Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Have these facts been taken into account, when proposing coloured Lines?


Revolutionary eye test.

Until now, people with even minor forms of the condition ? colour which affects one in 20 men and one in 200 women.

This does not include the blind and partially blind.

Many of these signs say Please Drive [more] carefully, child in car, and many do not take the sticker off when driving without said infant in the car. Point is, why drive MORE carefully than one already is?


Horsebox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PeckhamRose Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > When we riding / driving behind a car that has

> a

> > sticker in it "Child In Car", does it make any

> > difference to the way we drive or ride? See my

> > point?

>

> I'm not sure I see your point, PR. The 'Child in

> Car' / 'Baby on Board' signs are intended to alert

> the emergency services of a potentially trapped

> infant, in the event of a collision.

Once people have started cycling, the desire for entire segregation often passes as they get more used to dealing with traffic.


I like cycle lanes but wouldn't want them marked off with kerbs or lots of shared use pavements since they invariably slow you down more than roads and lead to fear of going anywhere without them. Plus I think it is better for drivers and cyclists to get more used to one another.


More bike parking is definitely a good thing though and there are dome innovative designs that make it look more like street sculpture too to keep it looking attractive

As I understand, it is actually an offence to have stickers in any window

that restricts you vision.


Baby on board . Please drive carefully. I always drive carfully.


No baby on board. Drive like an 'Idiot' (Polite version)

I've always understood the 'Baby on board' stickers to be a warning to the driver following.

Baby on board = Parent who may suddenly be distracted (by vomiting/screaming/throwing of objects) and meander across the road

Hi Peterstorm1985,

Ironic that the Car Club is so successful that the permanently allocate parking space is usually empty. One of the attractions of car clubs is that the car have dedicated car parking spaces - so people can definately park them at the end of their rental hour, half day, etc. Some of the East Dulwich cars are taken out 8 times a day.


Yes, we need more cycle parking along Lordship Lane.


Any chance of group of people posting on this thread this problem could jointly propose something?

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Peterstorm1985,

> Ironic that the Car Club is so successful that the

> permanently allocate parking space is usually

> empty.


OK, so I didn't think you'd like that suggestion but it would be a good spot. Assuming that the Car Club cars aren't being used 8 times a day to come to Lordship lane shopping (as they aren't parked there), why not move that space 50 yards down Ashbourne Grove and have the bike stands?

Totally agree with what DJKillaQueen said earlier..


DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The most sensible route seems to be that used by

> existing cyclists, Crystal Palace Road, Bellenden,

> onto Peckham High Street.


...that's the route I take to the city every day...


DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> An alternate would be Barry Road, Peckham Rye, Rye

> Lane, and then either along to Camberwell, or

> taking the old canal route to Burgess Park


..and that's the way I come back.


I've been cycle commuting in London for about three years, one year of that has been cycling from ED to Hackney and I'd never consider coming down LL...or going up DKH for that matter!

I can't think of many cyclists that would be stupid enough to undertake a lorry while it's turning.


When cyclists are crushed by lorries (about 9 a year in the capital), it's usually as lorries take off from stationary but don't see they are not clear to turn left. That was the idea of the greeen boxes at the head of Junctions....so that cyclists could get in front of vehicles rather than alongside because we know that many drivers do not check their blind spots when pulling away from a junction (which is poor driving skills). They do it when they pull away from a kerb though, but not when stationary elsewhere.

And, although yes, the CS do encourage cyclists to stay on the left and filter so potentially more likely to end up in the position shown not realising the lorry is turning, part of the CS scheme is having mirrors at junctions so that lorry drivers have less blind spots and hopefully spot the numpty cyclist before moving off. Does make me shudder though - I watched someone tonight - no lights in the dark - merrily going up the side of a coach which was at the front of the queue and turning left - with absolutely no chance of reaching the front before the lights went. Luckily, he'd only made it just past the rear wheels when the lights changed and he was able to stop.

I think the one in twenty you're referring to is the most common form of colour 'blindness' - red/green - in men. I've got this and have no difficulty seeing the differently coloured cycle lanes, or traffic lights for that matter.


computedshorty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have these facts been taken into account, when

> proposing coloured Lines?

>

> Revolutionary eye test.

> Until now, people with even minor forms of the

> condition ? colour which affects one in 20 men and

> one in 200 women.

> This does not include the blind and partially

> blind.

The easy win here is more cycle parking on LL and around ED generally. I'd happily support that in any form, whatever form of rack is deemed appropriate. There are ones that clamp onto lamp-posts, which seems efficient, even ones with flower boxes in the middle. Whatever, having more cycle parking is probably the single easiest step to encouraging it.


And on safety once someone's been tempted onto their bike, can I praise again the free training I got through Southwark? Two free lessons is your entitlement and I was lucky to get practically cycling royalty as my trainer. He was brilliant, utterly professional, an excellent teacher. I'd been riding in London at least 5 days a week for 3 years when I had the lessons and I learned a huge amount. All at your own pace, starting off in Dulwich Park for the basics of maintenance and then movement. Then minor roads, then more major/tricky ones. Forget the raging debates on segregation, helmets, blue/green colour schemes, networks that aren't really networks, contra-flows or one-ways, this is the one thing that I feel has made the biggest difference to my cycling confidence, knowledge, safety. Can't recommend it enough.

Cyclist needs to be more a ware of Pedestrians, they have a habbit of cutting you up on the roads when crossing and on the pavements drives me nutts they feel they have the right of way but I let them know in colourful Languages they DON'T(6)

Agreed that the Southwark training is brilliant. Hadn't realised it was two lessons. I could do with one on bike maintenance!


Ridgeley - that's back to earlier points on inconsiderate cyclists, drivers and pedestrians who although a minority, ruin it for the rest of us. The only "off" I've had in my bike was when a drunk pedestrian stumbled into my path on a segregated cycle path. Thankfully since I had been wary of him, I was going v slowly so only have a monster bruise to show for it. And the only real emergency stops I've had to make have all been after pedestrians stepped out into my path without looking despite me being on the road where I should be. If I'd been a bus, they'd be dead.

Ridgley, I also agree cyclists have no right to spear through crowds of pedestrians, cut them up etc.


But I have to also agree with Applespider - my most serious near misses, one incident apart, have all involved pedestrians. The chief problem is they just do not look when stepping into the road. It's a pretty basic error on their part, but most of the miscreants are plugged into their MP3 players and are passively listening for a noisy car, rather than a quieter bike.


Hopefully electric cars and/or cycling will really take off and then they'll have to start looking too!

James, can't make the 19th but wanted to point you in the direction of cyclehoop, an alternative cycle parking option that utilises existing street lights, signposts etc, so no digging up of pavements needed.


www.cyclehoop.com

Cyclehoop looks like a brilliant idea. I want there to be far more cycle stands but I also don't want to add any more clutter to the pavements than absolutely necessary. This looks like a great way of providing more cycle parking at minimal cost or disruption.

As I understand, the cyclehoops are already in use across Southwark, particularly up towards Borough and London Bridge.


They've got some other interesting bike-parking solutions on their site:


http://www.cyclehoop.com/news-press/


And it's a British company so double win!

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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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