Melbourne grove shopkeeper set-up petition against road closures

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Abe - seriously? You think other cyclists represent a bigger danger than motor vehicles when you're on a bike?

I agree that there are some absolute lycra tw*ts, but they're the same idiots who drive their audis at speed the rest of the time - in other words idiots are gonna idiot whatever they're doing. But I can't honestly believe that you feel they're more dangerous on a bike ,than in a car.

[Abe_froeman]

Yes that is my experience. The most dangerous behaviour I've seen on the roads on my bicycle has been from other cyclists

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you honesty think that an idiot on a bike is more dangerous than an idiot in a car... well I'm not sure all the evidence in the world is going to dissuade you.

[Siduhe]

I've got to say my experience is similar to Abe's. I wouldn't say other cyclists are the "biggest" danger (metal box hitting me at speed is plainly a bigger danger than a lycra'd up person on two wheels) but they are certainly the most "frequent" cause of me having to change direction, slam on brakes and/or receive abuse as a cyclist.

I'm a driver, pedestrian and commuting cyclist, so I don't really have any skin in the cyclists v cars debate. I use the car rarely these days (for big shopping loads only) and am generally in favour of measures to get those of us that can, out of cars and walking or cycling. TBF, I'm also comparatively slow cyclist on a not very smart bike who stops at every red light, so I recognise that other cyclists are going to want to go around me and I'm fine with that. But generally I find most car drivers are fine so long as you regularly look behind you (so they know you know they are there) before you move out into the road or turn right. And if you don't go shooting down their inside but wait behind or go around on the outside in stationary traffic, again most drivers (including vans, trucks and buses) are fine giving you space in my experience as long as they can see you showing some basic awareness they are there.

I think it's great there's been a massive uptick in cycling but some of the behaviour I see really scares me - and it's not just the lycra'd up brigade (although they are the most likely to give you abuse when you stop at a red light they would rather have gone straight through and vaguely inconvenienced them into changing direction). The majority of people don't look behind them before they move out into traffic, there is a lot of swapping lanes without looking and shooting up inside traffic and very little attempt to signal before turning and, my god, the number of people wearing headphones and cycling in traffic is genuinely astonishing.

And to be clear, there are loads of sensible, aware cyclists too, but I think the standard of behaviour has generally deteriorated since more people started cycling and it drives the overall cyclist behaviour down. As soon as one person jumps a light, others follow and it normalises it etc. I see that every day on my commute into work (a lot of which is on segregated cycle lanes and/or have "bike first" traffic lights where there's no excuse for any cyclist running the red light). A few people will pull up on red but as soon as one person goes shooting through (whether it's a pedestrian phase or a cars coming the other way phase) everyone else follows.

One of the things it's made me think about is that those sort of behaviours aren't too risky when you're on a cycle path or quietway but get really dangerous when you're cycling in proper traffic. I'm coming to the view that no-one should cycle in full London traffic without having some kind of training - it was the best thing I did when I started cycling.

Edit to add to rahrahrah's point - yes - an idiot is an idiot whether they are driving a car or cycling (and even may be the same people I would guess) but generally, my experience is that standard of driver behaviour towards cyclists in our area is better than the behaviour of a lot of those cyclists.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Rahrahrah,

>

> I think your emphasis is wrong. The priority

> should be to improve and invest in public

> transport. Cycling too but emphasis should be on

> the first

There's no material improvement in bus transport possible without removing other vehicles from the road - but look at the moaning about making Lordship Lane bus lanes 24 hours. Even Bakerloo line construction will take a decade - the tube isn't coming to Dulwich any time soon.

[Rockets]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> I've got to say my experience is similar to Abe's.

> I wouldn't say other cyclists are the "biggest"

> danger (metal box hitting me at speed is plainly a

> bigger danger than a lycra'd up person on two

> wheels) but they are certainly the most "frequent"

> cause of me having to change direction, slam on

> brakes and/or receive abuse as a cyclist.

>

> I'm a driver, pedestrian and commuting cyclist, so

> I don't really have any skin in the cyclists v

> cars debate. I use the car rarely these days (for

> big shopping loads only) and am generally in

> favour of measures to get those of us that can,

> out of cars and walking or cycling. TBF, I'm also

> comparatively slow cyclist on a not very smart

> bike who stops at every red light, so I recognise

> that other cyclists are going to want to go around

> me and I'm fine with that. But generally I find

> most car drivers are fine so long as you regularly

> look behind you (so they know you know they are

> there) before you move out into the road or turn

> right. And if you don't go shooting down their

> inside but wait behind or go around on the outside

> in stationary traffic, again most drivers

> (including vans, trucks and buses) are fine giving

> you space in my experience as long as they can see

> you showing some basic awareness they are there.

>

> I think it's great there's been a massive uptick

> in cycling but some of the behaviour I see really

> scares me - and it's not just the lycra'd up

> brigade (although they are the most likely to give

> you abuse when you stop at a red light they would

> rather have gone straight through and vaguely

> inconvenienced them into changing direction). The

> majority of people don't look behind them before

> they move out into traffic, there is a lot of

> swapping lanes without looking and shooting up

> inside traffic and very little attempt to signal

> before turning and, my god, the number of people

> wearing headphones and cycling in traffic is

> genuinely astonishing.

>

> And to be clear, there are loads of sensible,

> aware cyclists too, but I think the standard of

> behaviour has generally deteriorated since more

> people started cycling and it drives the overall

> cyclist behaviour down. As soon as one person

> jumps a light, others follow and it normalises it

> etc. I see that every day on my commute into work

> (a lot of which is on segregated cycle lanes

> and/or have "bike first" traffic lights where

> there's no excuse for any cyclist running the red

> light). A few people will pull up on red but as

> soon as one person goes shooting through (whether

> it's a pedestrian phase or a cars coming the other

> way phase) everyone else follows.

>

> One of the things it's made me think about is that

> those sort of behaviours aren't too risky when

> you're on a cycle path or quietway but get really

> dangerous when you're cycling in proper traffic.

> I'm coming to the view that no-one should cycle in

> full London traffic without having some kind of

> training - it was the best thing I did when I

> started cycling.

>

> Edit to add to rahrahrah's point - yes - an idiot

> is an idiot whether they are driving a car or

> cycling (and even may be the same people I would

> guess) but generally, my experience is that

> standard of driver behaviour towards cyclists in

> our area is better than the behaviour of a lot of

> those cyclists.

I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous to other road users but many are dangerous to themselves. I used to cycle to work from Dulwich to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver I respect everyone else's right to use the roads and am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the only road users and somehow have more priority than others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were riding two abreast on the A205 in front of Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling pace. I understand there is a mindset of we want to use the road but really...it's why cyclists get such a bad rap.

The other danger in London are the Boris bikes - it seems by default that people who use these have zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any idea how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road sense.

Everyone who cycles should be made to do some sort of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as they are a law unto themselves sometimes.

[Slocky]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Would also add that when ever I cycle it's the

> other cyclists who are the most terrifying road

> users. I've had far more near misses with lycra

> clad crazies riding right on my wheel to get a

> tow, or trying to overtake at a pinch point, or

> going through a red light at high speed, than

> I've had with pseudo military vehicles, or even

> just civilian cars or lorries.

>

> A couple of times I've even had other cyclists

> lean on me as I've rounded a bend.

>

> Some of them are awful road hogs and I really

> think it's time for mandatory licences for

> cyclists in London now.

On the other hand I've been cycling in London for over 25 years and I cannot remember another cyclist ever representing the slightest danger to me. To themselves, yes, but frankly I'm less concerned about that. Drivers on the other hand are more or less a constant threat and I see unbelievably selfish, reckless and dangerous behaviour from drivers almost every time I ride.

Some of them are awful road hogs and should be made to do some sort of cycle awareness test as they are a law unto themselves.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

> A couple of times I've even had other cyclists

> lean on me as I've rounded a bend.

This makes perfect sense and definitely happened.

[redpost]

perhaps you should do some highway profiency and read the highway code, there is nothing wrong with riding two abreast

daily-mail comments like yours (riding two abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only serve to give car drivers a bad rap and illustrate your ignorance of the law

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Siduhe Wrote:

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

>

>

> I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous to

> other road users but many are dangerous to

> themselves. I used to cycle to work from Dulwich

> to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by

> other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver I

> respect everyone else's right to use the roads and

> am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But

> sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the only

> road users and somehow have more priority than

> others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no

> helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were

> riding two abreast on the A205 in front of

> Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great

> pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling pace.

> I understand there is a mindset of we want to use

> the road but really...it's why cyclists get such a

> bad rap.

>

> The other danger in London are the Boris bikes -

> it seems by default that people who use these have

> zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any idea

> how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road

> sense.

>

> Everyone who cycles should be made to do some sort

> of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as

> they are a law unto themselves sometimes.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> perhaps you should do some highway profiency and

> read the highway code, there is nothing wrong with

> riding two abreast

>

> daily-mail comments like yours (riding two

> abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only

> serve to give car drivers a bad rap and illustrate

> your ignorance of the law

>

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Siduhe Wrote:

> >

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

>

> >

> >

> > I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous

> to

> > other road users but many are dangerous to

> > themselves. I used to cycle to work from

> Dulwich

> > to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by

> > other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver

> I

> > respect everyone else's right to use the roads

> and

> > am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But

> > sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the

> only

> > road users and somehow have more priority than

> > others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no

> > helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were

> > riding two abreast on the A205 in front of

> > Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great

> > pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling

> pace.

> > I understand there is a mindset of we want to

> use

> > the road but really...it's why cyclists get such

> a

> > bad rap.

> >

> > The other danger in London are the Boris bikes

> -

> > it seems by default that people who use these

> have

> > zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any

> idea

> > how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road

> > sense.

> >

> > Everyone who cycles should be made to do some

> sort

> > of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as

> > they are a law unto themselves sometimes.

Ha ha, there we go - you illustrate my point beautifully...don't you think riding two abreast on the A205 might be somewhat, I dunno, inconsiderate to other roads users? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And a correction - I didn't say cyclists should pay road tax I said they should be encouraged to take cycling proficiency - you went all Daily Mail on me and put words into my mouth! ;-)

[first mate]

redpost,

?Daily Mail reader? such a cheap shot and so unnecessary.

If cycling two abreast slows the flow of traffic, which it may well do if someone slow like me is out cycling with a mate, it probably isn?t a good idea. Saying so does not make me or anyone else a petrol head or a Daily Mail reader; it is a view.

In similar vein, I had suggested mobility scooters be allowed into cycle lanes but was told by a pro cycle campaigner that this was a bad idea as it would slow down cyclists. He said mobility scooters should go onto pavements or bus lanes!

[redpost]

yes, car drivers very often inconvenience me, the difference is that i'm not sat in a metal box with seatbelts, crush zones and air bags.

As a cyclist this is what i put up with:

* pull out in front forcing me to brake sharply (very common)

* opening door without checking for traffic (not common these days due to education, but a nightmare 20y ago)

* close overtaking at speed on london streets, only for me to overtake them again 200m later at lights/congestion (common)

* driving while on the phone (very common)

* driving while operating a phone (rare-ish)

* speeding (ubiquitous)

Just like the daily mail comments section playbook (no helmets, always jumping red lights, road tax, insurance, riding two abreast etc etc) your comment unintentionally dehumanises cyclists, lumping them all together in one homogenous gang of rule breakers, because if they break the rules then why shouldn't I?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > perhaps you should do some highway profiency

> and

> > read the highway code, there is nothing wrong

> with

> > riding two abreast

> >

> > daily-mail comments like yours (riding two

> > abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only

> > serve to give car drivers a bad rap and

> illustrate

> > your ignorance of the law

> >

> >

> >

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Siduhe Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily

> dangerous

> > to

> > > other road users but many are dangerous to

> > > themselves. I used to cycle to work from

> > Dulwich

> > > to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled

> by

> > > other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car

> driver

> > I

> > > respect everyone else's right to use the

> roads

> > and

> > > am mindful of ensuring everyone has space.

> But

> > > sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the

> > only

> > > road users and somehow have more priority

> than

> > > others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing

> no

> > > helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were

> > > riding two abreast on the A205 in front of

> > > Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking

> great

> > > pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling

> > pace.

> > > I understand there is a mindset of we want to

> > use

> > > the road but really...it's why cyclists get

> such

> > a

> > > bad rap.

> > >

> > > The other danger in London are the Boris

> bikes

> > -

> > > it seems by default that people who use these

> > have

> > > zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any

> > idea

> > > how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road

> > > sense.

> > >

> > > Everyone who cycles should be made to do some

> > sort

> > > of cycling proficiency (as we did at school)

> as

> > > they are a law unto themselves sometimes.

>

> Ha ha, there we go - you illustrate my point

> beautifully...don't you think riding two abreast

> on the A205 might be somewhat, I dunno,

> inconsiderate to other roads users? Just because

> you can doesn't mean you should.

>

> And a correction - I didn't say cyclists should

> pay road tax I said they should be encouraged to

> take cycling proficiency - you went all Daily Mail

> on me and put words into my mouth! ;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

People in cars should look over their shoulder at the empty three seater sofa behind them, before complaining cyclists riding two abreast are taking up too much room 🤔

[redpost]

exactamundo

rangerover sport road area occupied = 9.6m2

mini clubman = 7.5m2

bicycle < 1m2

[Rockets]

When I look over my shoulder in my car I see my children - so please don't paint me with your generalising paint brush!

My point was quite clear (you're choosing to try and pick a fight when there isn't one) that those two cyclists were being inconsiderate to other road users yet you seem to think it was perfectly acceptable. Fair enough we will agree to disagree on that one - but I know I am in the majority though.

[redpost]

And what I am saying is that the OP was delayed once for perhaps (lets say 2 minutes, which perhaps was made up for later) for 2 young lads riding abreast without helmets, failed entirely to rationalise it and instead trots this out as an argument that cyclists take pleasure in delaying motorists and behave as though they have priority on the roads.

[albert]

I live on East Dulwich Grove, the Lordship Lane end. The traffic is much worse. In the morning and in the afternoon it is almost stationary outside my house and backed up to Dulwich hospital and probably beyond. The fumes are awful. My air quality is now dreadful. My children and their friends walk up and down East Dulwich Grove at rush hour. The road is the main route for many children in East Dulwich to travel to Charter North Dulwich, Charter East Dulwich, Jags, Alleyns, Dulwich Hamlet, Dulwich infants, Goose Green. Their air quality on the walk to school has now deteriorated massively. The road has become more dangerous to cross. I've always been pretty laid back about local matters, but this is beyond daft. I've been moaned at about it by one paramedic, local businesses, the keeper of Goose Green school who lives there, and ALL my neighbours on the road. The side streets, Elsie, Derwent and Melbourne are now glorified car parks. No doubt the air quality is much nicer for these roads, and no doubt these residents find life quieter, but for the children who walk to school, for the businesses in the area, for the residents of East Dulwich Grove (many with young children) this is hell. We all want cleaner air, but this is concentrating fumes on two roads, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove. It appears the council and fellow side street residents don't care about people who live on these roads, or have given a thought to the hundreds (yes hundreds) of children who walk down them every day. What on paper seems a solution to noisy campaigners is actually ill thought out and harms those who we should be looking out for most.

[northernmonkey]

Whilst I agree that for the first couple of days the traffic on East Dulwich Grove was horrible, and outside the normal levels for that road, the picture being painted by the poster above simply isn?t true of the days since, in fact around school times the traffic has been lower than normal.

It is entirely possible that living right up next to the junction the above poster has a different impression but at that stretch, one car unloading for example has a huge impact. For an example see below:

[Dulwichgirl82]

What I don?t understand is those that live on the closed roads claim traffic isn?t worse on the roads it?s been diverted to, however this doesn?t really make sense as either:

1) they believe the traffic that previously used their roads (Apparently bad) has entirely disappeared in the last 2 weeks which seems incredibly unlikely or

2) there wasn?t that much traffic on their roads anyway and hence why has it been closed?

I feel for those living on east dulwich grove and think they are most likely to know what the traffic changes are like as they will experience it the most. All the data is currently anecdotal but surely those who are there the most have the best idea

And as I mentioned before lordship lane now has increased traffic which I think will be a detriment to the whole area sadly as will the traffic around goose green.

I hope it reduces down but I?m not convinced the diversion creates enough inconvenience to drivers to discourage the journeys at the moment. I?m aware they can?t close east dulwich grove due to the buses but could they make part of it bus only or something. I think a civil engineer would be best placed to try and look at traffic reduction measures without the interests of individual roads coming into play.

albert Wrote:

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

> I live on East Dulwich Grove, the Lordship Lane

> end. The traffic is much worse. In the morning

> and in the afternoon it is almost stationary

> outside my house and backed up to Dulwich hospital

> and probably beyond. The fumes are awful. My air

> quality is now dreadful. My children and their

> friends walk up and down East Dulwich Grove at

> rush hour. The road is the main route for many

> children in East Dulwich to travel to Charter

> North Dulwich, Charter East Dulwich, Jags,

> Alleyns, Dulwich Hamlet, Dulwich infants, Goose

> Green. Their air quality on the walk to school

> has now deteriorated massively. The road has

> become more dangerous to cross. I've always been

> pretty laid back about local matters, but this is

> beyond daft. I've been moaned at about it by one

> paramedic, local businesses, the keeper of Goose

> Green school who lives there, and ALL my

> neighbours on the road. The side streets, Elsie,

> Derwent and Melbourne are now glorified car parks.

> No doubt the air quality is much nicer for these

> roads, and no doubt these residents find life

> quieter, but for the children who walk to school,

> for the businesses in the area, for the residents

> of East Dulwich Grove (many with young children)

> this is hell. We all want cleaner air, but this

> is concentrating fumes on two roads, Lordship Lane

> and East Dulwich Grove. It appears the council

> and fellow side street residents don't care about

> people who live on these roads, or have given a

> thought to the hundreds (yes hundreds) of children

> who walk down them every day. What on paper seems

> a solution to noisy campaigners is actually ill

> thought out and harms those who we should be

> looking out for most.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> What I don?t understand is those that live on the

> closed roads claim traffic isn?t worse on the

> roads it?s been diverted to, however this doesn?t

> really make sense as either:

> 1) they believe the traffic that previously used

> their roads (Apparently bad) has entirely

> disappeared in the last 2 weeks which seems

> incredibly unlikely or

> 2) there wasn?t that much traffic on their roads

> anyway and hence why has it been closed?

Or some people may have switched to walking / cycling (for example, instead of dropping a partner off at the station in the car, they might now decide to walk instead). If you both make it both less convenient to drive and more pleasant to walk / cycle, then you will see some behaviour change. Many car journeys in London are very short.

[Serena2012]

As a resident of EDG, I strongly refute the claim that traffic volume on the Northern section of EDG is lower than normal at school drop off and pick up. This is simply not the case. Moreover, this section of road is currently being subjected to idling traffic at lunchtime; and into evening in circumstances where this did not happen previously. Both Saturdays since the most recent swathe of road closures were implemented have seen 9 hours of idling traffic outside our home between 10am and 7pm. Put simply it is so much worse than it was previously.

I agree with the notion that this stretch of road is too narrow for all the traffic on it, and have personally seen buses get stuck. The fundamental issue is that the junction of Lordship Lane and EDG, as well as the Goose Green roundabout cannot cope with the volume of traffic they are currently experiencing, and this (whilst eminently predictable) is leading to significant tailbacks. The narrowness of the road, and the fact that two sizeable vehicles cannot pass each other without one stopping to let the other go past is not helping. Whilst the recent closures of Melbourne North et al has made the problem exponentially worse, the closure of Melbourne South and the roads in the Village have also had a significant knock on impact.

Delivery drivers parking on this section of road is simply the tip of the iceberg. Banning them completely is likely to be impractical (there will invariably be furniture deliveries; builders merchants; ambulances etc where parking anywhere other than immediately outside a residential property is impractical, and as others have commented, the lack of suitable delivery spots on the final stretch of Lordship Lane leading up to Grove Vale is also an issue), and whilst it is no doubt something the council should look into, the more fundamental need is an urgent review of the Lordship Lane/ EDG junction which is a fatal accident waiting to happen. Until this is fixed, my own view is that all the roads in the vicinity ought to be reopened. It is a ticking timebomb otherwise.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Whilst I agree that for the first couple of days

> the traffic on East Dulwich Grove was horrible,

> and outside the normal levels for that road, the

> picture being painted by the poster above simply

> isn?t true of the days since, in fact around

> school times the traffic has been lower than

> normal.

>

> It is entirely possible that living right up next

> to the junction the above poster has a different

> impression but at that stretch, one car unloading

> for example has a huge impact. For an example see

> below:

>

> https://twitter.com/edstnstreets/status/1304771248

> 342302720?s=12

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

" I think a civil engineer would be best placed to try and look at traffic reduction measures without the interests of individual roads coming into play. "

That's exactly what has happened and has been happening for many years!

[northernmonkey]

Agree that the crossing needs attention. But whatever is put in will mean cars stopping outside your house as you live at the junction of 2 ?A?roads. Will mean that every time the pedestrian crossing is used cars will have to stop. What?s to be done then?

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> As a resident of EDG, I strongly refute the claim

> that traffic volume on the Northern section of EDG

> is lower than normal at school drop off and pick

> up. This is simply not the case. Moreover, this

> section of road is currently being subjected to

> idling traffic at lunchtime; and into evening in

> circumstances where this did not happen

> previously. Both Saturdays since the most recent

> swathe of road closures were implemented have seen

> 9 hours of idling traffic outside our home between

> 10am and 7pm. Put simply it is so much worse than

> it was previously.

>

> I agree with the notion that this stretch of road

> is too narrow for all the traffic on it, and have

> personally seen buses get stuck. The fundamental

> issue is that the junction of Lordship Lane and

> EDG, as well as the Goose Green roundabout cannot

> cope with the volume of traffic they are currently

> experiencing, and this (whilst eminently

> predictable) is leading to significant tailbacks.

> The narrowness of the road, and the fact that two

> sizeable vehicles cannot pass each other without

> one stopping to let the other go past is not

> helping. Whilst the recent closures of Melbourne

> North et al has made the problem exponentially

> worse, the closure of Melbourne South and the

> roads in the Village have also had a significant

> knock on impact.

>

> Delivery drivers parking on this section of road

> is simply the tip of the iceberg. Banning them

> completely is likely to be impractical (there will

> invariably be furniture deliveries; builders

> merchants; ambulances etc where parking anywhere

> other than immediately outside a residential

> property is impractical, and as others have

> commented, the lack of suitable delivery spots on

> the final stretch of Lordship Lane leading up to

> Grove Vale is also an issue), and whilst it is no

> doubt something the council should look into, the

> more fundamental need is an urgent review of the

> Lordship Lane/ EDG junction which is a fatal

> accident waiting to happen. Until this is fixed,

> my own view is that all the roads in the vicinity

> ought to be reopened. It is a ticking timebomb

> otherwise.

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Whilst I agree that for the first couple of

> days

> > the traffic on East Dulwich Grove was horrible,

> > and outside the normal levels for that road,

> the

> > picture being painted by the poster above

> simply

> > isn?t true of the days since, in fact around

> > school times the traffic has been lower than

> > normal.

> >

> > It is entirely possible that living right up

> next

> > to the junction the above poster has a

> different

> > impression but at that stretch, one car

> unloading

> > for example has a huge impact. For an example

> see

> > below:

> >

> >

> https://twitter.com/edstnstreets/status/1304771248

>

> > 342302720?s=12

[Serena2012]

Northernmonkey to address your comments:

1. I do not live at the junction of two A roads, in fact, our house is quite a distance from the junction, and the only reason we are currently experiencing idling traffic is because the volume of traffic caused by the closures elsewhere is overwhelming for this stretch of road. In case you hadn?t noticed, Melbourne Grove, Derwent and Elsie also have junctions with two A roads. All these closures have done is to take the problems previously experienced at some of those junctions, particularly the Melbourne/ EDG junction and shoved it down the road, where the infrastructure cannot cope. There is a reason buses did not go down this section of EDG historically and went down Melbourne instead, and that is because this stretch of road is very very narrow.

2. What needs to happen therefore is that rather than bunging planters in and hoping for the best, which clearly isn?t working, and is inevitably significantly increasing air pollution, there should be a detailed consideration of all the options. This includes school streets alone, and one way streets. Expecting a narrow stretch of EDG to cope with all the additional traffic is naive, and quite frankly dangerous.

[Pugwash]

Hubby cycled most of his life until about 4 years ago when his health deteriorated through arthritis.

He sometimes rode from Tulse Hill to Cheshunt in Hertfordshire as he could not afford public transport (was unemployed at the time)- he frequently complained about other cyclists being a danger to themselves and other road users. He has always argued that cyclists should pay some form of road tax. Bike frames could have registration numbers etched on their frames. Also have a form of insurance.

As a younger and fitter person, I used to cycle from East Dulwich to Westminster, but having poor balance, I had the bike fitted with wing mirrors on both handles so I could see traffic behind me.

Many years ago, my aunt (in her late 60s) was knocked down by a youth (around 12- 15 years of age) cycling on the pavement outside the now Sainsbury's Local. She fractured her hip and throughout the rest of her life was in pain. The young man rode off when he realised that many pedestrians had witnessed the accident. Police were involved but never found the culprit.