Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As far as I can make out it's going to come down Sunray Avenue as normal, then turn on the mini roundabout and go back up Sunray Avenue (there's some signs on the roundabout) which seems a bit difficult but we shall see.


Drove about today to see where the P4 will be going as other half uses it. It will be going up Sunray Avenue then turning right onto Denmark Hill going down to the Nandos at Camberwell and turning left onto Coldharbour Lane completely cutting out the whole of Herne Hill Road.

Some residents of Red Post Hill were asked by tree surgeons this morning if they would consent to having their kerbside trees cut back for free - presumably by council tree surgeons. The top end of Red Post Hill is largely closed at the moment for those works we were given one day's notice of, so it's easier for tree cutters to do their work.


We've been told by Southwark's cabinet member for environment that this round of tree cutting is down to TfL not the council. We were told earlier by Val Shawcross that she understood the road works in Red Post Hill this week were down to the council, not TfL, and that the council had jumped the gun on the 42 decision. Cutting down the leaning tree at the top of the street is down to the council though, it turns out.


A council tree person came to look at that condemned tree on Monday or yesterday, and reported to the cabinet member for environment that it's not dead or dying (which is what the notice attached to it says), but it's leaning excessively. It also has some rot that you can't see, we've been told. So it's still condemned.


And now it seems that in addition TfL want to cut back trees (in a conservation area) to make way for a one week diversion of the (double decker) 37 bus onto Red Post Hill next week when Half Moon Lane is due to be resurfaced.


So it's a case of cutting back trees in a conservation area, in private homes, against owners' wishes, to make room for a one week bus diversion. That makes sense.


It's pretty clear the council already knew about all of the tree work, even though we're now told it's down to TfL not the council. One of the Southwark tree people let slip there were plans to raise the tree crowns in an email about the leaning tree they've decided to cut down. No reply on that issue in response to several residents' immediate requests for clarification. Then today work started to cut back trees.


At least a couple of residents have refused to provide consent.


It all makes much more sense if, like many residents, you fear that it's just another way (like narrowing a pedestrian island this week, and cutting down the much-beloved crooked tree - also on very little notice) to clear the way for running the 42 as a double decker, even though no result has been announced from the TfL 'consultation'.

Running double deckers down an unsuitable street which has a traffic jam twice a day is a terrible idea. there was another crash at the top of the road recently because it's not well designed.


Heavy loads should go on A roads and that's it really. Poor planning, really lacking comms, railroading through decisions made on a whim without evidence and then not listening to residents.


TFL and Southwark just seem to work to their own agenda.

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

    • The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to. Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..." Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation. To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere... 
    • People should abide by the rules obviously and should have lights and reflectors (which make them perfectly visible, especially in a well lit urban area). Anything they choose to do over and above that is up to them. There is advisory guidance (as posted above). But it's just that, advisory. People should use their own judgement and I strongly oppose the idea that if one doesn't agree with their choice, then they 'get what the deserve' (which is effectively what Penguin is suggesting). The highway code also suggest that pedestrians should: Which one might consider sensible advice, but very few people abide by it, and I certainly don't criticise them where they don't (I for one have never worn a luminous sash when walking 🤣).
    • But there's a case for advisory guidance at least, surely? It's a safety issue, and surely just common sense? What do other countries do? And are there any statistics for accidents involving cyclists which compare those in daylight and those in dusk or at night, with and without street lighting?
    • People travelling by bicycle should have lights and reflectors of course. Assuming they do, then the are perfectly visible for anyone paying adequate attention. I don't like this idea of 'invisible' cyclists - it sounds like an absolute cop out. As pointed out above, even when you do wear every fluorescent bit of clothing going and have all the lights and reflectors possible, drivers will still claim they didn't see you. We need to push back on that excuse. If you're driving a powerful motor vehicle through a built up area, then there is a heavy responsibility on you to take care and look out for pedestrians and cyclists. It feels like the burden of responsibility is slightly skewed here. There are lot's of black cars. They pose a far greater risk to others than pedestrians or cyclists. I don't hear people calling for them to be painted brighter colours. We should not be policing what people wear, whether walking, cycling or driving.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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