render it sensible , responsible or safe.

Therefore pointing out the legality of this practice doesn't really advance matters.

It might indeed be described - to borrow an inelegant phrase - as "specious shit."

DaveR

DaveR

Posted
Posted

"Just because something is not illegal does not render it sensible , responsible or safe.

Therefore pointing out the legality of this practice doesn't really advance matters."


OK - so how about when something is illegal, but safe? Like going through a red light pedestrian crossing when there are no pedestrians?


As expected, this thread deteriorates into the same tired, pointless debate, where a bunch of the same people try and define the 'problem with cyclists'. The overwhelming problem with cyclists is that they still get run over and either killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles when (in many cases) it is avoidable. I am all in favour of encouraging anybody who gets on a bike to cycle safely and be considerate of other road users, and dealing very harshly with the thankfully small minority who put other people at risk (starting with the idiots who every morning ride like a bat out of hell down the Surrey Canal path despite it being pedestrian priority). But all this sh!t about compulsory insurance and registration is just that - sh!t. A stupid expensive solution for a problem that (in statistical terms) doesn't exist. A displacement activity for people who sit in their cars in traffic and get cross about it, and who are not quite loony enough to post on extremist anti-cyclist ranting sites.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

catfood Wrote:

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

> it is not illegal to 'weave' in and out of traffic, it's called filtering.


True, but 'filtering' is just a name given to a certain form of overtaking. And, like all overtaking moves, if there is an accident you will usually (though not always) find the finger of blame pointed in your direction.

Applespider

Applespider

Posted
Posted
That Dutch roundabout scares me. I can't entirely believe that cars are going to pay a blind bit of notice to the zebra crossing for pedestrians/cyclists. I suspect it will end up being a slow route around the roundabout for bikes (if you have to stop to check that the cars are going to stop) at each exit/entry and non-novices will take the 'normal' route unless it's particularly narrow/busy.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • annie2023
      Should I buy a property that has multiple subsidence claims?

      By annie2023 · Posted

      Yes, Direct Line automatically rejected it when I tried to get a quote. Insurers really are a nightmare, and they have a huge psychological impact on buyers. When you’re about to put £1m into a pile of bricks, and the insurance companies either refuse to insure it or quote an outrageous premium, of course it’s going to scare anyone. I’m not actually worried about subsidence in this house main building , but the bay window has definitely been affected by that tree, and the council won’t remove it. When the movement continues, rebuilding the bay window would cost at least £40k. The seller will never admit this, but there are already houses on that street where the bay windows have had to be rebuilt. If not East Dulwich, I’m now looking towards the west. There are a lot of subsidence issues with properties in Forest Hill, and Bromley and West Wickham aren’t really for me. I’m not interested in any part of Dulwich except ED, ND and Dulwich Village — and obviously ED offers the best value.
    • beansprout
      Should I buy a property that has multiple subsidence claims?

      By beansprout · Posted

      Not sure what you are looking for, but my suggestion would be around Forest Hill, certain parts of Bromley and West Wickham  Telegraph Hill. All nice areas- safe and you get more for your money. Really depends on how you travel, or don’t.. as inn needing good transport links to City. Like I said, feel free to pm me.. abit difficult to advise if not sure what you are after, but pretty sure not a flat!  oh, West Dulwich and Herne Hill area.  
    • annie2023
      Should I buy a property that has multiple subsidence claims?

      By annie2023 · Posted

      I honestly can’t believe how TW operates. Just like the councils and UK Power Networks — what kind of people are they? I’ve cried my way through some projects because I had to liaise with these departments. No wonder I feel like running away every time their names come up. I first started thinking about walking away when I noticed the main water issue with TW (which would delay the project), the potential drainage problem, and the higher insurance claims than what I was initially told, plus the ongoing issues. Subsidences can be very different,  my current house definitely had subsidence back in 50 years ago, but the previous owner never made any claims, and there has never been a drainage issue or damp issue. All of this has increased my concern about the project time and resale value. I don’t want this to turn into a liability instead of an asset.  I’m now also looking at properties in Clapham common, same price, a lot bigger
    • alice
      Porch Pirate on Underhill Road

      By alice · Posted

      I do not understand why people leave valuable items out on the road and then are actually surprised when they go missing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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