Earl Aelfheah

The advice doesn't relate to situations where pedestrians share footpaths with cars. In fact the picture from the highway code clearly shows two individuals walking on a pavement. If you are suggesting that people must abide by advice when they're travelling by bicycle, then surely the same logic applies when they're travelling by foot? Or perhaps where it is just advice and not a mandatory requirement, individuals should consider it and exercise judgement? Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I would suggest that they are not if you are driving with due care and attention. The law would tend to agree with me too. If you drive a motor vehicle into someone travelling quite properly by bicycle and who has lights, the excuse of 'not seeing them' isn't going to be very convincing. And what colour of clothing is it ok to wear? What about green? What type of green? At what point is the shade no longer bright enough to consider them worthy of sympathy in the even of a collision?

The highway code advises reflective clothing for pedestrians at night, yes (not helmets). It also advises you "wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions". I've posted a screenshot above. Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle on well lit city streets, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I think they're perfectly visible to anyone paying adequate attention. If someone chooses to wear additional reflective clothing, that's great - but it's up to them. It's not mandatory, and anyone who choses to just walk or cycle in their normal clothes is perfectly entitled to do so. We shouldn't make excuses for inattentive / dangerous driving.

The space outside of Jades, where that tree is is extremely narrow as are many other bits, and the whole stretch is packed at weekends / very slow going.

BTW, this is a local discussion forum. So it kind of is a debate.

I don't know about that. I'm just commenting on the idea that it's not possible to read the signs / notice a school street. That said, if you're going from ED to Highshore Road, can't you go via McDermott > Choumert Grove > Chadwick? The original post suggested that the school street would only be in operation for just over an hour in the morning?

You can see the line along the Oddono's / Moxon's stretch where the shop owned frontages end and the pavement begins. The pavement is narrow for what is a very busy stretch at particular times and were there are pinch points around trees. You can also see in the picture below, why buses struggle to pass each other / cause congestion because of cars in the bus lane.

Who is 'they'? The people of West Dulwich?

No one is arguing that people should cycle without lights or reflectors. Obviously they should. It is also a legal requirement. But the colour of someone’s clothing? Is it ok to wear navy? What about green? What shade? At what point should we have ‘no reason for sympathy’ if they’re in a collision? I don’t want people to feel like they need special clothes just to walk or cycle. If you have lights and reflectors and you’re on well lit city streets, there is no reason why drivers shouldn’t be able to see you, assuming of course, that they're driving with due care and attention. But yes, if there are lots of people without lights, that should be addressed. I suspect in part, it's the change over in seasons and the fact that people are getting caught out by how early it's getting dark now (obviously no excuse).

I agree with this. Would be interesting to see.

I don't know it... Cyclists who chose not to follow advice? Does that extend to pedestrians who fail to follow advice too? Do you “Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions” when walking? As advised by the Highway Code? It’s quite grey out today. If not, and you get hit by a car, should there be 'no reason for sympathy'?

People should abide by the rules obviously and should have lights and reflectors (which make them perfectly visible, especially in a well lit urban area). Anything they choose to do over and above that is up to them. There is advisory guidance (as posted above). But it's just that, advisory. People should use their own judgement and I strongly oppose the idea that if one doesn't agree with their choice, then they 'get what the deserve' (which is effectively what Penguin is suggesting). The highway code also suggest that pedestrians should: Which one might consider sensible advice, but very few people abide by (and I certainly don't criticise them where they don't -I for one have never worn a luminous sash when walking 🤣).

People travelling by bicycle should have lights and reflectors of course. Assuming they do, then the are perfectly visible for anyone paying adequate attention. I don't like this idea of 'invisible' cyclists - it sounds like an absolute cop out. As pointed out above, even when you do wear every fluorescent bit of clothing going and have all the lights and reflectors possible, drivers will still claim they didn't see you. We need to push back on that excuse. If you're driving a powerful motor vehicle through a built up area, then there is a heavy responsibility on you to take care and look out for pedestrians and cyclists. It feels like the burden of responsibility is slightly skewed here. There are lot's of black cars. They pose a far greater risk to others than pedestrians or cyclists. I don't hear people calling for them to be painted brighter colours. We should not be policing what people wear, whether walking, cycling or driving.

I'm not missing the point, I don't agree that people must wear special clothes when walking or cycling. There is no law on this and despite the highway code suggesting clothing that cyclists and pedestrians might consider wearing after dark, I doubt you wear a reflective sash when walking in the evening. It's also a fact that a bicycle and a moped are different things. It's not unreasonable to point out where someone conflates the two. What is 'disagreeable', is Penguin68 suggesting that we should have no sympathy for someone hit by a careless driver, if they weren't wearing particular clothes that he deems appropriate. People should obviously have lights on their bikes when travelling after dark.

There is no law about what people must wear when cycling. The highway code also suggests that pedestrians might want to wear bright clothes in order to make themselves more visible, but I don't think many people actually follow that advice. I think people should wear what ever they feel comfortable in. You shouldn't have to wear 'special clothes' in order to use a bicycle, or to take a walk. There are laws about lights. I agree that people should have lights on at night. There are invisible cyclists? 🤣 You have no sympathy for someone travelling perfectly legally by bicycle, with good lights and reflectors, and who is hit by a driver paying insufficient attention, if they're not wearing bright clothing? And does the same view extend to pedestrians? From the highway code:

I am aware. You didn’t read my post properly: I was pointing out that people can wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. And that a moped isn’t a bicycle.

People should have lights on - hard to disagree with that. It’s up to them what they wear though. People aren’t encouraged to paint their car bright yellow when it gets dark. There is no law that saws you have to dress brightly when walking or cycling, or driving a car. A moped isn’t a bicycle.

@first mate you regularly address questions for the council to me. I know you're convinced that I work for them in some way (along with anyone who doesn't automatically oppose all change), but I don't. I have no interest in creating more parking on the Lane - you can tell this because I've never called for it, and have agued for removing some parking.

My experience of school streets is that they're usually pretty obvious - often people put temporary plastic barriers up, and there are lot's of parents and children hanging around / standing in the road. In most cases, the signage is also pretty clear (if it isn't in a specific instance, then you should take it up with the council). Those driving through are quite often just choosing to ignore it, or are completely inattentive (which I have little sympathy for if you're driving past a school during drop off / pick up). I live opposite a primary school and pre-school street restrictions there was at least one collision involving a child, and several near misses.

The thread is literally about improving walkability and the opening post suggests widening pavements by removing some parking. The suggestion that discussing the topic is hijacking the thread is very odd indeed. Rockets dubious claim that 22% of shoppers on Lordship Lane drive there, is based on a typically biased (mis)interpretation of a 10 year old survey, so not unreasonable to provide the relevant context for those who haven’t read it themselves. Nothing anti car going on here btw. You could improve traffic flow on the lane considerably by removing half a dozen parking spaces, and making the bus lane 24/7. But the thread is about how to improve the shopping environment for pedestrians, along what is primarily a local shopping street.

22% said they had driven to the area. 90% said they were in the area because they lived or worked here. So the conclusion that 22% we’re driving ‘to the shops’ is highly dubious. A liberal estimate might be 10% (those shopping on the lane who didn’t live or work locally), but it’s highly likely some of those would have arrived by bus or other means. 5% talked about ease of parking being something that attracted them, so probably that’s more suggestive of the numbers who used to drive for the shops a decade ago. I suspect it may have been, and certainly is now, less than 5%. I also think repurposing half a dozen car spaces to create more room for pedestrians would encourage more shoppers than it would discourage, especially if it also made it easier to arrive by bus. No evidence of this. In terms of a thriving lane, I would say pavements which people can navigate and remain passable, and faster buses, are more important than half a dozen parked cars (that rarely move).

This is a non-sequitur. It just suggests that more people visit the shops on the Saturday. It tells you nothing about how many people drive to Lordship Lane specifically for the shops. As I previously pointed out, the responses suggest that 90% of those who reported using the shops (a decade ago), considered themselves 'local', being in the area either because they live or work here. Yes, because they work in the area. The fact that the shops are rated positively doesn't tell you anything, except that people rate the shops positively. Yes, 5%. That's quite different from the 22% you were quoting. Probably 5% is a slightly more accurate percentage of those driving to LL and shopping 10 years ago. I don't doubt that some people drive to LL (and probably more 10 years ago than now), but your suggestion that it was 22% of shoppers is extremely dubious.

This is missing some important context. Firstly the survey is a decade old. Secondly, 56% of people surveyed described themselves as living locally, and 90% as 'local' by virtue of where they lived or worked. So it seems likely the 22% you describe drive to SE22 for work and then use the local shops when they're in the area. Very few, if any, are specifically driving to, and parking on, Lordship Lane for the shops. In the survey LL was very much described as a local shopping area, not a destination shopping area.

I don't. I thought the OP suggested removing some parking to widen pavements? Perhaps you could just explain what you are proposing, instead of assuming I know what it is?

What's the more 'pragmatic' approach to widening pavements? I assume it's just not widening pavements.

Really sorry to hear this. I hope he's OK and not too shaken.