Grove vale made smaller

[bob]

What the F**k are they doing at grove vale they have narrowed one side and it now looks like they are doing the same opposite so Bus's will have to give way to each other or am I missing something.

Bob S

[mrnzjac]

Southwark seem to be hell bent on making it as hard as they can to drive around East Dulwich. Absolute disgrace !

[ed_pete]

There's another thread on this...

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,633697,633697#msg-633697

[speedbird]

Agree, a disgrace! Spending money on congesting the roads even further......They say it's all in the name of safety!! It will just mean more frustration, then others driving like lunatics to get round the busses. Such is Southwark council.

[RositaPR]

speedbird You are right. If the roads still congested will be like hell and disgrace!

The night is falling down once is dark nothing will be in, in the day light.

[DulwichFox]

Spending money on these Congestion Generating Schemes is a disgrace.

What is worse is the money spent on paying people to design these schemes.

Little minded people who sit at Computer Screens Designing hare brain road plans.

They have no concept of the overall picture.

[charlottekb]

I blame the tories and the lib dems ffs. Never had riots or extreme traffic calming measures under Blair!

[mrnzjac]

charlottekb Wrote:

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

> I blame the tories and the lib dems ffs. Never had

> riots or extreme traffic calming measures under

> Blair!

Southwick is a Labour run council...

[Zak]

It's all to do with slowing down the traffic along Grove Vale.

It's true that some people do race along and that the buses ( double deckers in particular) hurtle round the bend by the old pelican crossing - I wouldn'tlike to be sitting in one of those front rooms by the bend - but are all these works really called for and will they work?

Narrowing the road in the way in which they're doing it, is certainly going to slow everyone down - possibly to a standstill!

The word "overkill" comes to mind - not to mention "overspend" - I think there's mention on the other thread of the whole thing costing several hundred thousand pounds!.

[Huguenot]

"Little minded people who sit at Computer Screens Designing hare brain road plans. They have no concept of the overall picture."

To the contrary DF. I suspect it's you that has no concept of the overall picture, and you're only interested in your car, and your right to drive it where you want, to hell with anyone else.

"They say it's all in the name of safety!!"

Pray tell, who is 'they'? Do you have any idea who created this scheme and why? If you don't, then it would be wiser to find out before putting your opinion in 5th gear ;-)

"It's all to do with slowing down the traffic along Grove Vale."

Don't think you know that either do you? ;-)

"It will just mean more frustration, then others driving like lunatics to get round the busses."

Now let's have a little think about that. Who actually needs to take responsibility for driving like lunatics? Could it be drivers perchance?

[Asset]

Might encourage people to get out of their flippin cars if it's harder to drive around. leave the roads clear for buses and people who have to drive i.e. disabled.

[ratty]

mrnzjac Wrote:

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

> charlottekb Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I blame the tories and the lib dems ffs. Never

> had

> > riots or extreme traffic calming measures under

> > Blair!

>

> Southwick is a Labour run council...

Whoooooooooosh!

[PipD]

Asset Wrote:

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

> Might encourage people to get out of their flippin

> cars if it's harder to drive around. leave the

> roads clear for buses and people who have to drive

> i.e. disabled.

Do you think that will be the case or will it make it worse for everyone, no matter what their usage (or need) of transport is?

[Senor Chevalier]

Asset

If getting people out of their cars is the aim then why not make the roads for the exclusive use of buses and the disabled? The current system of pretending that they are for all to use and then spending increasing amounts of money to make them harder for all to drive down does seem rather odd.

[bob]

Thank's ed pete I must have missed that one it seem's there was a lot of objection's to this but it is still going ahead.

Bob S

[StraferJack]

I don't object to it

Just because something has "a lot" of objections doesn't mean those objections have majority support

[DulwichFox]

Not seen this new development.. But was thinking.. mmmhh What happens if a Bus or Lorry breaks down..??

Sounds like there would be total choas... Diversions ... Tailbacks up Lordship Lane..

Well I am an engineer and have a logical mind... not so Southwark Council. ??

After all roads were built to drive on.

For Fox Sake.

[StraferJack]

Yep. Absolutely. What if a lorry breaks down? I'll bet those clever dicks at the council haven't thought of that one!! Typical of them to implement something on the roads that NOONE ELSE HAS DONE ANYWHERE ELSE. EVER

foxy, don't you think this isn't a first and that There might be sound logical reasons behind this, made by people who have studied traffic and road safety for years? No?

[bob]

Correct SJ it just mean's there were lot's of objections

Bob S

[RosieH]

NO STRAFER, IT'S FECKING DAFT.

IT'S POLITICAL HEALTH AND CORRECTNESS GONE MAD.

IT'S LIKE THE NAZIS ALL OVER AGAIN.

[trizza]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Yep. Absolutely. What if a lorry breaks down? I'll

> bet those clever dicks at the council haven't

> thought of that one!! Typical of them to implement

> something on the roads that NOONE ELSE HAS DONE

> ANYWHERE ELSE. EVER

>

> foxy, don't you think this isn't a first and that

> There might be sound logical reasons behind this,

> made by people who have studied traffic and road

> safety for years? No?

This is a little naive SJ. If you follow that reasoning you would never question anything the council or government does... The council does plenty of stupid things all the time that achieve little and cost a lot - for example, have you seen the country's shortest (and most pointless) cycle path on Forest Hill Road?

The narrowing makes little sense to me and, as a cyclist, i'm not sure i'd fancy going through it at rush hour.

[tiddles]

it is the cyclist point of view that makes me doubt these works - at the moment the traffic is having to stop to let traffic in the oppo direction thro. When the works bollards/cones are taken away traffic will try to squeeze thro making cyclists very vulnerable. I am interested in the reasoning behind the council's plans - busy main road/bus route lets make it harder for traffic to pass thro. If people cannot make a straight forward journey on a main route, then all the nutters that cause the problem will drive like loons on smaller rat-run roads.

[StraferJack]

Trizza. Good point, it would be unwise to trust councils in all matters

But as someone who uses that road, twice a day in rush hour, and sometimes outside rush hour, you would think I "should" be concerned. And yet I'm not. Because fundamentally it will have negligible impact on my, or anyone else's journey. Everything else is just jumped up, curtain twitching, green ink using, council bashing.

[StraferJack]

I MIGHT be over egging that particular pudding. But such a palaver

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>> "It will just mean more frustration, then others

>> driving like lunatics to get round the busses."

>

> Now let's have a little think about that. Who

> actually needs to take responsibility for driving

> like lunatics? Could it be drivers perchance?

So, harking to another thread, when they moved the bus stop near Denmark Hill 'forcing' commuters to dangerously run across the road it was all TFL's responsibility, but when a change effects drivers...?