Calton Ave/Dulwich Village junction

[Abe_froeman]

The solution to this is to take it out of Southwarks hands. Presumably all these people queueing up for an hour have to drive througb that junction.

I suggest someone co-ordinates them all to arrive at the junction from the south. The gridlock will quickly extend back on to the south circular and block that road which is under the management of TFL. Once they see the extent of the problem they will sort it immediately.

So a strike / protest that blocks the south circular is what is needed.

[Paradise2]

There were men filming the cars jumping the lights this morning. I was talking to one of them and they were filming from all 4 sets of lights with small handheld camera's. Apparently most drivers think they cannot be prosecuted with these cameras but they said they can. There were lots of cars, motorbikes and cyclists jumping the lights. Also loads of cyclists mounting the pavement to get through, which is dangerous as the pavements are busy with children and parents trying to get to the schools. Lets hope the work gets completed quickly as it is very dangerous there at the moment.

[Abe_froeman]

So the first priority is raising revenue from the queue rather than improving traffic flow.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Some cyclists are going round by the pavement because it's safer when you have a load of aggressive, impatient drivers revving behind you. I get the impression it's happening mainly from Turney Rd into Calton Ave as the offset adds to the danger, and from Calton Ave where the usual three lanes have been reduced to one at peak times. It's understandable, and in my view reasonable as long as you either get off or go at child walking pace.

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> So the first priority is raising revenue from the

> queue rather than improving traffic flow.

If they're trying to stop cars jumping red lights, first priority is stopping potentially lethal behaviour by selfish motorists.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Reminds me of the London cabbie's guide to traffic lights, as per the Not the Nine O'clock News calendar circa 1981:

Green means go

Amber means go

Red means accelerate, paying particular attention to steering

[Abe_froeman]

Usually I would agree rendel but if the traffic is as bad as claimed it is hard to imagine cars crawling through these lights at dangerous speeds.

[Paradise2]

Some cyclists are going round by the pavement because it's safer when you have a load of aggressive, impatient drivers revving behind you. I get the impression it's happening mainly from Turney Rd into Calton Ave as the offset adds to the danger, and from Calton Ave where the usual three lanes have been reduced to one at peak times. It's understandable, and in my view reasonable as long as you either get off or go at child walking pace.

They are not getting off their bikes or cycling at a child's pace, they are going quite fast. It is the traffic coming from Turney Road into the village that has been jumping red lights when i have been crossing on a green man pedestrian light. There have apparently been a few near misses as one car has obeyed the red light, but 2 or 3 cars behind it have swerved passed it and carried on!! The lollipop lady was also telling me that motorbikes too have been driving up on the pavement. You really have to cross with great caution

[Robert Poste's Child]

I agree the ones cycling fast on the pavement are a menace and need to be stopped.

[Abe_froeman]

A cyclist at any speed on the pavement is a menace. You might think London's cyclists would have learned a lesson from the young man recently gaoled for killing a pedestrian while cycling dangerously but it seems not.

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> A cyclist at any speed on the pavement is a

> menace. You might think London's cyclists would

> have learned a lesson from the young man recently

> gaoled for killing a pedestrian while cycling

> dangerously but it seems not.

Any car driver speeding is a menace. You would have thought London's drivers would learn a lesson from the 200+ people killed each year by cars driving over the speed limit but it seems not. I wondered how long it would be before that case was used to wag a finger at cyclists. (He wasn't on the pavement, incidentally, and he wasn't speeding, and the woman stepped into the road in front of him, which is why he was cleared of manslaughter. He was, effectively, found guilty of not having a front brake - which was stupid and deserved punishment, but let's not forget the facts)

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> (He wasn't on the pavement, incidentally, and he wasn't speeding, and the woman stepped into the road in

> front of him, which is why he was cleared of manslaughter.

By his own testimony, he had time to shout at her TWICE ?get the **** outta my way? before he ploughed into her. So she must have 'stepped in front' of him at quite a distance.

[edhistory]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> A cyclist at any speed on the pavement is a

> menace.

And illegal.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > (He wasn't on the pavement, incidentally, and he

> wasn't speeding, and the woman stepped into the

> road in

> > front of him, which is why he was cleared of

> manslaughter.

>

> By his own testimony, he had time to shout at her

> TWICE ?get the **** outta my way? before he

> ploughed into her. So she must have 'stepped in

> front' of him at quite a distance.

I'm not in the business of defending him, because he's a prick, but as I understand it he tried to swerve one way round her then another as she moved, in one of those left-right-left situations one gets when walking. If she was quite a distance away when he shouted at her why didn't she have time to get out the way? It was reported by the Daily Mail et al as mad cyclist ploughs into (I notice you use the same emotive language) innocent pedestrian - anyone taking a cursory glance at the reports would have assumed that he ran her down on a pelican after going through a red light...

ETA looking back at the reports, the prosecution case was that Mrs.Briggs stepped in front of Allinson when he was 6.53 metres away, and that had he had a front brake he would have been able to stop within three metres (this is nonsense as any cyclist will tell you, stopping in three metres from 18mph would throw you straight over the handlebars). Interesting to note that had she stepped in front of a car doing that speed at that distance there is no way it could have stopped - and on that basis a prosecution of the driver would never have happened.

However, he was indisputably a prick for riding without a front brake and for his attitude displayed afterwards. That doesn't justify people using this one (incredibly rare, compared to cars killing and injuring pedestrians) instance to tar all cyclists and say why can't they learn a lesson from it. And no people shouldn't be cycling on pavements - but that guy wasn't on the pavement so I fail to see why it's even been raised.

[James Barber]

hi Lucy,

I also contributed to the crowd funding.

The new junction design being built purports to help improve the lot of cyclists. But its capacity for cyclists appears the same as current cycling levels. The width of those N-S segregated cycle lanes are too small for a growth in numbers cycling. It makes no sense. As for taking 6 months. That's just bad project management by Southwark Council.

My lot tried to get the final decision for this scheme discussed at the main Over view & Scrutiny Committee but Labour wouldn't allow this. They are wedded to this design.

Regards James.

Lucyalexandra Wrote:

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

> I put some money towards the independent

> consultation which was crowd funded and they did

> meet the ?4K target. Anyone know what happened to

> that? It does seem odd that this is all happening

> given the strength of feeling against various

> eleemnts of the plans.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

>

> ETA looking back at the reports, the prosecution case was that Mrs.Briggs stepped in front of

> Allinson when he was 6.53 metres away, and that had he had a front brake he would have been able

> to stop within three metres (this is nonsense as any cyclist will tell you, stopping in three

> metres from 18mph would throw you straight over the handlebars).

I know those aren't your figures, but 6.53m at 18 mph is less than one second. I can't believe he had time to shout twice in less than one second. Nor do the 'left-right-left' thing as you describe. Something doesn't add up here.

> Interesting to note that had she stepped in front of a car doing that speed at that distance

> there is no way it could have stopped - and on that basis a prosecution of the driver would never have happened.

I suspect that if it was an illegal car with no brakes, I think they would have.

[Townleygreen]

Well, Loz our legal system is so biased in favour of drivers, as maybe this incident reflects:

"Driver fined ?180 for defective tyres after killing four cyclists" see this Telegraph article from 2006:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561/Driver-fined-180-for-defective-tyres-after-killing-four-cyclists.html

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

>

> I know those aren't your figures, but 6.53m at 18

> mph is less than one second. I can't believe he

> had time to shout twice in less than one second.

> Nor do the 'left-right-left' thing as you

> describe. Something doesn't add up here.

Yes 6.53m is the prosecution figure based on CCTV and crash investigator evidence. As you say, he would have been travelling at eight metres per second (roughly). The account of him shouting etc is mainly from his comments online immediately afterwards - as I said, he is a prick but he may have been in shock, when people tend to reconstruct an event with a favourable narrative. Don't know. But it does raise the question, barely mentioned in the press, as to why Mrs.Briggs stepped out in front of a cyclist proceeding perfectly legally and at reasonable speed when he was only a few metres away. To clarify the left-right-left business, as far as I understand Alliston swerved to go round Mrs.Briggs on his right, saw she was still moving into his path and so swerved back to go round her on his left; unfortunately at the same time she stopped and jumped backwards into his path.

>

> > Interesting to note that had she stepped in

> front of a car doing that speed at that distance

> > there is no way it could have stopped - and on

> that basis a prosecution of the driver would never

> have happened.

>

> I suspect that if it was an illegal car with no

> brakes, I think they would have.

Brakes or no brakes, no car would have been able to stop in that time. The cyclist, incidentally, did not have "no brakes" - the fixed wheel of such a bike is the rear brake. I think he was ill-served by his defence lawyers, who should have had tests carried out on the actual bike in the actual conditions: they just accepted the police estimate that he should have been able to stop in three metres with a front brake. This was based on tests with a police mountain bike with very grippy wide tyres, disc brakes, perfect conditions and, vitally, no reaction time included, just braking distance. The Highway Code indicates that reaction (noticing a hazard) and thinking (deciding what to do about it) take up an equal amount of time to the braking time at 20MPH, but this seems to have been ignored. No account taken either that there are circumstances where it's safer to try and swerve around an obstacle than to brake.

From what I have read it seems to me this was a case of at least equal fault, with a pedestrian carelessly stepping into the path of a moving vehicle which was proceeding in a reasonable and lawful manner, which the owner should have had equipped in line with legal requirements. This is an interesting take on the whole sad affair, written by a cycling advocate, yes, but one who also happens to be a Queen's Counsel: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

[James Barber]

I've been having a tough year. I was knocked from my bicycle at a roundabout in clear dry weather. Driver immediately admitted fault and two eye witnesses. No prosecution. Three weeks largely housebound from ankle and knee injuries. It happened in Herts and they clearly have the bias Townleygreen suggests generally pervades our legal system/society. Next week I take delivery of front and rear facing bicycle cameras.

BUT what is the relevance of this debate to this road junction being changed?

The fact that this was introduced into this thread shows how anti cycling we all are. It is a good thing to have quieter routes for less confident cyclists. Mention of Camberwell Grove being fine - that is true for current and historic cyclists but not of people who say they are too nervous to cycle.

We need a step change in numbers and proportion of people cycling to help fight climate change, improve health, etc. The proposed new junction does not appear to have sufficient cycle capacity to support a growth or step change the number cycling.

[rendelharris]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> BUT what is the relevance of this debate to this

> road junction being changed?

> The fact that this was introduced into this thread

> shows how anti cycling we all are.

Spot on James and sorry if I've hijacked the thread somewhat, but that's exactly the point I was trying to make: one poster was trying to use the case as a stick to beat "London's cyclists," saying we hadn't "learned a lesson" from a case which has no relevance to the matter under discussion. Anti-cyclist is the default position, e.g. last week a motorcyclist pulled out in front of me as I descended Box Hill at 38mph (within the legal speed limit!). Remonstrating with him in the carpark, he said "I'm not apologizing to you, do you apologize to me when you run red lights and ride on the pavement and that?" After much expletive ridden debate (during which I explained that I never do either of those things) he did ultimately admit he was in the wrong, but an interesting indication of the "All cyclists are..." mentality. From my side I find 98%+ of motorists are courteous, sensible and moderate - when I see news of yet another car driver killing a cyclist or pedestrian I don't extrapolate generalities about car drivers.

[Glemham]

For more detailed information about the campaign to change the proposals for the Quietway 7 scheme please go to dulwichvillageforum.co.uk.

The funding for this and other Quietways comes from TfL and is a legacy of Boris Johnson's 'vision'for London.

[rendelharris]

You're at .org.uk, not .co.uk. Interesting proposals, I like the look of the "triple roundel" design. Not sure how space would have been found to fit the proposed cycle lanes into the existing space though, particularly along the side of the old graveyard and outside the school?

[Tessmo]

Not quite the right web address, Glemham - information about the alternative crowd-funded design for the junction is at www.dulwichvillageforum.org.uk.

Posts go back to November last year.

The Dulwich Village Forum also asked a public question at Southwark Council's cabinet meeting on Tuesday - how would the council measure the success of their own junction design (the one that's being built now) against TfL's 'Healthy Streets for London'

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/healthy-streets-for-london.pdf

which prioritises walking and cycling. The answer was that the recommendations in 'Healthy Streets for London' would form part of the 'holistic review' of traffic in Dulwich, which is apparently going ahead while the junction is being built.

If anyone has any more news on this, please post it up here.

[edhistory]

www.dulwichvillageforum.org.uk.

Where's the forum part of the web-site?

[rendelharris]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> www.dulwichvillageforum.org.uk.

>

> Where's the forum part of the web-site?

It doesn't have one - it's a real-life forum where people meet to discuss in person (funny ideas they do get down there in the village) then the proceedings are shared on the website.