Consultation on 20mph zone across East Dulwich?

[Siduhe]

Anyone else received this from Southwark Council? Was on our doormat last night - but think we may have been one of the first to receive it as the consultation also proposes making part of a nearby street one way (Melford Road) and some other changes which will make it a bit more difficult to access our house.

Can't find anything about it on the Southwark website, but essentially proposes a blanket 20mph zone across East Dulwich, including Lordship Lane, in an effort to cut down on traffic accidents and personal injury.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Friern Rd here - we got it too

It doesn't include Lordship Lane tho -or Barry Rd or any of the main artery roads - it's all the residential streets contained within

[Siduhe]

Ah, thanks - that makes more sense - wasn't quite sure how they were going to carry that one off. The map we got hadn't been copied very well so a bit difficult to work out the boundaries.

[Brendan]

Yeah I got it and skimmed over it last night. I can?t see a problem with it as such as the narrow car lined roads we have are dangerous especially for kids because you can?t see them coming out from in-between 2 parked cars. So making everyone drive slower would be sensible.

I don?t however understand their logic though when they say that a 20mph limit will reduce the amount of people exceeding the limit. Surely people who exceed the limit are going to do it anyway regardless of what the limit is.

[Torben Pieknik]

I got it too. Though annoyingly there are no measures on my street (a one way) which people hammer up. I wouldn't mind a speed hump or two to slow them down.

[SeanMacGabhann]

You have a point Brendan, but I think people who exceed a limit tend to do so in percentages - eg 35 in a 30 zone is "ok" - so if they do 25 in a 20 they are still speeding but if they actually collide with someone they are likely to inflict far less damage

[Torben Pieknik]

It is a consultation on a 20mph zone, not limit. "Zones" legally have to be "self enforcing" - they have to have speed humps/tables/cushions, chicanes etc which slow the traffic down. There is testing going on for new time over distance speed cameras similar to the ones on motorways, which would enable them to monitor whole residential areas which would remove the need for speed humps, but they are a way off.

[Brendan]

Really I didn?t know that. Anyway I have no objections to it. If the can force the buggers who speed around these narrow streets to slow down then good.

[HonaloochieB]

Got mine,completed it in orange ink, sent it back. Good thing.

[Asset]

saw a car chase on LL this pm, they came screaming out of one of the side roads, the one where the tyre shop was. a 20mph zone wouldn't have slowed them down!

where I used to live in Kennington was a 20mph zone but I think it was a 'suggested' speed rather than enforced.

[Siduhe]

Is orange ink the opposite of green or purple then? (Pro rather than anti)?. Also think this is a good idea for residential streets, providing it's accompanied by some sensible traffic calming measures rather than a camera on every corner. Basically I'd like a zone that's effective, rather than people just speeding up and slowing down to avoid cameras like they do in the 20 mile an hour zone off Grange Road in SE1 for example.

[HonaloochieB]

Siduhe, orange ink is an indicator of a groovy cat.

[lozzyloz]

providing it's accompanied by some sensible traffic calming measures rather than a camera on every corner

agree with that. Perhaps pavements should be widened and non arterial roads made narrower to slow down traffic. Like the skinny back streets of an Italian town. Mind you I've nearly been mowed down by a Piaggio in Naples!

[dc]

Huge swathes of East Dulwich - and the Village - are already in 20mph zones so it shouldn't make too much difference.

I imagine the suggestion of making Melford Road one way is to do with the P13 bus which gets stuck there rather regularly due to double parked cars and oncoming traffic. Removing the oncoming traffic would prevent that particular problem.

[seanmlow]

I am really glad about the 20mph idea. People drives like bats out of hell up and down the roads here so it will be a welcome enforcement.

I live on Ryedale where I think they are planning to enforce some traffic calming which will be great. Lots of kids walk on the pavements there and I always worry about them getting hit. That spanner driving the grit van may have to slow down now!

[Fuschia]

Which bit of melford Rd is to become one-way, and which direction?

[HonaloochieB]

Fuschia Wrote:

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

> Which bit of melford Rd is to become one-way, and

> which direction?

That bit to your left. No no your left. And just down that way, where the bin is.

[PeckhamRose]

Why do lots of you think 20mph zones are a good idea? People who have it in their nature will speed whether they are in 20mph zones or not. Why do you think speed bumps are a good idea? (Unless you mend cars.) Not for ambulances and police and not for those who are hit as a result of others swerving round the "cushions".

Why does no-one discuss the fact that those who walk - run - dawdle on the roads without looking, or without paying attention on their mobiles or whatever, in front of cars no matter how fast or slow the cars are doing, are to blame for their actions? Why make pavements wider? Why not just say what you want to say, you want to ban cars altogether?

Why are all good drivers (and many of us are and advanced, too) expected to be legislated against becauise of the actions of a few?

Just asking, like.

[blinder999]

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."

[Siduhe]

Fuschia Wrote:

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

> Which bit of melford Rd is to become one-way, and

> which direction?

From Underhill to Lordship Lane. The really narrow bit! A good idea IMHO, but will make turning into that group of streets from northbound London Road/Lordship Lane rather more complicated. We have asked if they are planning to let you turn right into Wood Vale.

[zephyr]

A lot of Nunhead it a 20mph zone but even with humps and cushions it is ignored. Cars race up Ivydale, Inverton and Limesford Roads all the time.

[SimonM]

We are on Underhill and have had this survey too. Turning part of Melford Road one-way, whilst superficially attractive , is I feel an absolute stinker of an idea unless the legal right turn from the South Circular into Underhill Road is also restored. If the scheme is implemented in its present form then those of us who currently have to turn right on to the Melford Road/Lordship Lane junction to get to Underhill will in future have to drive up Overhill and down Belvoir. This is going to make Belvoir a lot busier and make for quite a long detour for anyone wanting to get to Underhill.

I never thought the ban on the right turn into Underhill Road was necessary in the first place. Buses are allowed to do it anyway so it cannot be *that* unsafe. The direct consequence of this ban was to make Melford the dangerous bottleneck it now is.

The 20mph limit is a fine idea, if somewhat superfluous. I doubt many people much exceed this speed in these strerts anyway - the ones who do will ignore the limits

[zephyr]

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

I think it may be due to the volume of traffic that is often on that part of London Road.

[Fuschia]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> Fuschia Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Which bit of melford Rd is to become one-way,

> and

> > which direction?

>

> From Underhill to Lordship Lane. The really

> narrow bit! A good idea IMHO, but will make

> turning into that group of streets from northbound

> London Road/Lordship Lane rather more complicated.

> We have asked if they are planning to let you

> turn right into Wood Vale.

I have long though that bit should be one way... it gets snarled up with stupid drivers with no patience... but there does need to be a way of getting IN for eg turning into Woodvale, as you say.

[Fuschia]

SimonM Wrote:

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

> We are on Underhill and have had this survey too.

> Turning part of Melford Road one-way, whilst

> superficially attractive , is I feel an absolute

> stinker of an idea unless the legal right turn

> from the South Circular into Underhill Road is

> also restored. If the scheme is implemented in its

> present form then those of us who currently have

> to turn right on to the Melford Road/Lordship Lane

> junction to turn right to get to Underhill will in

> future have to drive up Overhill and down

> Beauvoir. This is going to make Beavoir a lot

> busier and make for quite a long detour for anyone

> wanting to get to Underhill.

>

> I never thought the ban on the right turn into

> Underhill Road was necessary in the first place.

> Buses are allowed to do it anyway so it cannot be

> *that* unsafe. The direct consequence of this ban

> was to make Melford the dangerous bottleneck it

> now is.

Good points