Consultation on 20mph zone across East Dulwich?

[SeanMacGabhann]

PeckhamRose - you say:

I would turn the question around - why do you think they aren't?

Re: people who don't obey speed limits as I've already posted, most drivers (not a minority) nudge over a speed limit by a little bit - a little bit over 30 is much more injurious than a little over 20

Does no-one discuss it? I'm happy to. Because a world full of people walking, running or dawdling is one where no-one will get injured or killed. It's the cars that do the damage. A world full of people walking, running or dawdling is a much more sociable one where it's far less likely that criminals will feel they can get away with (say) a mugging, as there are so many people around and not locked away in their cars

A world where people walking, running or dawdling is also a world which can sustain itself and not be dependant on oil

Completely not true in my case. Many people do need cars for jobs, health reasons etc. Just a much smaller number than currently drive everywhere. Besides I love driving why would I ban cars? But the fact is the balance has gone waaaaay to far towards cars. It's just not possible to avoid them anymore, not to mention the roads they require which carve up cities and countryside alike. Or the fact that they consume a dwindling resource at a frightening rate. And for all the mobility drivers have, they're not half an angry lot...

[Growlybear]

I am generally in support of the introduction of one way traffic in that part of Melford Road, but as others have said, ONLY if one of the right hand turns into either Wood Vale or Underhill Road is reinstated. I was very angry at the total lack of consultation with the so-called traffic calming measures in Wood Vale, but Southwark Council have completely ignored our protestations and our grave concerns that the resiting of some of the speed cushions to directly outside our house, which is currently starting to show signs of further subsidence, will make the situation even worse. I'm sure that this current consultation exercise won't make any difference whatsoever to Southwark's plans - they will do exactly what they want to do, as always, and completely ignore the views of the council tax payers.

[SeanMacGabhann]

This view so depresses me - it is stated with such regularity by so many people without any basis. The council is consulting - many people will be for something and many will be against it. WHICHEVER decision a council makes a lot of people can say "they never listen to us". So it can never, ever ever win

Does anyone not think what it must be like to actually have responsibility for these things and to actually do a job?

[Brendan]

Sean they are a bunch of politicised titcockers driven either by greed, corruption or mentally debilitating idealism and wallowing in a malaise of sadomasochistic bureaucracy.

Do I have any actual evidence for this? Well no (but I am sure plenty could be found)

What I do have is a deep mistrust for anyone in a position of authority or with the power to make decisions which affective peoples? lives. This mistrust is a good thing because if we don?t keep a cynical eye on these people what is there stopping them from becoming the untouchable, thieving, corrupt public officials you get in Africa.

Embrace your cynicism. It?s a good thing. Keeps the people we employ to serve* us in line.

*This can be interchanged with the word rule depending on the time and place.

[Brendan]

Anyway I support this speed limit thingy.

[Brendan]

Oh and I have worked for a public service before and found it very rewarding.

[Rockets]

We received this idea this morning and I have to say I am not impressed. I live on one of the roads that already has speed humps and they are proposing more along the road. This will not slow anyone down - there is plenty of research to suggest that speed humps cause more accidents as people accelerate more between them, not to mention the additional environmental damage caused by them.

What annoys me about this is that the council opens their letter by saying that "the urban speed limit of 30mph is PERCEIVED to be broken by many drivers". Why don't they go out and find out whether it is or isn't instead of suggesting the roads are filled with speeding maniacs. Yes, there are people who will speed round the roads but they will do that whatever measures are in place. From my experience the worst offenders are the buses - especially the P13 bus as they shoot along Underhill Road. I would like to know where these 113 collisions in three years took place as I suspect many happen on the road junctions in the area where line of sight is obscured by parked cars or worse (I am thinking of the removal truck that makes one of the junctions along the Lordship Lane end of Goodrich a nightmare to negotiate). How many of those collisions were caused by parents ignoring parking restrictions to drop kids off at school? How many were caused by people trying to drive down the middle of the road to avoid the incessant bouncing of the cars along speed humps?

Without this level of detail it appears the council is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Traffic management is no longer about trying to slow people down - look at the experiments underway on Kensington High Street and other places where luddite traffic calming measures are being removed to be replaced with sloping pavements, no barriers etc. Whilst these measures may not work in ED it shows that sometimes more creative thinking is required than just sticking lumps in the road.

We have plenty of lumps in the road and this looks like an admission by the council that the current traffic calming measures are not working so they will throw more of the same.

[BARA]

Generally support idea of 20 mph on the basis that many will exceed that but as long as it is well under 30 mph, it will serve a purpose. Has anyone in the current 20mph zone posted comments as to how they have found scheme.

If they propose to reinstate the Right turn from LL into Underhill, they should get TFL to put a pedestrian phase into traffic lights on the set by Harvester. They would give a few extra seconds safety for turning cars otherwise it will turn into the crash junction it was prior ro exsisting schemes.

The Dulwich Community Council is a good forum for expressing views re traffic and has been successful in some cases in acheiving changes.

[scottcruickshank]

Put Bicycle paths in front of all cars and then they would have to go 20mph!

[PeckhamRose]

Right, I am a maniac.

blinder999 please don't print this crap, you do not know me, you do not know my skills or biking history (28 years) and you do not know details. If you have an issue write a personal message.

blinder999 Wrote:

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

> You are not an advanced driver - you are a maniac

> who should revisit the highway code and learn from

> your dangerous mistakes before you kill yourself

> or someone else (and I have held a full motorbike

> license for twenty years) :

>

> "My biggest problem with cyclists is those who

> undertake at speed behind and to the left of

> lorries or vans ie they are hidden, so that as the

> lorry driver flahes his lights to let me turn

> right in front of him I have to be doubly careful

> in case some cycling @#$%& is undertaking that

> lorry. I hit one doing just that once and I was

> the one whose insurance company had to pay fifteen

> grand odd to the cyclist."

[Growlybear]

I live in one of the road where there is currently a 20 mph limit, and it is generally ignored.

[Asset]

You would have to doubly careful in that situation PR for exactly the reason you state, and quite right that you should. The lorry driver would be in the wrong for flashing to let you go. I suppose maniac is a little strong though.

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Right, I am a maniac.

> blinder999 please don't print this crap, you do

> not know me, you do not know my skills or biking

> history (28 years) and you do not know details. If

> you have an issue write a personal message.

>

>

> blinder999 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You are not an advanced driver - you are a

> maniac

> > who should revisit the highway code and learn

> from

> > your dangerous mistakes before you kill

> yourself

> > or someone else (and I have held a full

> motorbike

> > license for twenty years) :

> >

> > "My biggest problem with cyclists is those who

> > undertake at speed behind and to the left of

> > lorries or vans ie they are hidden, so that as

> the

> > lorry driver flahes his lights to let me turn

> > right in front of him I have to be doubly

> careful

> > in case some cycling @#$%& is undertaking that

> > lorry. I hit one doing just that once and I was

> > the one whose insurance company had to pay

> fifteen

> > grand odd to the cyclist."

[blinder999]

I support the 20mph measures. And I'm gobsmacked that a motorcyclist would refer to someone they've mown down as 'some cycling @#$%&', having put him in hospital as a result of ignoring Highway Code Rule 211 (and having handed responsibility for looking carefully to a lorry driver of all people)

"Motorcyclists and cyclists

211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully."

[SimonM]

>>If they propose to reinstate the Right turn from LL into Underhill, they should get TFL to put a pedestrian phase into traffic lights on the set by Harvester.>>

They should do this anyway irrespective of what they do or don't do elsewhere. I think it is appalling there is no ppedestrian-phase at this junction's lights - you do rather take your life into your hands sometimes when you cross the road here.

[SimonM]

>>I have seen two accidents where people have turned right there, one involving a motorcyclist who was hit by a car turning right.<<

Was this before or since such right turns were made illegal here though? In any case although I'd like the legitimiate right turn reinstated, I see no reason why this should not be light-controlled. As it is, I have often made this turn illegally when there has been no oncoming traffic - as have many other cars and vans (I see it done all the time, as well as the occasional illegal right turn out of Underhill): and of course buses do it all the time.

I suspect making a right turn into Wood Vale legal would be Lewisham's baby not Southwark's...

[zephyr]

After it was made illegal

[PeckhamRose]

I am writing a pm to blinder since blinder seems fit to make judgments on an accident he or she did not witness, does not know all the facts about, and has no idea about the sort of person I am as a motorcyclist and my experience and training and so on. Please stop this blinder and think before you press send.

[*Bob*]

Serious accusations indeed.. get that PM in, PR. As a biker, there's no greater slur on your character than someone questioning your riding skills.. in public, goddammit.

Having held a licence for 169 years myself with a clean sheet, I feel compelled to comment. Perhaps we could settle this matter with an appropriate test of skill? Doing 'doughnuts' on Goose Green, for example? Just an idea.

[Asset]

PeckhamRose, I am not casting any aspersions on your driving skills, but don't you think the fact that your insurance company had to pay out means that you were in the wrong and not the cyclist?

[PeckhamRose]

I have explained the facts to blinder999 - you do not know them. I am not reprinting them here as this topic is not about that. The insurance company fought long and hard to challenge this. It was a terrible time. But cyclists don't have engines so even when ten, yes ten witnesses came forward to explain what happened and how it was not my fault, and the police took no action against me, the cyclists' lawyer won. I am not a maniac. You have no idea what skills and experience I have. I am geniunely surprised given the usual good overall nature and intelligence of people in this forum just how upset I am people like blinder and now a few others are making these conclusions without knowing the whole picture. I'm out of here.

[Al&Em]

As per previous comments coming from Forest Hill direction a no right turn into Melford would be a bit of a blockage for those trying to access Underhill / Wood Vale. Interested in views on the crafty U-Turn that I and many others take just after the Wood Vale turn (heading downhill towards the Harvester) between the two bollards, and then immediately left into WoodVale. As far as I can tell this is completely legal (there's a space there to go, and no signs or lines saying you can't), but it seems to attract lots of honking from people who don't approve - any views on whether this is a fair-enough maneouvre or a naughty habit we should all give up?

[mrsw]

I think that a 20mph zone is a good idea but I wonder if this can be achieved in ways other than speed bumps. I agree with Rocket about people accelerating more between them and environmental damage. I wonder why the council hasn't proposed those flashing warning signs they installed on Colyton Rd (by side of Peckham Rye) which flash when cars exceed 20mph. See http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm from the Association of British Drivers. Not sure how accurate this is and I imagine there might be contrary arguments but it does seem that speed bumps aren't all they seem.

[zephyr]

I am pretty sure that there is a 'No U turn' sign down that stretch

Al&Em Wrote:

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

> As per previous comments coming from Forest Hill

> direction a no right turn into Melford would be a

> bit of a blockage for those trying to access

> Underhill / Wood Vale. Interested in views on the

> crafty U-Turn that I and many others take just

> after the Wood Vale turn (heading downhill towards

> the Harvester) between the two bollards, and then

> immediately left into WoodVale. As far as I can

> tell this is completely legal (there's a space

> there to go, and no signs or lines saying you

> can't), but it seems to attract lots of honking

> from people who don't approve - any views on

> whether this is a fair-enough maneouvre or a

> naughty habit we should all give up?

[zephyr]

These flash when you approach at 15 mph!

mrsw Wrote:

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

I wonder why the council hasn't proposed

> those flashing warning signs they installed on

> Colyton Rd (by side of Peckham Rye) which flash

> when cars exceed 20mph. See

[mrsw]

Point taken Zephyr.

To be honest, what bothers me is the fact that Southwark has not distinguished between whether people want a 20mph zone on the one hand and on the hand, if there were such a zone, how it would be enforced. I imagine a lot of people will favour reducing the speed limit, but Southwark does not seem to have addressed alternative means on enforcement. I am shocked reading the the ABD blurb on speed bumps - http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm (okay I appreciate they have a certain agenda) but they do suggest that accidents may actually increase because of speed bumps (when Barnet got rid of them, accidents reduced apparently), and then there are issues of increasing air pollution and making life more dificult for people with disabilities.

It seems a fait accompli that we'll get speed bumps.

Also the consultation period is very short and at a time when a lot of people will be away for Easter.

What can be done...?