Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apparently someone was knocked over - potentially quite serious (blood from ears).


The lorry/police car is not serious. Police were getting buses, lorries to turn round when a police car backed into the lorry. No one hurt in that part - just red-faced police!

Not surpising with the standard of driving around. I counted five cars going over a zebra crossing this morning while some poor bloke waited patiently for someone to let him cross. That and the red/maber light jumpers and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Oi! Don't make useless comments like that till you know what happened.

It may have been someone stepping out into the road on their mobile without warning to anyone.

You Don't Know. Standard of pedestrians need a lot of thought too.


Sandperson Wrote:

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

> Not surpising with the standard of driving around.

> I counted five cars going over a zebra crossing

> this morning while some poor bloke waited

> patiently for someone to let him cross. That and

> the red/maber light jumpers and you've got a

> recipe for disaster.

Pedestrians have right of way on zebra crossings!



PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Oi! Don't make useless comments like that till you

> know what happened.

> It may have been someone stepping out into the

> road on their mobile without warning to anyone.

> You Don't Know. Standard of pedestrians need a lot

> of thought too.

>

> Sandperson Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Not surpising with the standard of driving

> around.

> > I counted five cars going over a zebra crossing

> > this morning while some poor bloke waited

> > patiently for someone to let him cross. That

> and

> > the red/maber light jumpers and you've got a

> > recipe for disaster.

Traffic was still horrendous at 6.30 - particularly if you're trying to get on a bus near Peckham Rye station. I ended up jumping on the backdoor of a 363 but it's taken me an hour to get back up towards the Horniman. If I hadn't had my work heels on, I could (and would) have walked it faster!
Sorry? What's useless about my comment? Being a Nunhead resident (and, dare I say it, cyclist) I use that junction a lot and the fact that car drivers seem to think that the red lights are discretionary seems pretty pertinent to me.

as a fellow cyclist, I agree with Sandperson. Both my hands are not enough to count how many drivers jump red lights in 45 mins that I am on my bike.

Whatever happened there I hope that the person makes it, the policeman said its touch and go.

Jitka H Wrote:

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

> as a fellow cyclist, I agree with Sandperson. Both

> my hands are not enough to count how many drivers

> jump red lights in 45 mins that I am on my bike.

> Whatever happened there I hope that the person

> makes it, the policeman said its touch and go.


Whilst I agree with you, as I am a cyclist also, the amount of cyclists who jump the red lights is without question higher than car drivers.

Cyclists can kill pedestrians as well, they need to realise the law on red lights applies to them too.


Am glad no one was killed. Was in the area at 6.30 last night and all the roads where still closed and traffic was a blooming nightmare.

I agree with that, my job means I drive around London quite a bit and the amount of times I've had to avoid cyclist running red lights in front of me, and they seemed surprised that a car is comming at them from the green light direction.


Also why do some people cycle at night wearing dark clothing and with no lights? I almost clipped some idiot on a bike on the Elephant and Castle roundabout the other night, in the pouring rain, no lights, black clothing, in the middle of the lanes of traffic, it was only because I always check over my shoulders when turning/changing lanes that I saw them, but only at the last minute when I saw a flash of movement. By all means cycle if you wish but give yourself a fighting chance.

I don't jump red lights and I have plenty of cyclists around me at red lights waiting for them to turn green....usually just so we can be cut off by motorcyclists and scooterists. There's an element of red light jumpers, and I don't like it one bit, but you are less likely to kill someone jumping a light on a bike than in a car. Don't tar me with the same brush as the numpties.

Sorry, don't mean to lump all cyclist into the numptie basket, I do see plenty of cyclist every day who are sensible but of course it's the idiot things you see that stick in your mind. From what I see on a daily basis is not the cyclist who run red lights endangering pedestrians, but rather themselves as they weave in and out of the traffic crossing the intersection, and it scares the life out of you when one shoots through a red light in front of you, sure they have little chance of killing anyone except for themselves but it's still not fair on the poor sod who runs them over.


Anyway sorry for hijacking the thread, and yes there are plenty of idiots in cars out there too who don't check their blind spots for cyclist, run lights, etc too.

Hi,


The problem with this incident was that TFL incorrectly managed the situation. Why have busses parked up when they can quite clearly re-route and continue the journey, and why not stop and divert all through traffic at outer junctions such as Lordship Lane. Is it to simple?

Quite clearly common sense does not come into the equasion, or is it just another ploy to keep motorists off the road.


I had schoolchildren asking me how to get to Bermondsey as the bus had terminated, young children having to walk a few miles in the dark? The comment from the authorities would be 'We will learn from our mistakes' if any of the children had come to harm.


Its so sad in this current era that common sense does not prevail.


Kind regards,

Libra Carr.

ok the cyclist discussion. I don't jump red lights and as a cyclist, did almost get knocked over by a cyclist going through red when I was actually walking across a zebra crossing. He was going v. fast!

I agree, there are good and bad but all people should obide the rules!

That would be a perfect world.

Yesterday, I very nearly, by few inches, got missed by a speeding car jumping red light, scared the life out of me!


Anyway, I hope the injured person is ok now.

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

    • Robin's tree ideas in Village ward described by here inspired us East Dulwich Councillors to have the cherry trees planted on the northern section of Melbourne Grove and elsewhere in what was then called East dulwich ward and now largely Goose green ward. 
    • Anyone know what’s happened on the Lordship Lane Estate? Lots of police, ambulances, areas cornered off, police tape everywhere. Lordship Lane side of the Estate near Melford Road.
    • This is my take of the scheme and planning committee report: Railway Yard Scheme 402 objectors and 22 supporters. Huge local concern about this proposal. The scheme is out of character and contrary to The Southwark Plan and Suburban zoning for the site. The adjacent schemes 18-22 Grove Vale is ground and three stories, The Charter School North Dulwich is 3-4, the Tessa Jowel Health Centre is ground and two stories.  This proposed scheme is significantly higher and bulkier. And the corrugated iron looking top floors will be visible for some distance from the site. All the views in the report demonstrate how out of keeping with the Suburban zone this scheme in. What is the point of having such policies if they are ignored? Council officers and members have agreed the site must be redeveloped with an indicative capacity of 53 new homes. The proposal is 3 to 4 times bigger than that with 53 homes and 360 student rooms and additional shared spaces. (2.5 student rooms equating to 1 home). The officer report incorrectly talks about buses going to Brixton, which makes me concerned about the PTAL calculation which partly I would imagine officers have based their acceptance of this over development.  PTAL 4 for the site. TfL PTAL calculator. The social housing will likely be 3.  The assumptions are crow flies. If it is time to access public transport then much of the remainder of the site becomes PTAL3 and the rationale for the officers recommends would be incorrect.  Student accommodation demand comments appear to date from three years ago. Since then various research showing significantly reduced numbers which have not been included in the report. BBC 5 March states 14% drop in foreign students. The House of Commons library 25 March states most foreign students are now postgrads therefore questionable if this accommodation would meet their needs.  ONS reporting that the number of children who will become students has been consistently falling. That Southwark itself is in the process of closing up to 17 primary schools! This will feed through to reduced undergraduate numbers.  The report suggests circa £10,000 is spent by each student in the area. I would suggest vast majority is on accommodation and not circulating in local shops and facilities or indeed Southwark more widely. Additionally they receive free public transport so will not be contributing towards any required improvements.  The report then suggests each student residing at this scheme would be spending around £5,400 in the immediate East Dulwich area each year. This seems extremely unlikely.  The report states members should give some consideration for daylight and sunlight loss with 21 minor, 8 moderate, and 20 substantial adverse reductions. A good scheme would have avoided this.  Any normal school in the Subriban South Zone would have avoided this. Overlooking. Officers state this as minimal. That the reduction in living conditions is acceptable.  That is so easy to type in a report. Many objectors have stated the reduction is not accepted by local residents. Objectively the average person has reached a different conclusion.  Members have the unenviable task of telling ordinary people they are wrong if you approve this scheme.  I would suggest the residents who would suffer this as disagreeing! The blocks will loom over houses nearby. Down to 8.2m gaps on place! If the scheme were to be approved then corridors overlooking 18-22 Grove Vale, Railway Rise scheme proprerties as a minimum should be opaque or angled away. No one wants lots gawping students! I was amazed to see under fire safety a stay put policy would apply. Really? Could a Southwark Planning Committee post Lakanal and GRenfell approve a scheme that relies on that - especially when many students could have English as a second language.  The trip generation stats. From the 53 homes and 360 students stated they would generate 0.76/78 trips per am and pm bus. The am buses are already rammed. And extra 2.4/2.5  people on each peak train.  That would be 33 students and residents across 42 buses serving the 40/176/185 bus routes 7-9am each day. The P13 & 42 would be incredibly inconvenient so can be discounted. Plus only 9 trains 7-9am  going into london so that would be 22 residents and students. So each working day officers have agreed with the developer only 55 people of the 360 students and 53 social homes would be on public transport in the peak times.  This appears quite the fiction. The 53 homes alone are likely to have more than 53 people in employment!  The report talks about limiting student moving in and out times. But the surrounding streets Comtrolled Parking Zone doesn’t cover weekends. Each weekend day we can anticipate an extra 50-100 vehicles needing to park before and after dropping students at this proposed development. This issue has not been covered and is unsolvable to the satisfaction of local residents.  The report even talks about the local tube station which we don’t have! It would be hard to spread this into weekdays as that would risk clashing with the adjacent school start and finish times placing pupils at risk.  This also requires the disabled parking spaces to be relinquished for several weekends each year. How does that work. Part time disabled? Real risk the controlled parking in the area would need to become 24/7 as a number of residents may have cars and they try and park outside the current CPZ operating times.  402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes. 
    • If you have lost your Zip card and your first name is Emma or you know Emma please PM me and I will tell you where to find it.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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