Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see Dulwich Roads has been back to the site but has not posted or responded to the request to share the content of the tweet they retweeted. Let's see if they do...if I was a betting person I know what my money would be on.....

P.S. Raeburn, you came on here defending Dulwich Roads on the basis they tweeted a "correction". By doing so you validated my very first point that Dulwich Roads needs to engage brain and fact check before sending out incorrect and misleading information - thus agreeing with the subject of this thread.

Edited by Rockets
On 11/10/2024 at 17:10, Rockets said:

Here you go...fill yer boots...it's only a few days old so plenty for you to post!!!

 

Thanks for posting this - very enjoyable commentary. 

It does highlight a very serious problem round here though of cyclists who have no respect for the law or for other people using the footpaths.

Edited by CPR Dave
5 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

It does highlight a very serious problem round here though of cyclists who have no respect for the law or for other people using the footpaths.

Actually, I'm not sure it's quite like that. I think that (many) people who cycle, in general, have normal respect for the law in general, it's just that I don't think they believe that it applies to them; they think of themselves as 'assisted pedestrians' and act - as regards usage of roads and pavements, just as if they were pedestrians. Pedestrians aren't that bothered about traffic lights - if they see their way is clear they cross and enter roads without regard. (Some) cyclists move from road to pavement without worrying - just as a pedestrian might. If you look at their actions, as filmed, they are treating roads and pavements exactly as a pedestrian might, and not as a car (or motorbike rider) would. Pedestrians aren't bothered about signalling their intentions, or about lights or wearing visible clothing, and neither are some cyclists.

Motorists, and riders of heavy motor bikes have all had to demonstrate (and thus learn) road and traffic awareness - cyclists haven't. All they've been trained in, if at all, and by their parents, is being pedestrians.

Which is why they act like pedestrians (some of them at least). It's just they are on bikes and travelling much faster than pedestrians. And just like a pedestrian caught behind slow moving pedestrians they will push their way through, move from one path to another willy nilly.

That, I think, is the problem.

  • Like 1

So there are 3 threads complaining about cyclists, three complaining about LTNs, four if you include pedestrianisation/Dulwich square, two complaining about enforcement/driving penalties,  one complaining about a possible CPZ and if you go back a little further complaints about the ULEZ extension.  And this one where there is a complaint against an X feed about dangerous road users. Many of these are interchangable such as this thread now complaining about cycling.  An alien from another planet may surmise that the citizens of SE London are very car centric.  Fortunately there are many of us who consider the measures above that encourage less driving and more active travel, with all the benefits that this brings, are a good thing.

Edited by malumbu
Forgot ULEZ!
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1

Malumbu, correction - this thread is about dangerous and concerning misinformation being circulated by Dulwich Roads.

P.S. it's probably a good time to remind you that you have posted in all of those said threads on numerous occasions and have been a major contributor....just saying....

Edited by Rockets
17 hours ago, malumbu said:

So there are 3 threads complaining about cyclists, three complaining about LTNs, four if you include pedestrianisation/Dulwich square, two complaining about enforcement/driving penalties,  one complaining about a possible CPZ and if you go back a little further complaints about the ULEZ extension.  And this one where there is a complaint against an X feed about dangerous road users. Many of these are interchangable such as this thread now complaining about cycling.  An alien from another planet may surmise that the citizens of SE London are very car centric.  Fortunately there are many of us who consider the measures above that encourage less driving and more active travel, with all the benefits that this brings, are a good thing.

So what, it's a discussion board.....................................

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

    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
    • This sounds great 👍 
    • We found a red TREK bike yesterday that had clearly been stolen and dumped. Would love to reunite it with its owner. Get in touch if you know whose it is.
    • Hey, I am interested. I had started a club last year however everyone slowly dropped off but I am always up for morning runs and some evening runs too.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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