Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As part of Southwark Council's Cleaner Greener Safer funding, I'm going to put forward a proposal to enable a cycle lane to be established at the junction of Copleston Road, Oglander Road and Grove Vale. Currently access from Copleston/Oglander is blocked to all traffic and half the junction covered in a wide pavement from when it used to be open to traffic both ways. I'm going to suggest that the Council remove part of the pavement to make way for a cycle lane so cyclists can exit on to Grove Vale legally and safely without climbing the pavement.

I'd like to hear from other cyclists who use this route as to whether or not they think this is a good idea.


file.php?5,file=692

Quite a few cars ignore the one way system there as well. Hardly surprising though - if you don't know your way around, it's impossible to get out once you're in. Taxis hate going in there. Maybe the whole one way system needs reviewing?
I'm not suggesting doing away with the one way system, TJS - I just think there should be a better way out! Ondine Rd could be one way going the other way, for example. Anyone living at that end of Copleston has to go round the houses to get out of there in a car - up Bellenden or Adys Rd, or through the DKH estate. None of which is particularly easy to find if you don't know the area.

LostThePlot - I expect there would be far too many objections from residents of Coplestone and the surrounding roads to close the junction to cars, and to be honest I would have a great deal of sympathy with them.

Scotslass - you're right, cyclists do climb the pavement but as I said in my original post the point of the cycle lane would be to enable them to exit onto Grove Vale legally and safely without climbing the pavement.

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> LostThePlot - I expect there would be far too many

> objections from residents of Coplestone and the

> surrounding roads to close the junction to cars,

> and to be honest I would have a great deal of

> sympathy with them.

Fully agree, however I re-read my post an spotted an omited "only"


"might it not be wise to change that to no entry for motor vehicles ONLY be in order also?

I sometimes see some one dimensional fellow on a ugly fat black harleyD copy ( complete with sad leather satchel on the rack ) pootling through the junction the wrong way and causng problems with cars trying to turn into Copleston - would a bike lane envourage people like this ?
  • 1 month later...
I am a keen cyclist but let's face it - most cycle lanes in London are a waste of time. A total overhaul would be welcomed but spending ?X'000 on a "lane-ette" to get people over what is a very small stretch of pavement is largely pointless. It's not that much of a big deal to get over on a bike is it?! I for one would rather see the money spent elsewhere - like targeting the numerous people who think it's ok to walk their dogs through the area fouling the pavements and leaving it there for example....

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

    • Thank you for clarifying, James. So why would anybody want to take this on as a franchise if it is staying in this building? If it is now to be a sub office, does that mean that much of  the space could be used as a different kind of business altogether, with just part of it being used as a sub Post Office? Because if it is all to remain solely for Post Office business, (albeit as a sub Post Office it won't be providing all the services which it currently does) I can't see who would want to take it over? If it isn't profitable as a Crown office, how could it be  profitable running just as a sub office, even if staff are being paid less and it's opening for longer hours? Because presumably all the other overheads such as rent will remain the same?
    • Girobank was genuinely innovative, regarding the addressed customer base (significantly the previously unbanked) - but this would have been an ideally outsourced operation to an existing bank which already had the operational systems (and the regulatory experts) to manage a bank for someone else at marginal cost. The Post Office - when you consider the issues over the Horizon software - never originally designed by ICL/ Fujitsu for the application it ran - is a very good reason why the Post Office being involved in banking was long-term a bad idea.  To get back to the topic of this thread, the Horizon debacle is still not over (the software system is still in place) - most of the wrongly penalised sub-postmasters are still out of pocket - I'm not sure I would be leaping to take on the franchise being offered in Lordship Lane.
    • Otherwise in Bellenden Road are brilliant! They’ve made me stage dresses, restructured vintage finds and are working on remodelling my late brothers huntsman tweed suit for my modern husband! Not cheap and rents have meant they are moving premises at mo.
    • Penguin, I broadly agree, except that the Girobank was a genuinely innovative and successful operation. It’s rather ironic that after all these years we are now back to banking at the Post Office due to all the bank branch closures.  I agree that the roots of the problem go back further than 2012 (?), when the PO and RM were separated so RM could be sold. I’m willing to blame Peter Mandelson, Margaret Thatcher or even Keith Joseph. But none of them will be standing for the local council, hoping to make capital out of the possible closure of Lordship Lane PO, as if they are in no way responsible. The Lib Dems can’t be let off the hook that easily.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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