Roads (Roadworks in East Dulwich)

[davidC]

What the hell is going on around Lordship Lane? Im fed up of roads being pulled up, raised ever so slightly and replaced by a small dull red section, which is about as uselful as another indian restaurant opening up.

The point is?

I know people are out of work..... but really, there are other ways of increasing employment.

[matthew123]

I think there are two points: -

1) To re-emphasise to poor drivers that pedestrians have priority on those minor junctions - as judging by the number of lunatic drivers on goose green roundabout there are a lot who need to be re-educated.

2) It will enable wheelchair users and pram / pushchair passengers to have a more comfortable ride down lordship lane.

[Jeremy]

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> 1) To re-emphasise to poor drivers that

> pedestrians have priority on those minor junctions

Isn't it the norm to have a pedestrian crossing, when pedestrians have priority?

[thebeard]

Roads what Roads?

We don?t have ROADS!

What we have are RUTTED TRACKS with holes humps zigzag lines????. yes the odd patch of tarmac here and there.

Mind you I?ve driven on smoother better-maintained tracks.

It?s constant last time it was this bad, was when Red Ken re-managed the traffic light systems to make us all wait on unfazed lights.

Our money has to be spent on several million pounds of unnecessary pavement road crossing and roundabout works otherwise they wouldn?t get any budget next year.

It?s a pity it?s not spent on building a community swimming pool say where the old outdoor one was on Peckham rye.

Or just not spent!

These level crossing they are installing on Lordship lane will only be removed again in a couple of years when some new idea comes along and hey presto there goes another squillion quid of our money?

What I really find hard to stomach is the tools the machinery and the pay for the guys who do the work adds up to a few thousand pounds yet the contractor charges us / the council or whoever millions ???????/

Wish I was the contractor!

I wonder who?s getting the back hander ????

[matthew123]

I understood it that the pedestrian always has right of way on our roads, unless they are otherwise barred, e.g. on motorways. But it seems many road users who hurtle our streets think the car has right of way. Anyway I was talking about the minor junctions themselves leading onto lordship lane. I doubt it is possible to place a zebra / pelican crossing on a junction as otherwise cars would be forced to be stationary on the pedestrian crossing, before turning, which I guess is illegal.

[Jeremy]

Hi Matthew, please could you tell me the source of this information, as I believe it is incorrect. Pedestrians have right of way on pedestrian crossings, not on the road in general.

The road is for vehicles, the pavement is for pedestrians.

You are right, of course it is dangerous when drivers drive too fast, not paying attention to pedestrians. But it is also dangerous (and stupid) for pedestrians to walk out into the road assuming traffic will stop for them.

[thebeard]

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> I understood it that the pedestrian always has

> right of way on our roads, unless they are

> otherwise barred, e.g. on motorways.

Are you some kind of LOONY ????

Where did you get that idea?

You?re JOKING right ???

If you are talking about the new raised areas???/

I?ve noticed that pedestrians think that they have right of way on these raises areas, which have been placed at the entrance to street off of Lordship Lane.

As far as I?m aware they don?t have right of way.

That is what makes these raised areas very dangerous.

THEY are NOT ZEBRA crossings.

Many pedestrians amble across them as if they were.

I thought it was due to arrogance..

But now I realise it is

IGNORANCE.

[matthew123]

Sounds like a few people need to be re-trained on the highway code.. shocker in east dulwich!!!

In regard Road Junctions (that is what we're talking about here), the Highway Code says:

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

EDIT: To show image

[Loz]

matthew123:

That's a major change from your first post, that pedestrians "always has right of way on our roads".

[thebeard]

Wow indeed!

Rule 170

So they are as good as Zebra crossings.

It does say pedestrians need to look out for vehicles WHY ??

I?ve learnt something new today.

Thanks

I will in future walk across junctions at will in the full knowledge that I will be able to sue for full damages when I get run over.

This could make me very rich only I may have a limp or worst???

Cheers

[Jeremy]

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into

> which you are turning. If they have started to

> cross they have priority, so give way"

Thanks for clarifying. This makes perfect sense, as the pedestrian may not have been able to see the vehicle when they started crossing. However, this is a specific scenario... as thebeard is saying (I think), if pedestrians always had right of way, we'd have no need for zebra crossings!

[kford]

They're a good idea in principle, but cause confusion because pedestrians look even less, in the false belief that they're stepping out onto some sort of alternative zebra crossing. I suppose they could encourage more eye contact between road users, which is a good thing.

[jim_the_chin]

My interpretation of the highway code bit above is look out for people crossing the road and don't drive into them if they're crossing. Not really radical stuff.

The raised crossings are designed to make a fairer society for people of all abilities; I imagine raised crossings are quite helpful if you're not able-bodied.

[matthew123]

Loz Wrote:

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

> matthew123:

>

> That's a major change from your first post, that

> pedestrians "always has right of way on our

> roads".

No Loz, let's keep it in context. This thread is about a subject: junctions leading onto lordship lane. My first post was very clear, 'pedestrians have priority on those minor junctions'. Of course the second posting is what you actually refer to but it to also clearly states, '..I was talking about the minor junctions themselves leading onto lordship lane.'

..and purely for the benefit of drivers down lordship lane

Rule 205

[where] There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

Rule 206

Drive carefully and slowly when in crowded shopping streets, ..

[Louisa]

Pedestrians do my head in, as a car user I am paying a bloody fortune to use the roads and I think that as such the people use the pavements should be a little more considerate rather than ignorantly walking out in front of me slowly, forcing me to brake hard and not even putting their hand up 9 times out of 10 to apologise. Also, the ignorant sods who use pelican crossings could do with some manners too, very few of them thank the driver for stopping to let them across the road. Maybe we should start charging people a foot tax for having the priviledge to walk up and down our pavements with buggies, wheelchairs and shopping trolleys.

Louisa.

[skidmarks]

thebeard Wrote:

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

>

> It?s constant last time it was this bad, was when

> Red Ken re-managed the traffic light systems to

> make us all wait on unfazed lights.

What a load of arse. As a designer of these kind of systems for the last 10 years i can assure you we didn't one day get a message from old ken saying rephase thre lights to piss off the big beardy bastard on the east dulwich forum. You should blame the chunts who drive through red lights as the intergreen (safety period) has been increased to take these knobs into account. They think they're saving time jumpings the lights but in the long run actually everybody is losing out as the lost time (no traffic moving) at a junction has increased.

[thebeard]

skidmarks Wrote:

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

> thebeard Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > It?s constant last time it was this bad, was

> when

> > Red Ken re-managed the traffic light systems to

> > make us all wait on unfazed lights.

>

> What a load of arse. As a designer of these kind

> of systems for the last 10 years i can assure you

> we didn't one day get a message from old ken

> saying rephase thre lights to piss off the big

> beardy bastard on the east dulwich forum. You

> should blame the chunts who drive through red

> lights as the intergreen (safety period) has been

> increased to take these knobs into account. They

> think they're saving time jumpings the lights but

> in the long run actually everybody is losing out

> as the lost time (no traffic moving) at a junction

> has increased.

LOL

Blimey

So you?re one of those responsible.

Hold on.

Exactly why did London almost grind to a halt for 6 months?

rephasing ?

You say it was down to light jumpers ?

So how is it that we were back to reasonable traffic flow was it coincidence?

??????.

I wonder what would happen if we did away with all these millions of pounds worth of traffic light systems. Besides you being out of work.

If we carry on as we are.

There?ll be lights at every junction turning and cross road. Oh I just realised we are pretty much there now.

Out of interest how much on average does each traffic light junction cost ????

50k 100k 200k?

What do we spend on such systems and is there any research that they help keep traffic flowing and so help keep motor vehicle fuel consumption and emmisions as low as possible?

Is this information available to us the PUBLIC?

[macroban]

> So how is it that we were back to reasonable traffic flow was it coincidence?

Recession.

[thebeard]

macroban Wrote:

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

> > So how is it that we were back to reasonable

> traffic flow was it coincidence?

>

> Recession.

WHAT ? The recession only started to impact in the middle of 2008.

The traffic problems were in 2006 ?07. Pre recession?

[JohnL]

If pedestrians didn't have right of way when they are already in the road for any reason

then motorists could just run them over

It's common sense - you have to stop if a pedestrian is in front of you.

[mattham]

"very few of them thank the driver for stopping to let them across the road"

Thanking then for what? Thanks for obeying the highway code and not running me over on a crossing that is designed to allow me to get to the other side of the road safely? Get a grip. You don't have to thank people for obeying the law.

Matthew123 is absolutely right ??thanks for posting.

[Jeremy]

re Crossings - mattham, JohnL, I totally agree with both of you, that drivers always need to stop for pedestrians at a crossing, or if a pedestrian is already in the road. But this is different to the earlier blanket statement of "pedestrian always has right of way on our roads". This is untrue, and this assumption can lead to dangerous and irresponsible behaviour (i.e. pedestrians stepping out into a busy road and expecting/forcing cars to stop for them).

re lights - Beardy, to be honest I don't think you realise how complex traffic light design/phasing is. Especially in this city with our ancient road network, which weaves around, merges and diverges chaotically. Throw in bus lanes and pedestrian crossings... there's no way you can keep everyone happy.

[matthew123]

Jeremy - I think I've already responded to that statement in my reply to Loz. However, "Right of way" is as it suggests - who has the right, the priority, to cross / cut / move across a path on the road first (not can I step in front of a speeding bus and expect it to successfully put down anchor).. and this is not about doing cartwheels down lordship lane either it's about trying to safely cross the road. Yes both parties are obliged to follow the highway code but the priority is most definately with the pedestrian. It seems from the earlier posts that some people were of the opinion that a pedestrian trying to have right of way at a junction over a car is like a face off between two cars... it's not!

[TheAllSeeingEye]

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> I think there are two points: -

>

> 1) To re-emphasise to poor drivers that

> pedestrians have priority on those minor junctions

> - as judging by the number of lunatic drivers on

> goose green roundabout there are a lot who need to

> be re-educated.

>

> 2) It will enable wheelchair users and pram /

> pushchair passengers to have a more comfortable

> ride down lordship lane.

NO NO NO !!! Pedestrians do not have priority on road junctions, they have priority on pavements.

More importantly, why are we putting glorified speed humps on corners, is it possible to exceed 30mph on those corners even if you wanted to ?? I would rather my hard earned tax money was spent on productive things like prevent todays stabbings with more police officers on the street.

[skidmarks]

TheAllSeeingEye Wrote:

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

>

>

> NO NO NO !!! Pedestrians do not have priority on

> road junctions, they have priority on pavements.

>

> More importantly, why are we putting glorified

> speed humps on corners, is it possible to exceed

> 30mph on those corners even if you wanted to ?? I

> would rather my hard earned tax money was spent on

> productive things like prevent todays stabbings

> with more police officers on the street.

Yes yes yes. Highway code rule 170 give way to pedestrians that have started to cross. The highway code is a govenment approved code of practice. You'd need a good lawyer to dispute it if you hit someone.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332

Raised tables at minor junctions help pedestrians as drivers are more likely to give way as rule 170 states. You'll find raised tables also are a measure for the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) requirements. If you think this is a waste of your tax payers money, you should bring it up with some poor sod in a wheel chair. Also, raised tables slow cars, a slower vehicle will cause less injury and therefore accidents with be less severe.