Speeding on Barry Road

[Bic Basher]

The only way I'd agree to humps is if it means those awful 12 Boris Buses are replaced with proper double deckers.

[PeckhamRy]

Hi James - glad to hear the council are looking at this. What, if anything, can we do to get this process extended to cover the East Dulwich Road too? Earlier in the thread a couple of us mentioned the stretch between Lordship Lane/Grove Vale and Adys Road/Crystal Palace Road as a speeding hotspot.

In terms of physical measures - in my view a nice easy win would be to simply make sure that clear signage is installed. And I've always wondered how effective those 'slow down' signs are, the ones that flash up when you're driving above the limit (presumably they have speed radars installed?).

[beansprout]

Being a driver who use to go above the speed level but no longer, the ones that flash up in my humble opinion do draw your attention to the fact that you are speeding or over the limit.Certainly the ones in RosendakexRoad and also road along Crystal Palace Park, I have noticed a reduction in speeding but that is only my humble opinion.

Dare say, others here will have different ideas and opinions.

[Pugwash]

The Barry Area Resident's Association which covers the majority of Barry Road are also involved in seeking discussion and possible consultation with local residents, councillors and SNT. Please PM me for more details.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Thanks all of this. I'll see what I can do about speed cameras. The police would not normally advise them for a road like this, and there are of course cost implcations too, but I will look into it.

Peckhamry - I will look into East Dulwich Road as well, let me get back to you.

Pugwash - great to hear that the Barry Area Residents' Association is on the case with this. It would be great to discuss at some point. Drop me an email if you would like to meet.

Best wishes

James

[Sally Eva]

Why do the police think that they would not be advisable?

[jamesmcash]

They are mainly recommended for areas where there have been multiple deaths or serious injuries from crashes. Personally, I think that this approach is too complacent with people's safety (and lives!) but I presume it's due to the cost implications...

There is another drawback to speed cameras on Barry Road, which is due to the road layout. Speed cameras are most effective on roads where most or all of the traffic follows the same route. This means that every vehicle which is caught in the first camera is then caught in the subsequent ones too, meaning an average speed can be calculated. Barry Road, by contrast, has lots of places to park and many roads coming off it. So this means that the cameras become less effective: it will not be possible to determine the speed of many of the vehicles recorded.

As I say, I will do what I can to make sure all options are considered though nonetheless.

Best wishes

James

[rch]

FYI, I actually set up the Police Community Speed Monitoring program on Barry Road a couple of years ago after representations were made at a local ED Safer Neighbourhood Panel meeting. This are the sessions that Charlie Smith frequently attended with me.

Unfortunately it is a requirement that local residents attend these sessions, but I couldn't get local residents to attend regularly enough and it was difficult for me to keep walking over there from Melbourne Grove for a two hour session, so I gave up after a couple of years and the sessions were cancelled.

But we gathered enough data to identify the problem and multiple solutions (James is correct about the speed camera issues above, it all gets very technical), but kept hitting dead ends. For instance, I put in a CGS bid to re-install the neon 20mph Smiley Face signs along the route, but this bid was declined.

I have a huge amount of information about this which I'm happy to share if it helps to speed up a solution (argh, no pun intended), although I'd prefer not to type for hours on the forum (where there are actually several threads about these issues), so I'll put this on my ever increasing list of issues to update the new ward councillors on.

Just bear in mind that the ward boundaries have now changed, so I'm not sure where the border of Goose Green and Dulwich Hill is (I'm in GG), therefore you'll probably have to work in tandem with Dulwich Hill cllrs. Plus there's also a proposed Cycling Route planned for the top (Lordship) end of Barry Road which will affect speeding issues in that section, so the right hand and the left hand will need to communicate.

[Sally Eva]

what you say applies to average speed cameras -- is that what the police are opposing?

has anyone done a study of where the Barry road cars go -- it would be pretty easy to make a list of what goes in at the Plough and what comes out at the Clock House ie with number plates -- and put some figures on where they go.

To what extent is the "turn off or park" assumption just that and to what extent is it founded on research?

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

> They are mainly recommended for areas where there

> have been multiple deaths or serious injuries from

> crashes. Personally, I think that this approach is

> too complacent with people's safety (and lives!)

> but I presume it's due to the cost

> implications...

>

> There is another drawback to speed cameras on

> Barry Road, which is due to the road layout. Speed

> cameras are most effective on roads where most or

> all of the traffic follows the same route. This

> means that every vehicle which is caught in the

> first camera is then caught in the subsequent ones

> too, meaning an average speed can be calculated.

> Barry Road, by contrast, has lots of places to

> park and many roads coming off it. So this means

> that the cameras become less effective: it will

> not be possible to determine the speed of many of

> the vehicles recorded.

>

> As I say, I will do what I can to make sure all

> options are considered though nonetheless.

>

> Best wishes

> James

[rch]

Having stood there for hours on end for over two years with a handheld speed gun, it's fairly clear what's happening.

Firstly, there are local residents who get frustrated with the stopping and starting and will therefore rev up in certain sections to 30-40mph (or higher during low traffic volumes) in between waiting for buses to stop and traffic lights. Then, ironically, there are a lot of out of town residents (Bromley was a surprising regularly mentioned location where drivers used Barry as a cut through) who were unaware that this was a 20mph zone because it's so badly labelled (even the new roundels on the road weren't that noticeable).

So, to address the issues, the council would have to put at least two cameras on both sides of the road, which would amount to 4 cameras in total, including capital and revenue costs for the cameras themselves and electricity to power them, which probably wouldn't be earned back by speeding ticket revenue.

Basically, the road is just too fiddly.

The reason I went for the Smiley Face cameras in the first instance was to increase awareness, as this seems to help... but highway engineers weren't convinced that this would be effective enough (although the one on Herne Hill appears to work fairly well, in my opinion).

The only other way to address speeding issues is by using "organic" means, such as speed humps and raised junctions, which make noise and cause damage to properties, which is why residents (even pedestrians) are so opposed.

The best organic means of speed control is actually pedestrian islands (such as the ones on Red Post Hill) as they create a useful slalom effect (as well as making it easier for pedestrians to cross the road, yay), but they take out a significant amount of local parking, which is counterproductive in a residential area.

There was a significant study done for the cycle highway a couple of years ago, but only for the section from Lordship (including the dysfunctional main signal junction which we have all campaigned to get redesigned for over a decade) to Friern, which has been impossible to get any public information on. But this section is now in Dulwich Hill ward.

So, in the first instance, I still think that the 20mph Smiley Faces (which are cheaper than proper speed cameras) at the top and bottom of both sides of the road would be the best interim way forward if the councillors can talk Matt Hill into forking out the funds.

p.s. Average speed cameras don't work on roads like Barry and Lordship because of the way that the stopping and starting issues affect the averaging calculations.

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks rch. But it is not a question of councillors talking Matt Hill into forking out funds. Councillors make the decisions on spending, not Mr Hill - he has to implement their decisions.

[Sally Eva]

Indeed. OTOH, how would you feel if councillors knowingly decided to spend money on project A which was known to be less cost-effective than project B?

Money can only be spent once.

It can be spent after the evaluation of a cost-benefit analysis of all the options and on the basis of what that analysis suggests. Or it can be spent on a project which is shown to be a less beneficial way of spending it.

[rch]

You both have a good point... I spoke to Matt Hill at the time about the viability of my Smiley Face proposal and he explained that there were new highways technical specifications in place which obstructed councillors from approving the Smiley Faces. So, our new councillors would have to find a way to circumvent this, which I believe is possible, starting with talking to Matt Hill (who is actually a good guy).

The main problem at the time, which I stated several times on this Forum, was that a stupid amount of funding was allocated to consulting and "addressing" perceived speeding issues on Melbourne Grove instead of the verified speeding issues on Barry Road.

Matt Hill actually wrote an internal recommendation that measures weren't needed for Melbourne Grove (which was published on this forum), but this recommendation was overridden by councillors.

In order to be fair, I tried to set up a Community Road Watch program in Melbourne Grove, in order to gather data with local residents, but the police decided that this would be a waste of resources, so I wasn't able to do it.

I stopped keeping track, after approx ?50,000, of how much the Melbourne Grove issues cost to assess/consult/implement. In the end, the full width speed humps, upgraded from the cushions, haven't made much difference at all... I personally still witness road rage incidents on Melbourne every week due to the unresolved genuine issues.

So, the key is that, during times of reduced budgets, councillors need to be clear on where and how to spend limited council funding... and, last I saw, Barry Road was still listed on the Roadwatch priority list.

It won't be easy to find a solution to Barry Road, but I still believe that there are a variety of ways to address it.

Just don't get me started on how CGS funds have been wasted over the years... maybe it's best to move forward with our newly elected councillors, who seem to mean well and genuinely want to help.

[Pugwash]

Just to advise that the Dulwich Community Council are now meeting 17th July 7 pm at Dulwich Library. ( I had previously posted that it was Monday 25th at Christ Church but this was later cancelled)

BARA members will be raising the issue re speeding with the councillors in both Goose Green and Dulwich Hill wards which cover the whole of Barry Road.

[BanJo]

Further to my initial complaint about Barry Road speeds to Southwark after the accident last month, I have received an encouraging response (see below). I think we can be reassured that our issue is definitely on council agenda. I guess we just need to keep vocal about it and hopefully we'll see traffic calming measures put in place soon.

"Following on from the 20mph review report we are currently working on a proposal for Barry Road, which will include a mixture of traffic islands, raised tables (similar to a road hump but with a longer plateau), road markings and signage, as well as increasing the number of interventions proposed in the report, to enhance the adherence to the 20mph limit. The proposals will also consider the pedestrians and cyclists that use Barry Road.

Speed, and average speed, cameras are not being considered for Barry Road primarily due to the road configuration of Barry Road having many exit and entry points and, to a lesser extent, the parked cars and vegetation that would restrict the camera's line of sight. As a result the cameras would be less effective in catching all motorists who are exceeding the 20mph limit.

With regard to the incident you raised, I am waiting on further detail from the Met Police that I hope will help inform the proposal.

Currently we are scheduling consultation of the proposal in early September 2018, shortly after the school holidays."

[MCMC]

Very encouraged by the responses to my original post here, thanks everyone.

I am amazed that Melbourne Grove is on anyone's agenda for speeding. It's a narrow street packed with cars either side!

If anything it suffers the reverse issue that it takes ages to drive up it. I cannot understand the focus on investing in speed bumps on roads like this that are narrow and where speeding is practically difficult/impossible whilst longer wider streets like Barry and Whateley go ignored and continue to be accident sites.

I think I'm going to make a YouTube video of what I am seeing every day with my own eyes. Motorbikes, in particular, are accelerating to insane speeds on Barry. Since I wrote the original post I heard there was a huge accident with a car rolling over several times.

In fact I find myself wondering if a speeding assessment is even needed? Surely the excess noise levels warrant action being taken sooner rather than later?

MCMC

[rch]

Glad to see that you agree about Melbourne, MCMC. A group of us spent a concerted amount of time trying to convince councillors and council officers not to waste public funding in a time of austerity.

As leader of the Community Roadwatch Scheme for Barry Road, I specifically asked the Roadwatch police to provide the stats that we confirmed over several sessions and to recommend that Barry should be reviewed by the council, but I never got any confirmation that the council intended to follow the Met recommendation.

So, I would love to see a copy of the 20mph review report that BanJo was told about as per above post. There was a Quietway assessment for the top part of Barry Road, but I was never able to get hold of a copy of this, despite asking publicly in two DCC meetings. BanJo can you tell me the name of the person who sent you this reply??

It sounds like the council intend to use more "organic" speed calming measures, such as the ped islands and raised tables, which may work well depending on how and where they are placed.

[BanJo]

Ive pm'd you RCH.

[alex_b]

Given that 99% of motorists wont know that average speed cameras wouldn't be very effective on Barry Road. Couldn't the council put them up anyway? The deterrent effect would be valuable on its own and if it caught even 5% of speeding motorists that would be 5% more than now.

Traffic "calming" measures on the other hand are likely to massively increase noise for residents and just lead speeding between the islands.

[beansprout]

Thought I had seen everything along Barry Road, but early last night was truely staggered to see two young youths on bikes doing what I think is called wheelies along a section of the road and then going straight at cars on wrong side of road causing drivers to veer, a few seconds later red car sped down the road and youths on bikes peddled furiously to follow. Bad enough during the day trying to get out of driveway.

[Sally Eva]

Talex_b Wrote:

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

> Given that 99% of motorists wont know that average

> speed cameras wouldn't be very effective on Barry

> Road. Couldn't the council put them up anyway? The

> deterrent effect would be valuable on its own and

> if it caught even 5% of speeding motorists that

> would be 5% more than now.

>

> Traffic "calming" measures on the other hand are

> likely to massively increase noise for residents

> and just lead speeding between the islands.

They will know that if they get off the road at a junction then the average speed cameras won't follow them. Friern Road is closed at the bottom but Crystal Palace Road has traffic lights with East Dulwich Road. The speeding on Silvester Road which is the subject of complaint is quite likely drivers cutting out the traffic lights at Kings on the Rye and joining the EDR further west via CPR.

If there are traffic islands on Barry Road to slow traffic and enable safe crossing, then they need cycle by-passes. Otherwise cyclists put their lives at risk trying to get through pinch points in fast, frequent, badly behaved traffic such as one observes on Barry Road.

[Penguin68]

Rather than bother with actual speed cameras, why not have a random flash in the road, causing drivers to think there are speed cameras. Remember the object is not to catch motorists speeding, but to discourage them from it. An effective anti-speeding system would make NO arrests and NO convictions (both of which have costs to them, very possibly surpassing the benefit of any fine), but speeds would reduce to a safe level.

Frequently there is too much focus on the wrong thing. We don't want motorists to speed, rather than wanting speeding motorists to be caught. The 'problem' with Barry is that it is a long, straight, road, but with a lot of activity (cars crossing, entering and exiting side roads etc., buses stopping, people crossing). If there were no side roads and junctions, speeding on Barry would be far less of an issue. So how can we mitigate the 'long and straight' element. Raised tables (if heavily signed) might have an effect, particularly where roads (such as Underhill, much used) cross.

Or lie (i.e. flashes not associated with actual cameras).

[flocker spotter]

ban cars

[Sally Eva]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Rather than bother with actual speed cameras, why

> not have a random flash in the road, causing

> drivers to think there are speed cameras. Remember

> the object is not to catch motorists speeding, but

> to discourage them from it. An effective

> anti-speeding system would make NO arrests and NO

> convictions (both of which have costs to them,

> very possibly surpassing the benefit of any fine),

> but speeds would reduce to a safe level.

>

> Frequently there is too much focus on the wrong

> thing. We don't want motorists to speed, rather

> than wanting speeding motorists to be caught. The

> 'problem' with Barry is that it is a long,

> straight, road, but with a lot of activity (cars

> crossing, entering and exiting side roads etc.,

> buses stopping, people crossing). If there were no

> side roads and junctions, speeding on Barry would

> be far less of an issue. So how can we mitigate

> the 'long and straight' element. Raised tables (if

> heavily signed) might have an effect, particularly

> where roads (such as Underhill, much used) cross.

>

> Or lie (i.e. flashes not associated with actual

> cameras).

i understand this but I think drivers learn quickly. On Peckham Rye west for nearly a year there was a fully set up speed camera with no speed calibration markings. I could see cars slamming on their brakes as they approached the camera and then (presumably) accelerating again. After a while drivers stopped doing this and ignored the 20mph signs on the camera and the 20mph signs on the road. Enforcement was not possible, they knew this now.

This highlights the deficiencies of speed enforcement by camera and also shows that drivers quite rapidly learn which bits of supposed enforcement they can ignore.

Originally I think the smiley faces which greeted a compliant driver were judged a success. I doubt that this would be the case now that getting a grumpy face is known to have no outcome. The one in Cheltenham Road observably has no effect.

[Penguin68]

Maybe change the stimulus regularly. If drivers respond to the unusual, increase the changed environment frequency. If there was a simple answer, we would have found it already.

I'm surprised the police are not using middle class speeding motorists as low fruit easily picked to improve their conviction rates, as they no longer really bother with crimes against people or property, outwith actual murder. Or historic abuse.