Dangerous drivers everywhere!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

 

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

This morning a van driver shot past me going down hill on Underhill, and then braked in front of me as he headed towards stationary traffic. I politely asked him what was the point of that.

This happens constantly. Cars accelerate hard to overtake someone on a bicycle (often passing too close), just to break hard in front of them, to then be left behind in a queue of traffic. It's annoying, often dangerous, and always unnecessary. I think it’s perhaps because of an erroneous view that as the 'faster' vehicle they’re getting ‘held up’; which in London of course, they’re usually not.

Edited June 23 by Earl Aelfheah

[bels123]

Another collision on Half Moon Lane. It’s hard to understand how this happens in a 20mph zone. 

 

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This happens constantly. Cars accelerate hard to overtake someone on a bicycle (often passing too close), just to break hard in front of them, to then be left behind in a queue of traffic.

*drivers accelerate hard……we don’t have self-driving cars yet 😉

[CPR Dave]

That post from "Dulwich Roads is also on Bluesky" is fucking dim. To me it reads like the person who wrote it has been in a car crash themselves and doesn't understand the meaning of words very well any more.

 

Edited June 23 by CPR Dave

[rjsmall]

11 hours ago, bels123 said:

Another collision on Half Moon Lane. It’s hard to understand how this happens in a 20mph zone. 

 

*drivers accelerate hard……we don’t have self-driving cars yet 😉

It's not hard to understand how it happens in 20mph zones - a lot of drivers ignore the speed limit knowing they are not going to get caught. There are a few static speed cameras around and that is about it - no mobile speed cameras, no average speed cameras and no police patrols enforcing the speed limit. I constantly get overtaken on the South Circular or Sydenham Hill by other drivers only to catch up with them at the next traffic light.

[Sue]

52 minutes ago, rjsmall said:

It's not hard to understand how it happens in 20mph zones - a lot of drivers ignore the speed limit knowing they are not going to get caught. There are a few static speed cameras around and that is about it - no mobile speed cameras, no average speed cameras and no police patrols enforcing the speed limit. I constantly get overtaken on the South Circular or Sydenham Hill by other drivers only to catch up with them at the next traffic light.

When I  use satnav,  it informs me if there is a mobile speed camera ahead.

This is useful, and does make me check my speed, but seems a bit pointless in terms of actually catching speeding drivers.

How does satnav know?

[Spartacus]

Don't know which sat nav you use Sue, but mine looks like this 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think some of them use information from shared databases, which include crowdsourced data that updates on mobile camera locations. 

Edited June 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

It’s incredibly sad to read about the death of a 34-year-old who was killed by a hit-and-run driver while cycling on the Old Kent Road. My thoughts are with their family and friends.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39pk8yz1kmo

And this weekend, yet another dangerous driving incident made the local news - a driver crashed their car into a wall and lamppost in Peckham. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/man-arrested-after-crashing-into-lamppost-and-wall-in-peckham/ Thankfully no one was seriously injured, but it’s another reminder of how serious the consequences of careless or reckless driving can be.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 21:17 by march46
Typo

[Penguin68]

As the erstwhile driver was arrested for dangerous driving and robbery it may well be that quality driving was not top of his mind at the time. This is not an excuse but it may be an explanation for the incident, which would place it in a different space than just 'poor quality driving'. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I believe March was commenting on the serious consequences of careless or reckless driving.

[HeadNun]

NEWSFLASH: In case anyone didn't already know, dangerous driving is..................................................................................................

 

 

.............................................. dangerous. 

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I believe March was commenting on the serious consequences of careless or reckless driving

Because most people reading these threads otherwise think it's risk free? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

28 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Because most people reading these threads otherwise think it's risk free? 

It is depressing how predictably, any report of a serious accident involving dangerous / reckless driving will inevitably have someone immediately try to minimise it. What is the point you're trying to make with this comment?

5 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

As the erstwhile driver was arrested for dangerous driving and robbery it may well be that quality driving was not top of his mind at the time. This is not an excuse but it may be an explanation for the incident, which would place it in a different space than just 'poor quality driving'. 

March was simply pointing out how "it’s another reminder of how serious the consequences of careless or reckless driving can be." It is. As HeadNun says, dangerous driving is dangerous driving.

There are too many deaths happening on our streets. My thoughts go out to the family of the victim in this crash.

Edited 22 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

There is a position taken on these pages, by certain people, that all car drivers are careless idiots and all cyclists saints, who ought to be able to wear full camouflage gear (i.e. dark clothing and no lights at night) and still cycle unmolested down the middle of the road and through red lights and across zebra crossings without stopping for pedestrians. Any suggestion that an incident may not be at the hands of an 'ordinary' driver but maybe someone additionally committing crime, which may, perhaps, trump the sin of just dangerous driving is poo-poo-ed and rubbished. So be it. I understand about trolls. But it does get wearing at times.

[exdulwicher]

34 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

There is a position taken on these pages, by certain people, that all car drivers are careless idiots and all cyclists saints...

I don't think anyone has said or even implied that. There are idiots in all walks of life - idiot pedestrians who'll step into the road, their gaze fixed on their phone. Idiot cyclists with no lights. Idiot drivers who speed or drive under the influence. No-one is denying or excusing any of that. 

The point being made is that it doesn't really matter if the driver in this instance is a serial criminal escaping the police with the proceeds of their crime or a nun driving a disabled orphan to the daycare centre, the OUTCOME is the same. A crashed car, a lot of mess and a dead or injured person (usually not the driver).

Death doesn't really care about who was behind the wheel, it doesn't help to minimise it by going "oh well the guy was a robber, what do you expect?!"

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

There is a position taken on these pages, by certain people, that all car drivers are careless idiots and all cyclists saints

This is nonsense. As I’ve said many time before people travel by different means at different times. The ‘cyclists’ vs ‘drivers’ narrative is yours. In reality they’re the same people. But it’s also true that the consequences of wreckless driving are particularly serious.

As I said there are too many deaths on our roads.

Edited 18 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Yup too many deaths on our roads.

But whilst you accuse some of trying to minimise the impact of car accidents it must equally be true then that there are some who clearly want to maximise the impact of car accidents too - just look at the title of this thread and then some of the posts throughout. Some have clearly gone a bit "Dulwich Roads" - where any accident involving a car is an excuse to suggest excess speed, dangerous/careless driving without ever establishing what actually happened.

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

But whilst you accuse some of trying to minimise the impact of car accidents it must equally be true then that there are some who clearly want to maximise the impact of car accidents too

Hard to ‘maximise’ a death I would suggest. Sad that some are so blinkered in their footballification of road safety that their first instinct on hearing of a road death, is to minimise it - going out to bat for (what they bizarrely view as) their ‘team’. As said multiple times, there is no ‘car vs bike’ competition except in the strange, zero sum mindset of a handful of posters on here. People should be able to travel by whatever means they choose without being killed. It’s sad that so many lives are being ended on our streets and that predictably, the first instinct of some is to downplay it and object to every single measure that improves safety.

Edited 42 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As said multiple times, there is no ‘car vs bike’ competition except in the strange, zero sum mindset of a handful of posters on here… there are just people trying to travel by different means at different times.

Really?  Cllr McAsh is on the record as saying he would like to see the streets rid of all cars and car usage is being made deliberately more difficult by various council road interventions in the hope of reducing car use. Posters like you seem to support that endeavour. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, first mate said:

Really?  Cllr McAsh is on the record as saying he would like to see the streets rid of all cars and car usage is being made deliberately more difficult by various council road interventions in the hope of reducing car use. Posters like you seem to support that endeavour. 

If you have an issue with the council, take it up with them. I know you repeatedly suggest I work for them, but I don’t. That said, I’m not aware of the council saying they want to ‘get rid of all cars’.

Wanting to reduce reliance of private cars is a perfectly reasonable aim. If you want to reduce pollution, congestion, inactivity etc, then it’s an obvious objective.

and the fact that you hear someone say that they want to reduce car use as ‘it’s cars vs bikes!’, just proves my point. It talks to your mindset, nothing else.

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That said, I’m not aware of the council saying they want to ‘get rid of all cars’.

Naughty, Earl. You are changing what I said.

I said "Cllr McAsh (not the whole council, though he is the Cabinet member for Streets inSouthwark) is on record as saying he would like to see (local) streets rid of all cars".

He did not say he would like to get rid of all cars. 
 
At the time he was rather playing to the gallery and possibly said the above for effect. 

In response to a question about whether local interventions like LTNs were making life much more difficult for car-users by, for one, increasing journey times, McAsh responded by saying that was the whole point.

On the other hand, McAsh also recently 'starred' in what looked rather like an advertorial for Lime Bikes, proclaiming the wonders of using e-bikes etc..

It does look a bit kinda 'cars bad versus e-bikes good'. Don't you think?

Of course, as a user of both modes of transport I see the need for both.

Edited 2 hours ago by first mate

[Stalwart]

21 minutes ago, first mate said:

Naughty, Earl. You are changing what I said.

I said "Cllr McAsh (not the whole council, though he is the Cabinet member for Streets inSouthwark) is on record as saying he would like to see (local) streets rid of all cars".

He did not say he would like to get rid of all cars. 
 
At the time he was rather playing to the gallery and possibly said the above for effect. 

In response to a question about whether local interventions like LTNs were making life much more difficult for car-users by, for one, increasing journey times, McAsh responded by saying that was the whole point.

On the other hand, McAsh also recently 'starred' in what looked rather like an advertorial for Lime Bikes, proclaiming the wonders of using e-bikes etc..

It does look a bit kinda 'cars bad versus e-bikes good'. Don't you think?

Of course, as a user of both modes of transport I see the need for both.

Probably not worth engaging Earl on this. No matter what facts or views you present, there'll be an algorithmically  pre-programmed, response. 

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Hard to ‘maximise’ a death I would suggest. Sad that some are so blinkered in their footballification of road safety that their first instinct on hearing of a road death, is to minimise it - going out to bat for (what they bizarrely view as) their ‘team’. As said multiple times, there is no ‘car vs bike’ competition except in the strange, zero sum mindset of a handful of posters on here. People should be able to travel by whatever means they choose without being killed. It’s sad that so many lives are being ended on our streets and that predictably, the first instinct of some is to downplay it and / or object to every single measure that improves safety.

Who said anything about maximising the impact of deaths - I said maximise the impact of car accidents - get your facts right please. You're clearly trying to put words into people mouths again.

It seems to me, and probably many other sensible folks on here, that no-one is trying to minimise the impact of road deaths or injuries - it's just a narrative you like to try and peddle to deposition anyone who dares try to discuss anything with you. You're doing what you always do - never actually answer the questions posed to you just default to your usual responses. We have seen it time and time again.

Ho hum....

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Who said anything about maximising the impact of deaths - I said maximise the impact of car accidents

Which in this case, resulted in a death. 

I'm done with this nonsense. A person has died.

Thoughts are with the family.