Pedestrian/ cycling artery into Peckham Rye severed - UPDATE

[Lee Scoresby]

It gives me no joy whatever to post once again in terms critical of Southwark's management of Peckham Rye. But really and truly, these faceless-nameless municipal somnambulents never change, never learn, never improve.

For those unfamiliar with the top end of the Rye, a tree-lined path runs from the SE corner down to Straker's Road near the carkpark. This path acts as one of two entry-points into the park from that corner. It is also a heavily-used artery for walkers and cyclists between East Dulwich, coming from/ going to either the bottom of Barry Road, or where East Dulwich Road crosses the Rye ('Kings on the Rye' as was), across and up the hill to south Nunhead and beyond to Brockley. When the gate through the fence into PR park is closed, and this occurs early at this time of year, this path becomes the ONLY route and access at that corner.

Now, the path is presently being resealed and otherwise improved - which is absolutely great (and about a decade overdue). But to do this, it has been completely closed, fenced off, without warning, and at greater length day by day. It is simply unacceptable that neither Southwark park management, nor its contractor (if there is one) has bothered to provide alternate access. This is necessary in January because the open ground is absolutely sodden. (In summer, one could simply walk or cycle across the grass). I suspect there are piles of plastic or similar snap-together duck-boards sitting in one or other Southwark depot, or available to hire. It just required the foresight, the responsiveness to people's needs, the project leadership, and the basic energy, to lay them down. Or to come up with another temporary paved way.

As it is, I'm afraid this present nonsense conforms exactly to the old-old pattern of indifference to park users, and lack of imagination and effort.

Lee Scoresby

[nunhead_man]

Oh dear - mea culpa - well a little - Friends of Peckham Rye Park posted about this a week ago and it never occurred to me to re-post.

And for me in the dark given the poor surface I never use it - instead I make the right through the car barrier on Friern Road, go up to the next left - Piermont Road - over the foot path on Piermont Green, turn right onto the main drag and then left into Colyton and hence off towards Nunhead.

Lights and good surface most of the way bar the bit outside HGAAED

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi Lee, I don't think there would be the funds available to provide an alternative temporary path. I will raise your points with Council officers and find out what the time frame for the path improvement works are. Thanks Nunhead_man for the alternative route.

Renata

[James Barber]

But surely Renata their would be the funds to just do the work at a dryer time of the year?

hi Lee Scoresby,

Cyclie path at northern end of Greendale cycle path has been closed weithout suitable pracitcal alternative. The Elephant & Castle cycle bypass has been closed without notice on Steedman Street this month and plans to close it on Churchyard Row for 18months without a suitable alternative - in fact the diversion does'nt even appear to be legal

but I don't have the reosurces to seek a Judicial Review. Very sad that lotso f talk about being pro cyclnig but the actions aren't coming throguh to demonstrate this.

[Lee Scoresby]

Thanx for timely responses from the elected tribunes of the people, which are illuminating in their own way.

The obvious (and cost-free) solution is that the two upper gates to PR Park itself are left open at night. As the work moves down, the gate adjacent to the depot would then be left open. This is far from perfect: some, women particularly, will not be comfortable walking even that stretch, which is not well lit and is obscured by foliage.

FoPRP/nunhead_man: much as I respect the ongoing efforts of the 'FO-PERPers', a) it is a confusion of the early 21stc that information=solution, ipso facto. (Reminds me of an outraged response to one of my posts drawing attention to the abysmal 484 bus service. "But! But! There's an app . . . !" Which is great, but you can't ride an app.)

And b) your passing reference to avoiding the poor surface of the existing path in hours of darkness is more revealing that you may have intended. In fact, tho the surface has been poor the lighting is not too bad. What you would have needed to do is to SLOW DOWN. The self-serving claim is made by part of the cycling movement (notably SUSTRANS) that walkers and cyclists can safely share pathways and other public spaces. This dangerous myth has been imbibed by local government officers, and indeed councillors.

How will this play out on the new path? It doesn't really take any foresight to see that free-wheeling velocopedians will now hurtle down the new paved surface as fast as they can. A long slope, a straight path - irresistible. The area of real danger will be the blind curve at the bottom of the hill. Useless to imagine that Southwark park management have so much as considered this, let alone that they are intending to engineer-in any preventative safety strategy.

To be crystal clear, I am utterly pro-cycle, but not at the expense of walking. My concern at this closure is as much about walkers (dog walkers being a prime example) accessing the Rye itself as cyclists riding through. Cyclists, after all, can find alternate routes. (It is a whimsical footnote that cycling is technically illegal in any Southwark park. Is that still the case?)

Ms Hamvas, it is not my intention to have a pop at you, but your reference to 'raising points with Council officers' evokes an image of supplication in a darkened cave before anonymous high priests of the temple. Do any of these office-wallahs live anywhere near SE22/15? How was this decision arrived at? Whose space is it anyway? Time for the dog to stop letting itself be wagged by the tail.

Lee Scoresby

[nunhead_man]

Edited re points I'm covering

Firstly I wrongly assumed you were referring to cycling as opposed to walking access

Secondly re slow down - indeed- to a crawl on my Brompton - there that path was no use to me it its recent state

Thirdly re shared use it works well when there are clearly marked areas divided by a raised kerb or marked difference in surface - unlike the one at the North end of Rye Lane

Fourth re hurtling - absolutely - there are ways to slow cyclists down as on Greendale - but I'd be more worried about motor vehicles

Finally cycling is legal in any Southwark Park

Lee Scoresby Wrote:

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

...snip..............

What you would have needed to do is to SLOW DOWN. The self-serving claim is made by part of the cycling movement (notably SUSTRANS)> that walkers and cyclists can safely share pathways and other public spaces. This dangerous

> myth has been imbibed by local government officers, and indeed councillors.

>

> How will this play out on the new path? It doesn't really take any foresight to see that free-wheeling velocopedians will now hurtle down the new paved surface as fast as they can. A long slope, a straight path - irresistible. The area of real danger will be the blind curve at the bottom of the hill. Useless to imagine that Southwark park management have so much as considered this, let alone that they are intending to engineer-in any preventative safety strategy.

...snip..............

>

>(It is a whimsical footnote that cycling is technically illegal in any Southwark park. Is that still the case?)

> Lee Scoresby

...snip..............

[Lee Scoresby]

Day by day, the resurfaced path works its way down the hill.

Since I raised the matter, nothing official has been done to provide an alternative route for walkers and cyclists. Probably for this reason, from the start people have simply pushed the barriers aside and are walking on all the new and transient surfaces of the path. So is this how it works? A nod and a wink? Strange way to do public works.

My other point remains unanswered: What measures are planned to discourage cyclists hurtling down that long, straight, smoothly surfaced slope and belting round the blind bend at the bottom? Parents of small kids should think about this, as should dog walkers, and anyone else, including cyclists themselves who might be tredding their way up round the curve. No-one loves speed bumps, me included, but perhaps a well-marked bike hump is needed just at the uphill start of the bend.

Silence on this from the nameless-faceless ones, naturally. Perhaps they would be willing to vouchsafe their thinking to our cheery tribunes, the local councillors?

Lastly, in these rainsoaked days, significant amounts of water are predictably trapped on the uphill side of the path, near and around the bend, and then regularly spill across it, which spillage freezes as black ice in cold temperatures. And yet, there appears to be no preparation to provide appropriate drainage. This would require one, or more likely several small grated gullies or vertical gravel shafts, draining the short distance under the path, potentially right down to the stream.

Hardly a major engineering project or a big budgetary item. Re your earlier post Ms Hamvas, to me "funds available" must mean a budget appropriate to all that is needed in a project: in this case, an alternative temporary pathway, an effective speed hump, and proper drainage.

Lee Scoresby

[Blah Blah]

For goodness sake, it's just a path and it's not like there's no alternate route whilst the work is being done. There are far more worthy causes to get outraged over.

[Nigello]

It's "alternative".

Shame about the path, too. Sounds like lack of consideration on the part of the contractor and/or council.

[Hoopoedi]

While we're (sort of) on this subject, could I put in a plea here on behalf of walkers for ALL cyclists to ensure they have a working bell on their bikes? I don't have eyes in the back of my head and it would be a much politer way of making me get out of the way than shouting at me, or overtaking me too close and at speed. Thanks!

[dds29]

Hear hear! Hoopoedi

Also the near heart attack moment when the silent cyclist suddenly whooshes past you; how do they know we won't suddenly move into their path?

[Blah Blah]

Dogs also have a tendancy to do that too. Bells on the collars anyone? :D

Then there's kids on scooters, or just running with a ball even.

The path needed repairing. Good on the council for that. There is a pavement that runs all around the park so no real upheaval to moan about. Cyclists will be no more of a concern than some poeple find them on any path that runs through the park, and most cyclists likewise will do what they already do elsewhere, slow down if they see people up ahead. But no doubt this thread will run on and on, reporting every perceived near miss as though someone's lfe was at risk.

[Jeremy]

Kids on scooters probably aren't going to knock you over though!

[henryb]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Kids on scooters probably aren't going to knock

> you over though!

A jogger or a big dog might. Bells on them?

The problems is people complain if cyclists ring their bells as well so it is a no win.

[Jeremy]

henryb Wrote:

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

> The problems is people complain if cyclists ring

> their bells as well so it is a no win.

If people really are stupid enough to complain about cyclists using bells, they are not really worth listening to.

If cyclists insist on riding in the park, be considerate and use your bell!

[Lee Scoresby]

Well, Blah Blah, I don't usually waste time responding to demi-trolls, but really, you do what your forum handle sez 'on the tin'. Blah blah.

I went to some effort to point out that this path was important for people both entering and traversing the park/rye. One can "go around" anything; so what?

This slope and blind curve clearly combine to make inconsiderate downhill cycling potentially dangerous. I agree, and evidently others do too: there is a problem in the UK with urban culture and lagging regulation regarding speeding bikes in pedestrian spaces. Several walkers are killed every year by cycles - I have yet to hear of a similar injury caused purely by a dog in motion. The fact that the problem is widespread doesn't invalidate my particular concern here.

I'm afraid in Blah Blah we see the return of the well-documented 'authoritarian personality' : Any demurral, any query can only be misplaced "outrage" and contemptible "moaning". We must all shut up and smile! Well, as I've said to other AP posters before, this is a forum, a platform of local inter-personal communication, democracy if you will. The post will run as long as people are interested, BB. I welcome your interventions, but please have something to say.

I am disappointed at the silence, so far, from local councillors.

Lee Scoresby

[Blah Blah]

I've used that path for 23 years and have never come close to being run over or colliding with anything else. And it is my view that you and others are making a mountain out of a molehill - something that seems to have increasingly pervaded this area over the last 20 years (I suspect your issue is with cylists per se rather than that path). My view is as valid as yours but you are the only one making an issue about it, yet more outrage over nothing, by the outraged?

If you really can't cope with opposing viewpoints, then a public forum isn't for you. I'll bet you a tenner though there won't be a single collision between cyclist and pedestrian on that pathway when it reopens!

[Renata Hamvas]

Hello all,

the drainage improvement works are currently in progress. These will be finished by the end of the week. There then will be around a fortnight of resurfacing works (weather allowing). I did ask about alternative path and unfortunately due to cost and time scales of the project this isn't feasible.

Renata

[DuncanW]

Lee Scoresby Wrote:

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

Several walkers are killed

> every year by cycles - I have yet to hear of a

> similar injury caused purely by a dog in motion.

> The fact that the problem is widespread doesn't

> invalidate my particular concern here.

That's not true is it! I think it's more like one a year nationally.

[henryb]

>

> That's not true is it! I think it's more like one

> a year nationally.

It is not even that. There is roughly one death every two years in a pedestrian/cyclist collisions. There are roughly two deaths every year from dog attacks.

[Jeremy]

We're not talking about dog attacks though... I'd rather collide with an enthusiastic mutt chasing a ball than an adult on a bike...

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

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

> >

> > That's not true is it! I think it's more like one a year nationally.

>

> It is not even that. There is roughly one death every two years in a pedestrian/cyclist

> collisions. There are roughly two deaths every year from dog attacks.

Actually there have been nine in the four years from 2010-2013.

2010 - 2

2011 - 3

2012 - 1

2013 - 3

2014 stats aren't out yet.

[Blah Blah]

And there were none in 2009. In the last ten years there have been just 19 pedestrian fatalities at the wheels of cyclists. So that averages at 1.9 per year. Sorry Jeremy, but the stats just don't back up any fears about cyclists and danger.

[Loz]

2013 - 3

2012 - 1

2011 - 3

2010 - 2

2009 - 0

2008 - 3

2007 - 6

2006 - 4

That's 22 in eight years.

[first mate]

Don't want to derail discussion but just to say that dog attacks on humans are more likely in the home/ private property than out in parks or other public places. At least, that is my understanding, so not sure of relevance of that point.