Fat tree, Narrow pavement

[peckham_ryu]

Spotted at the top of Bellenden Road:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn185/idiotboy77/D3E64C53-6F7F-42B0-8E96-0F178F8C05C2_zpsd8b2ndza.jpg

I'm no expert on buggies, but I'm calling codswallop on this one.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn185/idiotboy77/03B314C1-0E7C-40A5-A687-1CA3A912EAF4_zpsqp7yq3uw.jpg

Have these signs sprung up elsewhere?

[Angelina]

Oh good Lord. Who put the tree next to where people might want to be?

Chop it down immediately and sue someone for inconvenience.

[rupert james]

Or better still crowd fund for a complete survey of the offending tree's position.

[dirac]

rip it off.

[gabys1st]

Barry Rd's pavement are pretty bad as well - not much fun in a wheelchair.

[jaywalker]

Think that must be a 4x4 buggie ...

If this blocks wheelchair use then the council has a priority to build slopes off and back on to the pavement and put in a no-parking-here double yellow.

Otherwise, if we cut down these majestic trees, we will turn our built environment into a wasteland.

[Angelina]

I was seriously only joking about cutting the tree down.

[tiddles]

But unfortunately I suspect Southwark council would consider it an option

[Nigello]

Whilst trees are majestic and generally very good things, if they are blocking pedestrian/wheelchair access, they may well have to go. FWIW, the council has pared back all the lower growth on the Barry Road trees making it easier for people to pass - but some householders are not doing their bit.

More often that not, though, poor pedestrian/wheelchair access is due to human ignorance or lack of forethought (like the Xmas tree sellers on Bellenden this morning who only realised they were taking over way too much pavement when an elderly gentleman in a wheelchair tried to pass).

[healey]

"Fat" tree? FFS

[philosophie]

Let's help London's pollution problem by cutting down all the trees!

Also, interesting choice of adjective. Never seen arboreal fat shaming before...

[uncleglen]

that's a London Plane- not a 'fat tree'....it has more claim on the environment than we have

[Nigello]

What rot! Had it been growing free, perhaps - just about, but this was placed their by a human being (probably part of a committee).

I love trees (hullo birds! hullo sky!) but when one is making it hard - and dangerous - for people to pass, especially those who need more space than average because of the way they have to get around, then a way around it (figuratively) must be found.

[pop9770]

Oh nooooo tree murder.... for people to walk on the pavement

Hilarious

Trees before people.

Pavements are for trees lol

[JohnL]

I'm sure we can design a subway or overpass.

[mynamehere]

London Planes eat pollution and shed to with their bark. Make all streets one way reduce the car traffic to 1/2 the street. Other lanes is now free for pedestrians and cyclists and trees or even verge agriculture. Discuss without hurting my feelings. I cry very easily.

[Angelina]

I'd rather have trees on the pavements and narrower roads or just less traffic.

God forbid there is no room for nature in our wonderful city

[jaywalker]

pop9770 Wrote:

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

> Oh nooooo tree murder.... for people to walk on

> the pavement

> Hilarious

> Trees before people.

>

> Pavements are for trees lol

I am not a person, you can tell, I only have sympathies for trees. My views on trees and their benefits to people are inhuman and stupid, because I do not use pavements (I fly from tree to tree).

[Nigello]

Angelina,

More trees are better than fewer* but when they are creating an obstacle for pedestrians/wheelchair users (who, remember, will be taking part in the least impactful form of transport by a long way) then the problem needs to be addressed.

I think that within the next ten years, the fetishisation of cycling by come-day-go-day politicians will lessen as they realise that they have not concentrated enough on the very simple and very effective form of transport called walking (or wheelchair use).

*I have chased up empty tree pits and have had requests for new trees to be planted by the council accepted and hope you - as a fellow tree lover - have done similarly.

(I hope the person who took the effort to create, print and post the note took the time to alert a councillor and/or inform the trees department.)

[James Barber]

The council seriously suggested cutting down very mature trees in such circumstances.

Agree with Angelina. When trees become diseased and need to be replaced they should be placed a little out in the road to remark between parking spaces and ensure pavement kept free for use by all.

[rendelharris]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I think that within the next ten years, the

> fetishisation of cycling by come-day-go-day

> politicians will lessen as they realise that they

> have not concentrated enough on the very simple

> and very effective form of transport called

> walking (or wheelchair use).

Hmm. How many people in East Dulwich do you think live within easy walking distance of their workplace, compared to those who live within easy cycling distance? And can you give an example of a cycling scheme which has been detrimental to pedestrian access?

[Nigello]

I think that too much attention and money is given to cycling and not enough to walking - it is as simple as that. Cycling requires a bike, gear, knowledge, skill (not that you'd know it, seeing some fools who take to the road on bikes) whereas walking is much, much less requiring of a specific infrastructure and special equipment, etc.

Cycling is great for mid-distance journeys, I agree totally, but so is walking for shorter distances, and not enough attention is paid to making it more attractive.

Most short journeys - up to 2 miles - could/should be done on foot, including going to school. Walking to the rail station rather than taking a short bus journey surely has to help reduce congestion and improve health.

[rendelharris]

I think you've answered your own point, you complain that politicians haven't focussed enough on walking, then say "walking is much, much less requiring of a specific infrastructure and special equipment, etc." The infrastructure for walking is already present in the shape of pavements. You're the first person I've seen to complain that there's not enough investment in walking - your casual sideswipe at fools on bikes rather reveals an extra anti-cycle agenda.

The majority of commuters in this neighbourhood work in central London, so walking to work is not really a practical option. There's also a matter of time pressure, you say people should walk two miles, which takes forty minutes plus for the average person, a journey which can easily be accomplished in ten minutes or fewer by any cyclist. That means the cyclist has an extra hour in their day not spent on travel, a pretty significant number.

[Nigello]

I said SOME fools on bikes, and I pointed out how valid cycling is for mid-distances. I fear you simply like to see persecution on all fronts, even those which are favourable but which also want more investment (better signage; improved crossings; flat, non-trippy pavements; better maintained trees to prevent overhangs, etc). Use some of that energy to go walking, and to think about how provision for this very effective and cheap form of transport could be easily improved!

The very fact that a person like you - willing to engage and take part in debate - knows no one who thinks there is not enough investment in walking underlines just how underfunded and under appreciated the pedestrian is.

[twinhunters]

Could do with a few of these signs on Oglander road , seen many a mother with buggy having to walk in road , so dangerous ,