henryb

Thanks for the info. I wondered what it was. My neighbour was complaining too but he put down to his new roof extension.

No reported collisions along there either. There is a world of difference between a near-miss or slight knock between a cyclist and a pedestrian on a shared pavement and a pedestrian being hit at high speed by a car or crushed under the wheels of a lorry. It seems to me it is more important to focus on reducing the later rather than the former.

I think you meant to say "I'm going to use reasonable force on him"

As there have been zero reported collisions between pedestrains and cyclists on the path - that makes sense to me. There many places in southwark that don't have a zero collision rate - in fact most streets.

According to crash map there have been no reported collisions between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in injury since it was opened.

That seems to be a very common impression of shared spaces - that people think they are dangerous and confusing; no one knows who has right of way there are lots of near misses and minor knocks and people get in each others way. That is actually by design and you have to use your own judgement about who to give way to how fast to go rather than relying signs and road markings. The interesting thing is they actually make roads safer for everyone and serious accidents especially are very much reduced.

I don't mind the shared bike lane. You can avoid collisions if you slow down and use your bell or whistle loudly.

What if they say "I'll take you as far as Jimmy Savile" - don't get in!

It was an off-duty policeman who had offered aa child a lift because it was raining and the child was distressed. So in this case did the man give the girl a lift home and nothing happened?

I regularly cycle to Canary Wharf. I used to go the Tower Bridge route but switched to the Greenwich route as it is about a mile shorter and less busy traffic-wise, although you are supposed to walk through the foot tunnel so it is roughly the same time. Navigationally going to Tower Bridge is a lot easier: Route 22 until Tower Bridge Road, over the bridge then take the Supper Highway. Rotherhithe Tunnel is not recommended. It took me 40 mins when I started, probably about 35 mins now. Quicker than public transport.

> I can see that on this thread there are differing > opinions! As the scheme is currently going in, I > would suggest residents wait and see the full > outcome eg does it slow traffic or not, is their > any impact on rat running or not? etc, How is this going to be assessed? Do you have the traffic volumns/number of speeders data before the work started?

> I really get annoyed when cyclists who so > consistently flout traffic management signs and > signals moan about cars that are doing the exact > opposite. When has that happened? The point is car jumping red lights far bigger problem (18 times) in terms of actual injuries than cyclist jumping red lights. Complaining about cyclist jumping red light yet saying nothing about car drivers jumping the lights or breaking other rules is indicative of a distorted view of what the worst road safety problems are. Of the 20+ accidents there have been at that junction in the last 10 years how many were caused by cyclists?

Strange thing in terms of actually accidents it is one of the safest junctions in ED. No serious or fatal injuries in the last 10 years. Maybe that is because drivers have to concentrate on what they are doing and watch out for pedestrians.

I believe there were some complaints about speeding and that people were using Scutari and Marmora as a rat run. The Council?s answer to anything like that is speed bumps and there is a seemingly endless budget for them. I agree it does seem a reckless spend in these time of austerity when there is no data about traffic volumes or number of speeders and certainly, as you point out, the accident rate is not supportive of this measure. Likewise I doubt this information will be gathered after to see if the bumps were actually effective. There is even less justification if local residents are against it. Personally I don?t think bumps are a very good solution to speeders: they affect small cars and bikes more than the 4x4 and they affect everyone rather than just speeders; they cause increased wear to the road; they cause accelerate/brake driving which causes more population and noise; and they don?t actually stop a determined speeder - I regularly see people racing along Colyton rd. If there is a problem with speeders I don?t see why the police aren?t doing anything about it. Why isn't the 20 limit being enforced? The consultation was not very well publicised and as a resident of a neighbouring street I have the concern that if they are effective then it will just cause traffic to shift to them.

At most junctions car/van drivers violate the rules more often than cyclist do. I see car drivers stop on the boxed section and jump the lights every time I am there. Of pedestrians injured by collisions caused by red light jumping in London only 4% are injured by cyclists over 70% are injured by car drivers. But I agree the junction is terrible and the high accident rate is indicative of that.

To be fair, as someone who has lived most of their adult life in north London, I can tell you most of the rest of London is totally unaware SE London actually exists, there are vague rumours of a savage land south of elephant and castle but they dismissed as myth. I only found out about it by accident by looking out of a train window. Turns out it is a very nice to live apart from the woefully poor public transport. No wonder no one has heard of it.

> As for the ridiculous suggestions of ?1000 > licences/ extra council tax, why punish the vast > majority of law abiding dog owners? Licences aren't punishment. They are a way of registering people that are causing an antisocial problem. The licence fee should cover the cost of dna registering the dogs so they and their poo can tracked back to the owner. No-one is trying to punish dog owners - just get them to behave responsibly. The current system isn't working.

Gidget Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chillaxed Wrote: > If kids were allowed in in those days then why did > so many children have to sit outside in the car > while the parents were inside? Inspired parenting?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still dont know what "lick you as" means. Prehaps it is like "cap you as".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The associated speed bumps do tend to lead to > 'accelerate, break, accelerate, break' type > driving which can't aid concentration / > observation. They certainly do nothing for the > environment. I agree - they are not an ideal measure by any standard... but while there isn't the political will to enforce speed limits in residential roads it seems the only thing that can be done.

Yep The Sun article is weak even for The Sun.

> Deaths and injuries in 20mph zones are UP a > quarter in a year ? while on 30mph roads they are > DOWN. That is a meaningless statistic if you don't take into account how many more 20mph zones were introduced that year. A rate per mile would more meaningful. What would also be useful to know is in how many of those cases where someone was injured in a 20 zone ? was the car actually travelling below 20? It is very well documented that pedestrians fair a lot better in low speed impact collisions and slower traffic means less accidents. What does seem to be the case is un-enforced 20 zones don't seem to reduce speeders. Which is what we are talking about.

> You really want to sub-contract the enforcement of > criminal law to private companies? That's > completely nuts. Private companies and individuals are allowed to enforce the law already. What I am saying is private companies would take a percentage of any fixed penalties to cover costs and a margin. It already happens for parking offences. It means offenders pay for enforcement rather than law abiding tax payers. > Some people will always speed. Absent installing > average speed cameras everywhere (which is not > realistic), the best approach seems to be traffic > calming / cameras in key areas. Cameras are a good idea.

I agree the enforcement of these limits is appalling. If the police don?t have the resources can?t the enforcement be allowed by private companies or Traffic Wardens like it is for parking? Its seems ridiculous parking restrictions are tightly enforced yet speeders, who are endangering others, are ignored.

You forgot the plague of biting insects!