Penguin68

Didn't respond to as wasn't invited to. Neither was one of the shop owners in the stretch of road directly impacted, to whom this also came as a surprise. Had I been invited I would have supported the creation of safe crossing points for pedestrians. I doubt whether the 14-15 week time frame for works would have been mentioned.

Tell you what, folks, if the three and a half months go by and there are sufficient people working properly on each day (and for a reasonable time during the day) then I'll apologise here to the TFL planners for my calumnies - but if there are working days when no one is, or not through the day, then maybe those who are upset by my predictions will apologise to me.

Just to clarify:- 1. I’ve lived at the south end of Underhill for 37 years and am well aware of the dangers of crossing around the Junction of the A205 and Lordship Lane as it turns into London Road. And I entirely support work to remedy and obviate those dangers – I’ve never, during the day, not had to run to cross to get busses, and at my age running is not as easy as it was! The fact that it has taken ‘the powers that be’ so excessively long to come up with a solution for that junction underlines the planning problems associated with that junction, managing South Circular traffic through what is actually in places 4 lanes (one a bus lane) being fed by 3 lanes going down to 2 (the South Circular) lane system, one lane, and sometimes two lanes being bus lanes. With the need to interweave pedestrians wanting and needing to cross both the South Circular and Lordship lane at that junction to access public transport. But I presume, now, that this planning problem has been resolved, such that a solution can be implemented. As I said I my first post, programming light phasing will be a real challenge, but not one that has to be achieved on site (just the implantation, little different from installing any traffic light system). 2. The actual amount of the road network that will need work is relatively short, again I’m guessing. At the most I’m assuming 200 yards on each of the three road segments leading from the junction itself – The Lordship Lane/ London Road sections and the A205 joining at right angles. Does it really take TFL contractors three and a half months to ‘fix’ 600 yards of roadway (if that)? Remembering that unlike Thames Water they are not having to excavate anything? Just resurface? Normally it would take only a couple of days to resurface that length of road – although the fact that they are working on a major thorough-fare (yes, the A205 is as major as it gets for us) does mean that they cannot simply close the road off, and the LTNs and other restrictions mean that diversionary routes are not possible. 3. It would be entirely possible, particularly in that area where there is minimal housing (some flats over the shopping area of course) to do night work, which would be much less disruptive of traffic, and where much progress could be made, but I bet they are not going to do that. 4. Unless the work is to prepare some sort of fly-over I cannot imagine that it could conceivably take three and half months lapsed time (i.e. actual working time) to do this work – even with the ridiculously and slow UK working practices (nowhere else in the entire world have I seen notices over a few miles of motorway ‘improvement’ suggesting that the work in progress would take 18 months (or longer) as I regularly see on British motorways). Even allowing for problems associated with letting traffic flow continue I believe that we won’t see weekend or night work, nor, frequently, I’m guessing, any work going on during the ‘working’ day. Instead we will see different gangs with different skills rolling up on occasion to do their bit and then nothing until the next group deigns to turn up. 5. Anywhere else in the world a major through route for traffic (yes, I know, it’s ridiculous, but that’s what the South Circular is) would have work expedited to reduce delays and associated costs of disruption – but the ‘clowns’ – and I use that word intentionally – who have planned this clearly and simply don’t care about the impact of their plans - other of course, and rightly, the eventual reduction of risk for pedestrians, which, as I have said, is to be applauded.. Weekend and night-time work would severely reduce the disruption time, and the disruption effect. If people (and commercial materials) have hours added to their journeys into and through Dulwich – well, why should they care? It’s not their money or time or convenience. And if people who live here have standing traffic puffing out fumes, well, tough innit?

Mal The fact that it is more difficult to drive where other road users actions are less predictable is, well, a fact. Of course that means that other road users have to take that into consideration when they drive, but being themselves 'good' and predictable drivers doesn't mean that cyclists aren't less unpredictable. I was making the point that of course cyclists, particularly in hilly conditions, as we have, find it more difficult to 'maintain' a constant speed - I'm not blaming them for that, just stating it as a fact (as you had yourself mentioned that difficulty). Cyclists, by the very fact that they are unpowered, pose more technical problems to those sharing roads with them - of course we cope with those, but it doesn't stop it being a fact. All driving is about attention and anticipation - when you have fellow road users who don't obey (sometimes) rules others are obliged to obey (traffic lights, zebra crossings, signalling etc. etc.) - and at times vary their speed because of topology in a way that powered users can more readily overcome, then sharing roads with them is more tricky than sharing roads with users who do 'follow the rules' and do drive more predictably. That should be a self evident fact. That you challenge that and imply that I don't meet minimum driving standards... well! Oh, and if cyclists had tests that they could fail ... but of course they don't, and you argue against that as a requirement.

Perhaps read back on your collected works, as a start? ... I'm guessing that's where the comment was pointed, inter alia.

Sorry, it's over 3 pages and in hard copy.

No, I don't think cyclist behaviour should be a criterion. But I do believe that cycle lanes, which occupy limited road space exclusively, should be allocated based on volumes of usage, especially for routes which do not reflect main commuter routes, and additionally, where there are cycle lanes then cyclists should be restricted to use those only, and not additionally spill out into lanes used by powered users. Oh dear, restricting cyclists - that won't go down well...

Oh yes, and the stops nearest the works are to be 'closed', it appears, for the duration. So a longer walk for any elderly and or disabled who are reliant on public transport.

I've just received a note from TFL (I'm in Underhill) to say that access to the South Circular going West from Lordship Lane - and probably East as well (now virtually the only access since Dulwich Village was cut-off) is to be severely curtailed from the end of February to mid June so that the much sought after pedestrian crossing at the London Road/ A205 Junction can be installed. Taking 3 and a half months of disruption! Anywhere else in the world this would be a week's job. I'm sorry, but this is an absolute disgrace! The A205 (the jocularly named South Circular) is an artery (a pretty sclerotic one, but the only one we've got!) for East: West connectivity for us South East Londoners - to effectively turn it into a three and half month traffic jam through the borough is appalling, and shows just how much (lack of) care the powers that be have for us. I'm absolutely in favour of an improved crossing here - but I note that our councillors appear to have done nothing but acquiesce in TFL's proposal - clearly they simply don't care about the costs in both social and commercial traffic that will be imposed on us. For work that should not take this sort of time at all! The complexity will be on the timings of the new lights to allow passage of vehicles and people, and that can be worked out (will be worked out) at a work-station in an office. The rest is simple wiring. And probably, whilst they're there, some resurfacing to redefine road and pavement. Which does not take three and a half months! Unless you are lazy and incompetent idiots unable to plan simple works. I wonder, over that three and a half months of disruption, just how few workers, on how few days, we may expect to see actually 'working' there? But what matters, so long as they're happy and unstressed! As usual we, the idiots paying for this, can go hang! And look forward to the endless jams polluting our atmosphere.

None of this addresses the fact that you once could get to Guy's - famous for its Cancer Clinics - and back from Dulwich - very much its catchment area for these clinics, by bus, without the need to change - the alternatives routes posited here are fine for the fit and healthy, but for those heading to, and particularly back from, radiation or chemotherapy treatments a nightmare with the changes necessary.

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.? Discouraging poor and/ or illegal behaviour of cyclists - yes, absolutely, as I would the poor behaviour of any road user. Unless, of course, you believe that all roads (and pavements?) should be open only to cyclists, and all behaviour of cyclists warmly encouraged and supported, whatever that might be? In which case... Of course, if you do believe that cyclists should be the only ones using roads locally, in which case perhaps they should be the only ones paying for them? As opposed to the only ones not doing so - at least as regards the (albeit unhypothecated) tariffs on powered users of roads.

It is actually, Mal, very difficult, particularly in hilly Dulwich, for cyclists to maintain any speed - which makes driving behind them that much more tricky, as compared to powered road users. As a long-term driver (passed my test in 1967) I look for consistency in road users to allow me to predict their actions - cyclists can neither maintain constant speeds in anything other than flat conditions - nor frequently, where road or weather (wind) conditions are poor, a constant line (and inexperienced cyclists particularly so). This is not to blame cyclists - they rely on person, not mechanical, power - but it does make their progress that much more risky for them, and sharing roads with them that much more tricky. Which is why, where there are significant volumes of cyclists, I don't resent giving up road space to them, although I do resent some cyclists then insisting on using the shared road space 'because they can'. And of course no one has suggested that cyclists should maintain a speed over 20 (in a 20 mile zone). We actually don't want them going over that speed, as (particularly for pedestrians) prediction of road user behaviour is again compromised when some believe that speed restrictions don't apply to them. And especially when these move from road to pavement users - where in general a 4mph usage speed is anticipated. I'm intrigued that you should be inventing here a refutation of an argument hitherto un-made. Why? Or is it simply (another) diversionary tactic?

What, as opposed to all the other threads being turned into procycling threads by a small group of enthusiasts? I don't think anyone has expressed any general anti-cycling views, they have all been specificly addressed to a few behaviors of sadly increasingly many people who do cycle. And many, including mine, have addressed behaviours which offer genuine risks to cyclists, such as cycling without lights, reflective clothing or attention.

I recognise this is hyperbole for literary and humorous effect, but as it is now well over a 100 years since WWI, and as younger people read this who have no real idea of what conditions were like, on behalf of my late grandfather who served throughout that war (and had the three service medals starting with the Mons Star to prove it), and whose last major battle was Passchendaele (3rd Ypres) I would remind younger readers that not just men, but horses actually drowned in the mud there, and that conditions on Peckham Rye now are absolutely nothing (give or take a little water logging) like conditions then.

Sainsbury's in Dog Kennel Hill normally stocks it and has done for years. As does Sopers in Nunhead.