Dangerous drivers everywhere!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

A lot of strawman stuff here. Regardless of the circumstances, it would have taken a lot of force to move that concrete post. This kind of regular damage to property and the public realm isn't great. For one thing, it costs taxpayers a lot of money. But also, a high powered vehicle, applying massive force to a concrete block that's located on a pavement, is dangerous under almost any circumstances. 

On a different (but related) topic... This report, published last year, makes fairly grim reading. Year on year increases in hit and runs in London. Over 300 in Southwark alone. Driving off after hitting someone is (as the title suggests) an escalating crisis Hit and run the escalating crisis on London roads - January 2024 Caroline Russell Report.pdf

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A lot of strawman stuff here. Regardless of the circumstances, it would have taken a lot of force to move that concrete post. This kind of regular damage to property and the public realm isn't great. For one thing, it costs taxpayers a lot of money. But also, a high powered vehicle, applying massive force to a concrete block that's located on a pavement, is dangerous under almost any circumstances. 

To be fair a lot of strawman stuff was applied by Dulwich Roads on their original post. Has the block been lifted out of it's housing - i.e. it's still in the hole it was originally sitting in?

The problem with everything Dulwich Roads posts is that they are just guessing/suggesting what they think happened - they don't know that it was hit by a dangerous driver - they want their readers to think that but they don't know that is actually the case. They have got things very wrong in the past because they are guessing/hoping.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

they don't know that it was hit by a dangerous driver - they want their readers to think that but they don't know that is actually the case.

I accept that it's an assumption, but a fairly water tight one no? I mean that block has almost certainly been damaged by a motor vehicle that had crossed on to the pavement.

[first mate]

If a car or other travelling at speed, someone local would have heard quite a bang? 

Maybe a large lorry or similar, misjudging space? A much larger vehicle probably would not need to go fast at all in order to dislodge it and there would be no collision noise?

Lots of very large vehicles involved with building work at Charter.

[march46]

Regardless of what hit it (clearly something very heavy) I think we can all agree they shouldn't be driving their vehicle onto the pavement and that by doing so it's dangerous. 

[first mate]

No type of vehicle should drive or ride on the pavement, it is obviously potentially dangerous. 

[march46]

Completely agree, and if I'm going to use my limited time and energy to draw attention to this issue I'll focus on the biggest and heaviest vehicles which can do the most significant damage. Obvs

Edited January 30 by march46
clarity

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

Regardless of what hit it (clearly something very heavy) I think we can all agree they shouldn't be driving their vehicle onto the pavement and that by doing so it's dangerous. 

Clearly. But no-one drives their vehicle onto the pavement and into a big block deliberately. Maybe they swerved to avoid someone cycling badly or a pedestrian walking into the road looking at their phone, or maybe they had a medical emergency and the block did what it was supposed to do....this is the thing...no-one seems to know and everyone is guessing....including Dulwich Roads and as I said before they have got things badly wrong previously as they jump to their anti-car conclusions.

[Penguin68]

I would have thought that if a normal car had hit this block at speed it would still have been wrapped round it when the photo was taken, I assume quite shortly afterwards. Which would suggest a much bigger vehicle with greater mass may have shifted it without a significant collision. Or possibly risk to others. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

59 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But no-one drives their vehicle onto the pavement and into a big block deliberately. Maybe they swerved to avoid someone cycling badly

😆 Are you actually a made up character / parody account?

[Rockets]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

😆 Are you actually a made up character / parody account?

No just reminding you that there are a myriad of reasons why a vehicle might hit a bollard and amplifying that point to those who love to claim every accident is because of dangerous driving or speeding. 

Gotta say I love your myopic editing - I didn't just highlight cycling you know......well done! 😉 

[SE22_2020er]

Or maybe the mains water leaks on EDG have subsided it.   I walk past it a couple of times a day and there aren't any markings on it to make one think that something had collided with it.   

[first mate]

4 hours ago, march46 said:

Completely agree, and if I'm going to use my limited time and energy to draw attention to this issue I'll focus on the biggest and heaviest vehicles which can do the most significant damage. Obvs

Check out some of the truly huge and heavy vehicles trundling up and down that area to the Charter build. But we are not going to ban them are we? So in terms of focussing on biggest and heaviest I am not quite sure what your point is?

30 minutes ago, SE22_2020er said:

Or maybe the mains water leaks on EDG have subsided it.   I walk past it a couple of times a day and there aren't any markings on it to make one think that something had collided with it.   

That is very true.

I am as against reckless driving as anyone on here, but plonking a picture onto social media with assumptions rather than facts,  to make a point just looks silly.

Edited January 30 by first mate

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I am as against reckless driving as anyone on here, but plonking a picture onto social media with assumptions rather than facts,  to make a point just looks silly.

But this is the modus operandi of Dulwich Roads - every bit of out of shape street furniture and they launch into a tirade about dangerous driving and try to suggest speeding vehicles caused it. Clearly they don't even check to see whether any vehicle was involved before they post.....

 

The link to the picture seems to have disappeared from March46' original post....

[first mate]

Why has M64 removed the picture to the alleged incident? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

A vehicle has hit an object on the pavement. A heavy / high powered vehicle, that shouldn’t be on the pavement. It’s applied enough force to pull up a concrete block

The block hasn’t subsided and no one seriously believes that it has.

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

there are a myriad of reasons why a vehicle might hit a bollard

None of which we shouldn’t be concerned about

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

But no-one drives their vehicle onto the pavement and into a big block deliberately

Well that’s ok then. 🙄

The rush of those ‘concerned’ by dangerous driving, to justify / minimise a high powered vehicle being on the pavement, or (ridiculously) insinuating a cyclist  or pedestrian might be to ‘blame’, is just beyond ridiculous.

Edited January 31 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Yes, but wondering why the picture that is the reason for this particular thread has been removed?

Just to add, Malumbu has posted before about incidents he has had with pedestrians when he was out cycling, caused, he said, by them not looking where they were going. 

Edited January 31 by first mate

[march46]

It wasn’t removed by me. Strange

[Rockets]

Someone is seemingly policing what gets posted on the forum.....the public names of Dulwich Society sub-committee chairs who are award winning active travel lobbyists and now Dulwich Roads posts that people have been critical of......that'll get the conspiracy theorists going....;-)

 

March46 maybe repost it again and let's see what happens....

[snowy]

It's still up here: https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1884160510628872211

but most likely the sacking of most of the staff at twitter has affected how links get embedded on other sites occasionally.

An administrator edited your posts most likely as they broke forum rules. It's their forum so 'policing' as you put it, their own rules you signed up to.

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, snowy said:

An administrator edited your posts most likely as they broke forum rules. It's their forum so 'policing' as you put it, their own rules you signed up to.

No, according to the admin update at the time of the removal someone asked for the name to be removed (even though it is all public information).

 

[snowy]

The forum rules: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/guidelines Seem to be in two general types;

a) don't break the rules / the law

b) don't be a dick

Your post was moderated (under point 4 and / or 7) by an administrator.
 

Which of those two reasons are you saying applied to the editing of your post? 

[Rockets]

Ha ha Snowy, someone took offence to having the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee's chair award winning active travel lobbying flagged on the forum and asked the administrator for the name to be removed. Nothing in my post broke forum rules. Someone seemed to not want people to know about her London Cycling Campaign awards etc. I wonder why - perhaps you could enlighten us with your thoughts on that?

Nothing in my post broke forum rules. Although the tone of your above post does come close to breaking Forum Rule 1 does it not?

 

[march46]

Serious collision on Lordship Lane, hope no one was injured. 
 

https://bsky.app/profile/microbear.bsky.social/post/3lh6nktijmk2y

[first mate]

I also hope nobody was hurt. Awful for the homeowners and must have given them a fright, not to mention having to pay for a new brick wall.

Is there any information on the date this happened and circumstances?