The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[malumbu]

On 23/06/2025 at 19:54, Rockets said:

@malumbu oh dear.....the TFL review into their floating bus stop concept clearly isn't aligned to the real world....did you actually watch the video? I doubt it.

I am still laughing you are actually trying to defend the actions of the cyclists in that video...denial is not a river in Africa!

Anyway before you try to divert this thread it's probably a waste of time putting a pedestrian crossing in the cycle lane in Dulwich Square as clearly very few cyclists pay any attention to them....

 

<Post Removed>

Edited June 26 by Administrator
Removed a serious accusation which was clearly untrue and done solely to wind up people. Suspension given.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Does anyone else think there needs to be a pedestrian crossing across the cycle track through Dulwich Square? And if there was one would cyclists obey it?

I would rather they did not waste anymore money on DV junction.  Of course some cyclists would completely ignore it.  The latest cyclist trick in DV is not to wait at the lights to turn right onto Calton Avenue, just cycle over the crossing and up onto the pavement past the burial ground on to the cycle track thus avoiding any delay.

[march46]

Just curious - do you also raise concerns when drivers ignore road signage and enter pedestrianised areas, or about pedestrians who don’t wait for the green man? Or is your frustration only reserved for people travelling by bike?

[Rockets]

@march46 of course we do. It just so happens that the biggest menace to pedestrian in Dulwich Square is cyclists - do you not agree?

Would you support calls for a pedestrian crossing over the cycle track - one suspects you would not? It's almost as if the existing road layout was designed to accommodate one but it was never put in.

I am not sure why anyone would object to one - seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion to better protect pedestrians.

[march46]

I personally don’t feel unsafe in Dulwich Square, whether I’m walking or cycling. The only times I’ve felt concerned have been when drivers ignore the signage and act as though it’s not a pedestrianised area.
 

That said, I’m hearing from parents at local schools that more children are now walking to school independently - which suggests the space has become more welcoming and safer for young pedestrians too. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The idea that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space is, imo, hysterical nonsense. There are certainly far fewer reported accidents / collisions than there were before traffic was removed, not at all surprisingly. It's actually a very pleasant, calm space. 

[Moovart]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

Does anyone else think there needs to be a pedestrian crossing across the cycle track through Dulwich Square?

Is this a survey?  In which case my answer is No

There is one traffic lighted crossing and I think we can cross at other points close by using our own common sense.

But I would like to see some cyclists slow down more as they go through the junction.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The idea that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space is, imo, hysterical nonsense. There are certainly far fewer reported accidents / collisions than there were before traffic was removed, not at all surprisingly. It's actually a very pleasant, calm space. 

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But for those not part of the active travel lobby and more balanced in their assessment it can feel unsafe for pedestrians with cyclists either approaching at break neck speed (usually Lime bikes) down the hill from Calton into the Square or cutting various corners by bombing across the paved areas.

You're right, it is a pleasant calm space until cyclists appear - then it becomes a bit wild west and as a pedestrian you have to keep your wits about you - as crossing the cycle track really feels like a bit of a gamble. So many times I have witnessed the classic rumble of a cargo bike or Lime bike approaching and the ring ring of the bell alerting people to get out of their way.

A pedestrian crossing would, hopefully, slow some of the bikes down (although that video I posted clearly shows they may have negligible impact) and given how keen the council is to put them in elsewhere it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest it should be considered. It actually looks as if it may have been considered as the paved area is different at an ideal crossing point. Is the objection from the cycle lobby that it would slow cyclists down?

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

That is your opinion

...backed up by recorded collision data

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

Does anyone else think there needs to be a pedestrian crossing across the cycle track through Dulwich Square?

There is a pelican crossing already

[Rockets]

34 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

...backed up by recorded collision data

@Earl Aelfheah I explained this to you this months ago so no need to go over it again but to what you refer is police reported collision data which does not (by the very mechanism it employs) record all collisions (it is skewed to vehicular accidents) - all of the sites to which you refer and get your data use only those incidents to which the police either attend or someone reports it to them. 

39 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is a pelican crossing already

When we look at what's happening near Melbourne Grove this is clearly not a valid reason not to add more - there is clearly a natural crossing point in the area where it looks like there was going to be a crossing.

I really can't work out why you are so against it - can someone explain the rational?

[newresidentindulwich]

I don't see any need for an additional crossing.  The area is so much safer and more pleasant than it used to be.  You obviously need to look both ways when you cross the cycle lane, but you still would even with a zebra crossing...  My child now comes home from school alone, but we wouldn't have allowed this without the ltn.  It's a great place to sit with an ice cream in the evening too.  

[Guest]

17 hours ago, march46 said:

Just curious - do you also raise concerns when drivers ignore road signage and enter pedestrianised areas, or about pedestrians who don’t wait for the green man? Or is your frustration only reserved for people travelling by bike?

I insulted you earlier and have been reprimanded by Joe and my post removed.  I have foed you and suggest you do the same for me, we clearly don't agree, and I don't like being followed around on this site being goaded,

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

I explained this to you this months ago so no need to go over it again but to what you refer is police reported collision data which does not (by the very mechanism it employs) record all collisions (it is skewed to vehicular accidents) - all of the sites to which you refer and get your data use only those incidents to which the police either attend or someone reports it to them.

Yes, serious collisions involving injury. But I'm sure they're not important.

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

When we look at what's happening near Melbourne Grove this is clearly not a valid reason not to add more - there is clearly a natural crossing point in the area where it looks like there was going to be a crossing.

I really can't work out why you are so against it - can someone explain the rational?

There is a pelican crossing. How many crossings do you think a 50 yard section of road, carrying no heavy vehicles and with almost no recorded collisions should have?

....and would you support applying similar, or even stricter criteria to roads with higher accident rates and more, fast moving, heavy vehicles? 

Edited June 26 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, serious collisions involving injury. They are down.

Of course they are because motorised vehicles no longer flow through there and your data is based, in the main, on motorised vehicle collisions. This is a bit like the council monitoring, and then heralding, a drop in traffic along closed streets.......it's kind of a "you don't say" moment.

I bet if there was data collected on every collision involving cycles then that would have increased as much as collisions involving motorised vehicles has decreased - maybe more so. But that data is not collected which is why your argument is so fundamentally biased - because the dataset you are referring to is incomplete.

It's funny isn't it - the active travel lobby come on here and laud the new crossings around Melbourne Grove and defend them yet when someone suggests something to help pedestrians deal with cyclists they're vociferous in opposition. Why is this? There is an increasing weight of evidence that pedestrians needs more protection from cyclists yet the active travel lobby won't ever entertain it.

[Guest]

@Earl Aelfheah  Don't respond to my posts, I won't read them, you are also on my foe list!

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Random?! 😆

1 hour ago, Kathleen Olander said:

@Earl Aelfheah  Don't respond to my posts, I won't read them, you are also on my foe list!

 

Ok. I definitely won’t respond to your posts. Doh!

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Of course they are because motorised vehicles no longer flow through there and your data is based, in the main, on motorised vehicle collisions.

Based on serious collisions involving injury. So we’re accepting that the most serious collisions have fallen but we’re discounting that because they mainly involve cars (not sure I get that logic), and concluding that the square is now more dangerous because?….

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

I bet if there was data collected on every collision involving cycles then that would have increased as much as collisions involving motorised vehicles has decreased - maybe more so. But that data is not collected which is why your argument is so fundamentally biased

A) if you replaced car collisions with bicycle collisions (not that you want either obviously) it would result in fewer serious injuries.

B) data is collected on all serious collisions involving injury. Including where they involve a bicycle. Serious collisions have decreased

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

the active travel lobby

Lol. Because anyone with a different opinion must be part of some sort of ‘lobby group’.

Does that mean you’re part of the inactive travel lobby?

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

yet when someone suggests something to help pedestrians deal with cyclists they're vociferous in opposition

You haven’t explained why you want two crossing within maybe 20 yards of each other, in a quiet area with relatively slow moving traffic, no heavy vehicles, and almost no record of serious collisions. Do you support zebra crossing every 20 or 30 yards across Dulwich?

I actually have little problem with a more crossings, but if we’re having two there, I’d like to see a lot more on major roads - something I guarantee you’d object to. 

Edited June 26 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are genuine accident hotspots locally. This is not one. Feels very cynical.

Edited June 26 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Based on serious collisions involving injury. So we’re accepting that the most serious collisions have fallen but we’re discounting that because they mainly involve cars (not sure I get that logic), and concluding that the square is now more dangerous because?….

No it is your logic that is flawed...I have explained this to you before - remember it is recorded only if the police were present or someone alerted the police to it - I am not going over that again and I will let you try to work it out for yourself....

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

B) data is collected on all serious collisions involving injury. Including where they involve a bicycle. Serious collisions have decreased

No. Wrong. Again. Go back to where I explained it to you how the STATS19 are collected. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You haven’t explained why you want two crossing within maybe 20 yards of each other, in a quiet area with relatively slow moving traffic, no heavy vehicles, and almost no record of serious collisions. Do you support zebra crossing every 20 or 30 yards across Dulwich?

Because the high footfall crossing area in front of the shops feels like having to run sniper alley sometimes with bikes hurtling towards you often doing 15 - 20 mph. You may not feel it or you may just be blind to it but it's real and it is a problem and the council should really address it. Something needs to be done to slow bikes down at that junction - especially those hurtling down Calton - often with zero regard for the fact that it is also a pedestrian area and supposedly a shared space but a growing majority of cyclist show scant regard for this.

[vladi]

On 23/06/2025 at 19:14, Rockets said:

Seems like pedestrian crossings are optional for cyclists....so I take back my request for one in Dulwich Square...it's probably safer without one as pedestrians will approach the crossing disregarding the advice of the Highway Code that they have priority.

 

Why not have a chicane type barrier in the cycle lane either side of a pedestrian crossing so that these cyclists have to dismount rather than mow down pedestrians. That or speed bumps or corrugations to make the cyclists more aware of danger.

Edited June 26 by vladi

[Sue]

3 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

@Earl Aelfheah  Don't respond to my posts, I won't read them, you are also on my foe list!

 

Other people may want to read Earl Aelfheah's responses to your posts, though, even if you don't! 🙄

And what on earth is a foe list?

 

Edited June 26 by Sue

[Sue]

17 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

I insulted you earlier and have been reprimanded by Joe and my post removed.  I have foed you and suggest you do the same for me, we clearly don't agree, and I don't like being followed around on this site being goaded,

"Followed around on this site being goaded"?

It's a forum! There are discussions! People have different opinions and disagree with each other!

It would be very boring if everybody agreed on everything!

Insults, however, are a different matter.

People, glasshouses and stone throwing spring to mind.

Edited June 27 by Sue

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

Something needs to be done to slow bikes down at that junction - especially those hurtling down Calton - often with zero regard for the fact that it is also a pedestrian area and supposedly a shared space but a growing majority of cyclist show scant regard for this.

Speeding is much more of a problem elsewhere, and involves heavy vehicles. You have spent many posts moaning about cars, vans and lorries being slowed to 20mph on Sydenham Hill, so i just can't take this seriously. There is a pelican crossing if anyone feels that it's difficult to cross the cycle lane - but let's be honest, there is no problem crossing at all, you just have to look both ways as you would whenever you cross a road.

The cycle lane is not a shared space, it's relatively narrow (compared to the road previously), it curves round to slow bikes naturally, is only perhaps 50 yards long and has a pelican crossing already.

On the road collision data - I have shared it previously, people can look for themselves. It contains info on all serious collisions (those that involved the police / resulted in serious injury) and the mode of travel involved (bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles). It's data you complained didn't exist, until I linked you to it, at which point you pivoted to trying to think of ways to undermine it. The data is of course, entirely robust, and you offer no alternative data of any type. Serious collisions are down, which as you have hinted at, is hardly surprising, because fast moving, heavy, motor powered vehicles have been removed; Despite your refusal to accept it, they are by far the largest cause of road danger, killing and seriously injuring tens of thousands on our roads every year. This again, is a matter of fact. Their removal has made Calton road significantly safer. I think you're very well aware of this. 

We know you don't like the fact that heavy vehicles have been removed, the pedestrian space increased, and the area enhanced with seating and planting. Trying to raise panic about it being dangerous however is very cynical and I don't imagine you believe it for one minute.

Edited June 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is a pelican crossing if anyone feels that it's difficult to cross the cycle lane - but let's be honest, there is no problem crossing at all, you just have to look both ways as you would whenever you cross a road.

The cycle lane is not a shared space, it's relatively narrow (compared to the road previously), it curves round to slow bikes naturally, is only perhaps 50 yards long and has a pelican crossing already.

Let's be honest here, from experience across London cyclists don't always respect pedestrian crossings, be it lights, pelican or zebra so why do you think this one will be treated differently? 

Maybe @vladi has a point with the barriers to slow cyclists down. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Let's be honest here, from experience across London cyclists don't always respect pedestrian crossings, be it lights, pelican or zebra so why do you think this one will be treated differently? 

Maybe @vladi has a point with the barriers to slow cyclists down. 

Seeing as nearly half of drivers admit to speeding in 20mph zones and we know that people cause significant numbers of deaths and injuries when travelling by motor vehicle, we should also have barriers across some of the roads in Dulwich? Oh hold on, that's what you've been objecting to! 🤣

There is just no consistency in these arguments. Provide any evidence at all that Calton Avenue is more dangerous now than it was previously. There is none. There is plenty that it is now safer.

This really is just desperate and cynical fear mongering from people who will not accept a 2 minute diversion in their car, still. Half a decade on.

Edited June 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

What the actual "funk" had that to do with cyclists not respecting crossings? 

Another attempt at deflection from the bleeding obvious there @Earl Aelfheah