Anyway, I am going to get wound up further as it's a beautiful day and I had my R1 nicked yesterdayAnyway not going to get wound up any further as its a beautiful day and Ive just picked up my new bike
Motorcyclist killed on Dulwich road?
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
So prejudice and evidence for assumption came in post 6, after you had started ranting about assumptions? I see.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
AAARGH!
STOP IT!
I came onto this thread to say that a partially sighted pedestrian I take extra care crossing those roads because a dangerous minority go very very fast. i don't like road humps because they wreck axles of Fire-engines and larger vehicles (like a mini-bus with a wheelchair lift at my work...the axle snapped) but those road cushion thingies seem quite good, if very expensive. The trouble with speed cameras is that they don't deter people with illegal vehicles, and there's a lot of illegal vehicles about.
STOP IT!
I came onto this thread to say that a partially sighted pedestrian I take extra care crossing those roads because a dangerous minority go very very fast. i don't like road humps because they wreck axles of Fire-engines and larger vehicles (like a mini-bus with a wheelchair lift at my work...the axle snapped) but those road cushion thingies seem quite good, if very expensive. The trouble with speed cameras is that they don't deter people with illegal vehicles, and there's a lot of illegal vehicles about.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Sorry. I'm just fucked off with db thinking he knows better than people who actually live round here!
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
He has got knowledge of the area though, including on a motorbike and I think you should put each other on ignore. I think you both make a valuable contribution to these boards but not when you wind each other up.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
He's telling people who live on Dulwich Rd that they're assuming there's a problem with speeding! The man can contribute excellent stuff to the boards, but not when he's in this sort of arrogant paranoid mood.
snowy_again
Slush
i thought DB was making a point that there was an assumption that the motorbike itself was speeding and therefore the cause of the accident, and IMO that was the impression I got from those first posts, hence me making a comment. None of us know whether it was or not, whether we live on Dulwich Rd or not.
clandestino
no llevar papel
I don't wish to fan the flames, but this isn't the first time that db has taken a discussion about local issues and derailed it into a general discussion. Perhaps in the future you could start another thread when you want to have a more general debate - perhaps with an OP saying "inspired by this thread..."
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
Anyway, I am going to get wound up further as it's a beautiful day and I had my R1 nicked yesterday
Far be it from me to fan the flames still further, but I'm surprised none of my fellow motorcyclists have argued that the victim can't have been speeding because he got away with 'a few fractures'. If a biker hits a van at some of the speeds discussed in this thread he tends to shed the odd limb, or perhaps his head, and die. Chest injuries have been the leading cause of death since helmets have been compulsory.
I might nip out there later to see what sort of speed I would normally do on that stretch.
I might nip out there later to see what sort of speed I would normally do on that stretch.
Bummer DB, sorry to hear thatAnyway, I am going to get wound up further as it's a beautiful day and I had my R1 nicked yesterday
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
No, there was no assumption in the first 3 posts (apart from a general point about speeding on Dulwich Rd - the OP could have been read as the van speeding or the bike speeding), which is what db originally commented on.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
<Antfucker mode> Yeah but no but yeah; it was pointed out that the bike appeared to be going straight (from its position under the van) and the van was turning. So the assumption was that the biker was speeding<Antfucker mode off>
That's exactly what I was challenging. Blagsta, however, chooses to misrepresent everything I post for some reason best known to themselves. I have made absolutely no comment whatsoever about the general problem on the road in question. And I simply asked what the basis for the claim was in post 5, as anyone capable of basic comprehension can see for themselves.
I suggest that you (and everyone else) ignore Blagsta, as I have done, especially when it comes to them posting about what I have allegedly posted.
Cheers (and Gixxer). I never liked fucking South-East London anyway.Bummer DB, sorry to hear that
How is it "derailing" a discussion to challenge the basis for the original post?
If the stereotyping and prejudice had been on the basis of race would you have been suggesting that it shouldn't be challenged but another thread should be started to discuss it ...
How is it "derailing" a discussion to challenge the basis for the original post?
If the stereotyping and prejudice had been on the basis of race would you have been suggesting that it shouldn't be challenged but another thread should be started to discuss it ...
Hang on - I was sympathetic to the biker on the grounds that I thought he might have been killed!
clandestino
no llevar papel
How is it "derailing" a discussion to challenge the basis for the original post?
If the stereotyping and prejudice had been on the basis of race would you have been suggesting that it shouldn't be challenged but another thread should be started to discuss it ...
If you go back and read the OP, you'll notice that there was no suggestion that the motorcylist was speeding - just that there are no traffic calming measures on Dulwich. Because it's a bugbear of yours, you took that to mean that the motorcyclist was speeding - like you saw a key word and kicked into action. It's exactly what you did on a previous thread, when I mentioned the broken windows theory. You ignored the context and launched into your prepared spiel on the subject. It was unfortunate in both cases that it was early on in the thread, neither of which were given much of a chance to develop into a discussion on a local topic.
I have great respect for the knowledge you bring to Urban db, but I wish you'd stop and think for a second.
Yeah, I know ... and that's really nice.Hang on - I was sympathetic to the biker on the grounds that I thought he might have been killed!
The problem is that lots of people routinely assume that motorcyclists are "going to fast" - it is a type of instititionalised prejudice. And, as (a) a motorcyclist and (b, and more importantly) someone who does not agree that any sort of stereotyping or prejudice should be allowed to flourish, I routinely challenged it.
No. I didn't.
If you actually READ post 5 you'll see that I don't "kick into" any action. I ASK. I did so quite deliberately. Speed had been suggested as a factor by the original post referring to the absence of traffic calming and post 3 referring to starting a petition for a speed camera. As these posts had been made in the context of this particular incident it is plain that, in the mind of the original poster, there may well be some connection between the incident and speed. So I ASKED.
And the response in post 6 makes it plain that there IS a baseless assumption ("So probably the motorbike going too fast..."), which I then challenge. If the answer had been different (i.e. there had been some basis for the belief)
You go to the Blagsta school of comprehension? I do wish you'd actually try and read and understand what is posted before "kicking into" slagging it off.
clandestino
no llevar papel
But the point is that you ignore the local context, you ignore the local knowledge of the people who actually live there, and you shift the discussion onto your own agenda - and that's the thread derailed. And you do this because you don't live in the area, so you don't care about the local issue - just about the wider issues, as you see them. It's frustrating for people who come to the Brixton forum solely for discussion about the area.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
detective-boy;7453121I do wish you'd actually try and read [i said:
I've never seen a poster on here enter threads dismissing anything people have posted as 'bollocks' and getting abusive instantly as much as you do. For you to post something like that is really taking the piss.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yes, in post 6, after db went off on one. As I've already pointed out.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You really need to go back and read the thread in order.
Sorry.
I didn't realise that all threads were now (a) single issue and (b) only to be used by people with a direct, personal knowledge of the precise subjects under discussion.
My point did not derail anything. It took something which was being used as part of the "evidence" for the discussion and challenged it's veracity. Are you really saying that the people of Brixton should be allowed to try and solve their problems based on fiction and prejudice without challenge? It was a single point, made in two posts and apparently accepted.
Others (like you) came along and turned it into a saga that it never was.
Go on then, provide the evidence for that allegation ...I've never seen a poster on here enter threads dismissing anything people have posted as 'bollocks' and getting abusive instantly as much as you do. For you to post something like that is really taking the piss.
Will you please fuck off trying to engage with me. I am ignoring everything you say and you will not that I have not directed any response to you since the mods told us to pack it in.
Similar threads
