skidmarks

no, last saturday morning i left at 9 from peckham rye park and was on the m25 35 mins later

I go down the A2, go through Blackwall tunnel then use the M11 via the A12 to get to the M25. It seems the quickest way to get to the M25 to me with the least sets of traffic lights and all dual carriageway. then its about 6 miles around the m25

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.

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.

This website is quite good for things like this. Its maps seem to go back to around the mid 1800 up to the mid 1900's www.old-maps.co.uk (the coordinates you need are 534042 / 174712 you can see it was called Crystal Palace Road on the oldest map for kent in 1874 before any of the buildings were put up. You can see the Lord Palmerston pub is marked (do you think the food was good?) another good wesite for old maps is this one http://www.ponies.me.uk/maps/osmap.html

I did but I was still laughing at the term she used???.aspirational flat?..? What a load of arse!

I?m waiting for ?.they don?t pay road tax?argument. Cars cause damage to the carriageway, cycle tyres don?t, the bigger the vehicle the more damage you do so more tax you should pay. This farce at the moment of lesser polluting cars paying less. I know someone with brand new 1 series BMW that only pays ?35 quid a year tax ? how is that meant to cover the damage it does to the road?? I bet the VAT on a new bicycle is more than this!

"can I get" instead of "can I have" So American!

Cars There are too many of them on the road and they present a clear hazard for all road users. Many are simply not qualified to drive on busy roads and can drive dangerously, mounting pavements, jumping red lights and weaving dangerously in and out of traffic. They are also inconsiderate. Rarely will a driver ever give way. Try pulling out of a junction onto a main road in rush hour. Just when there is a break in traffic and an opportunity to pull out a huge pelathon of cars appears, none of them prepared to allow you to merge into the traffic.......Maybe they could be considered for torture as well.

That is a solution what I have drawn there but there is one problem, the zebra needs to be as close to LL as possible for people to use it but as the EDG is a bus route the zebra ideally will need to be set back a bus length to allow a bus to turn into EDG from LL and not block through traffic on LL while waiting for peds on the zebra crossing. The more you shift the zebra crossing up EDG the less likely people are going to use it?.without forcing people with loads of railings. I looked at a similar site to this which has two zebra crossings recently. Bennett?s Castle Lane junction with Green Lane.

This is the arse before it got covered over Clown porn is interesting; it involves rubber chickens, bag pipes, red noses and big shoes. I can?t show you any as my dad has borrowed it and hasn?t given it back.

When I moved into my place a couple of years ago the sellers had left a huge pencil sketch of a woman?s arse drawn on the landing wall. We saw it when we looked around but thought they would have painted over it before we moved in. We had the floor boards up to move a radiator and found a blank DVD. When played it was clown porn?we bleached everything.

Ok, as a picture is a thousand words. What I?m saying, even with what Jim The Chin is saying you would still get pedestrians taking the shortest route (blue line) and not using the zebra. The guard railings would need to extend metres up Lordship Lane and be extensive on the Bishop pub side. Then you get all the problems of cyclists getting squeezed between railings and lorries and alike.

They wouldn?t climb over it they would walk around it. 5 to 10 metres of railing is nothing people on foot take the shortest route they can. There is a pedestrian desire line across this junction and nothing is going to stop this.

Do you want to read the research that anything under 20 metres of railing does not prevent inappropriate crossing?

I agree, removing railings makes for a better environment. Someone mentioned the other day that some nutcase was looking dodgy on LL and they just crossed the road to put space between them and the nutter ? guard railings prevent this freedom of movement.

What you need to look up is Southwark's Unitary Development Plan. In this document it stipulates the requirement for parking spaces. If the development has good transports links (a high PTAL rating) the developer could get away with building a ?car free? development.

It?s a shopping environment people on foot should be able to move around as they wish. Guard railings are set 450mm from the kerb edge and what you find is that shops suffer as people are funnelled past they won?t stop and window shop as they block the way. Research has shown that guard railing lengths less than 20m has no effect in stopping people crossing inappropriately. So for anything to be effective you?re going to have quite a substantial length of railing. Also to make it work you would need guard railing on the eastern side of LL to stop pedestrians crossing then getting trapped by the railings on the EDG side ? it would be horrible no more A-boards or footway seating area?s. The accident statistics show that there isn?t really a problem; the people who are not confident are crossing elsewhere. I would expect that a zebra crossing there would have a higher number of pedestrian collisions over the same period.

Pedestrian guard railings are lethal for cyclists. That person is proposing to put them on the radii of the kerb line to force peds down to the zebra crossing. That increases the risk of cyclists being crushed between turning vehicles and the railings as they can?t escape on to the pavement. Two cyclists have been knocked down at this junction in the last 5 years already. Guard railing is a 1960 solution and doesn?t promote freedom of movement in a pedestrian shopping environment. Now if it was the A406 i may agree to seprate peds from vehicles

There is a sustained effort going on at the moment to remove pedestrian guard railing in London. I was quite surprised that Friend?s of the Earth are the biggest campaigner for its removal. I hate the stuff myself. Typical car driver reaction there - funnel all pedestrians away from me and my important car.

That David Thorne above has his own websites. These are my favourites http://www.27bslash6.com/matthewsparty.html http://www.27bslash6.com/buffed.html http://www.27bslash6.com/hatemail.html Try and find the magic eight ball as well for a good laugh

It will be down to the loss of parking. You should go to any public meeting; it?s the same old-same old anywhere you go. You?d end up thinking the world is going to end as someone can?t park outside a shop. Well, I guess the world does revolve around the car and anybody out of a car is a second class citizen.

Luxury modern flat = spot lights and a cooker extractor. I miss my old Victorian terrace; funny to think it would have been demolished in the 60?s and 70?s under the slum clearance and replaced by something that would look like Robin Hood Gardens?mmm I give these modern ?luxury? flats 25 years until they put a large lead ball through them - ? not exactly sustainable building

Just looking at the 5 year collision data; 10 accidents, 3 of which involved pedestrians so 30% when on average in LB of Southwark you expect 18.8% collisions to involve peds at a giveway uncontrolled junction. Just looking at the details a couple of them would not have been prevented with any what has been suggested above (alcohol) so the proposals would not give a good first year rate of return to justify the expenditure. It seems to me there is more of a perceived risk at the junction than actual risk.

Stand alone signalised pedestrian crossings should be at least 20 metres away from junctions, which in this case will put them quite a distance from the desire line for peds. Zebra crossings you can put closer if the visibility is good. However, with any of these proposals you will lose parking space which is always contentious.