Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Two hazards in Dulwich Park which all of us probably come up against, and a good few of us are probably directly involved in - would be interested in general opinion:


1 - Cycling fast. Technically I suppose cyclists in the park are supposed to observe the speed limit (5mph?) but that's actually really slow on a bike - is cycling faster than that wrong?


2 - loose dogs. According to park rules dogs are supposed to be on a lead at all times unless in a designated dog exercise area (dotted around the park but never on the main carriageway). Clearly almost no-one does this - fair enough or a downright danger to the (possibly speeding...!) cyclists / rollerbladers etc when they lurch in front of the bikes?


3 - Those little yellow recumbent buggys they rent out. The amount of times I've been taken out by those things swerving like on a slalom course for no apparent reason. This one's just a moan really - but do they leave anyone else downright scared of overtaking them?


Al

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6015-dulwich-park-hazards/
Share on other sites

Two hazards in Dulwich Park which all of us probably come up against, and a good few of us are probably directly involved in - would be interested in general opinion:


1 - Cycling fast. Technically I suppose cyclists in the park are supposed to observe the speed limit (5mph?) but that's actually really slow on a bike - is cycling faster than that wrong?


2 - loose dogs. According to park rules dogs are supposed to be on a lead at all times unless in a designated dog exercise area (dotted around the park but never on the main carriageway). Clearly almost no-one does this - fair enough or a downright danger to the (possibly speeding...!) cyclists / rollerbladers etc when they lurch in front of the bikes?


3 - Those little yellow recumbent buggys they rent out. The amount of times I've been taken out by those things swerving like on a slalom course for no apparent reason. This one's just a moan really - but do they leave anyone else downright scared of overtaking them?


Al

A bit harsh BBW..


I've seen all the things you describe Al&Em but to be honest I've not seen many problems either - a park being a public space I kind of expect people to rub along.


The dogs thing bother me more than most and I wouldn't shed many tears if the park started implementing some of it's own rules mind you..but none of it really mars my enjoyment of the place

A bit harsh BBW..


I've seen all the things you describe Al&Em but to be honest I've not seen many problems either - a park being a public space I kind of expect people to rub along.


The dogs thing bother me more than most and I wouldn't shed many tears if the park started implementing some of it's own rules mind you..but none of it really mars my enjoyment of the place

I count 3 hazards there no?


I've not been to the park for a good while but it seems these issues will forever exist.

If people respected each others space and considered those around them then I personally don't consider the points raised much of a hazard.

The occasional "accident" always adds to the experience of the great outdoors. Of course if problems occured on a regular and continuous spread of time... oh I don't know...

I count 3 hazards there no?


I've not been to the park for a good while but it seems these issues will forever exist.

If people respected each others space and considered those around them then I personally don't consider the points raised much of a hazard.

The occasional "accident" always adds to the experience of the great outdoors. Of course if problems occured on a regular and continuous spread of time... oh I don't know...

Surely if the dog and urself collided in an area where they're (the dog) meant to be kept on the lead and you couldn't stop in time but yet were cycling in the proper manner (paying attention to your surroundings) it would be the fault of the owner for not adherring to the signs/notices and such.


If, however, you intentionally went after the dog I think perhaps you'd be in the wrong B)

Surely if the dog and urself collided in an area where they're (the dog) meant to be kept on the lead and you couldn't stop in time but yet were cycling in the proper manner (paying attention to your surroundings) it would be the fault of the owner for not adherring to the signs/notices and such.


If, however, you intentionally went after the dog I think perhaps you'd be in the wrong B)

I have to laugh hollowly at these complaints. The Park these days is a blissful haven....as almost anyone who recalls the days when cars were allowed in and packed the perimeter road as a car park will attest. *Usually* the hire bikes stick to the perimeter road or wider paths, as do the roller bladers. I'm just glad these little tykes have somewhere safe and traffic-free to let off steam: ditto all the little pink, tassled barbie bikes around the playground. It's a park and there's lots of it dammit!

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

    • A friend has asked me to recommend Juliene for regular cleaning as she has some slots available. Her phone number is 07751426567
    • I'd put short odds on that but who would be his likely successor?
    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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