Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here is the answer to an enquiry about the cycle path on Rye Lane raised by a cyclist in a unrelated thread (a thread on whether the ED forum is useful or not).


Dear Councillor Hamvas


Thank you for your email about the postings on the East Dulwich Forum. I understand that you will be responded to separately about the parking enforcement.


With respect to the cycle path through Rye Lane, we have carried out a number of temporary asphalt repairs where the buses (and possibly delivery vehicles) have damaged the kerb line. Our normal practice is to wait until we have a number of such repairs and then arrange for new kerbs to be installed under a full road closure, as obviously the costs for such closures can be significant compared to the actual works costs.


I wholly appreciate that the relatively narrow carriageway width is a contributing factor to the damage but the costs for any lane widening would be huge compared to the benefits obtained. Longer term there may be some scope for such works as part of the overall Peckham regeneration works but there is nothing planned in the immediate future.


Please don?t hesitate to contact me if you should require any further information.


Regards


Dale Foden

Street Care Manager

Highways Division

The other alternative is that cyclists could be more patient, accept that there is limited space on a shopping precinct and bus terminal, and slow down a bit for the 30 or so seconds they have to share that stretch with other people. And if they really can't bear that, there alternative routes south.

Only Rye Lane is neither a shopping precinct (because it's not pedestrianised, however much many treat it as though it is), nor is it a bus terminal. There is plenty of room for sharing and some cyclists do need to slow down, but equally some pedestrians need to accept that there is one very thin cycle lane and try not to walk in it, nor down the middle of the road. If they really can't bear that, there are alternatives on both sides, they're called pavements.


Thanks Renata for raising the subject even though the answer is hardly satisfactory.

I'm sure this must have been covered elsewhere but some of the problem is down to poor design. The cycle path is a slightly darker grey than the adjacent pavement and there is nothing else to distinguish it; many pedestrians are unaware that cycles have priority over that stretch.

Mugglesworth Wrote:

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

> I'm sure this must have been covered elsewhere but

> some of the problem is down to poor design. The

> cycle path is a slightly darker grey than the

> adjacent pavement and there is nothing else to

> distinguish it; many pedestrians are unaware that

> cycles have priority over that stretch.


Absolutely - there may not be money for major works but a couple of cans of blue paint or a few yellow stencils would avoid a world of confusion-related conflict.

Completely agree that the fact that it is not an obvious cycle lane is part of the problem. I am not a fast cyclist (so it isn't that I need to slow down)and I take great care in this area.


I find that stretch of my journey the most nerve wracking due to pedestrians stepping out in front of me. I see a lot of people stepping out without looking and often have to slam on my breaks to avoid a collision. Some of the time pedestrians don't realise I was there or have stopped due to looking the other way or at their phone! It's always worse when someone does that from in front of or behind a bus so I can't anticipate them coming.


I am more than prepared to be cautious and wait but I think that the cycle lane needs to be marked out in a different colour so that pedestrians can be more aware and alert.

This would be such a in easy fix. Just mark it out with yellow lines, and more pedestrians will realise it's a cycle path.I cycle along it every day, and I can't blame the people who walk into it. Generally they just think it's a (particularly bumpy) section of the pavement.

Shared space and lack of road markings generally decrease the number of collisions because they encourage all road users to be far less selfish and a lot more cautious.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers

Thanks Renata, much appreciated.


Abe, I think that's a really interesting principle and it does work well on that street in Kensington. The trouble on Rye Lane is that people have no reason to expect to see bikes on the pavement as they wander out of the shopping centre. It's pretty dangerous.

As it says in that article, "Shared space is not for every road." It works well on two way residential streets, on a one way bus and cycle only street it wouldn't work so well, particularly for those pedestrians with poor vision. This is proved by the current situation of confusion at the end of Rye Lane, where the cycle lane is so poorly marked it may as well not be there.
A bit of empirical observation would not go amiss here. Every day, you can witness altercations between cyclists and pedestrians on this stretch ranging from the benign "oops, sorry" to more aggressive exchanges. Statements along the lines of "well, it's fine somewhere else" do not change the evidence of experience.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> It's funny how there is't a similar problem using

> the shared space from the north end of Rye Lane

> across Peckham Road and past the library


Not funny at all: a) that space is a massive plaza, not a street, which has separate entrances for cyclists and pedestrians, b) there are no shop entrances which have people walking out of them, c) there are no buses driving across the plaza. So somewhat different.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> It's funny how there is't a similar problem using

> the shared space from the north end of Rye Lane

> across Peckham Road and past the library



Abe_froeman I'm struggling to understand what your angle is here. Are you against suggestions to try and make this strip a little safer and clearer for pedestrians and cyclists? Are you a cyclist that doesn't find this road tricky/ risky maybe? There will always be cyclists and pedestrians that could take more care of course

I would say scrap the badly-signed path and widen the road a short width with an aim to stopping the plenty of cyclists who cut the corner and then ride over the pedestrian crossing into the (pedestrian) piazza at the library. Shared spaces can work, but not here.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I would say scrap the badly-signed path and widen

> the road a short width with an aim to stopping the

> plenty of cyclists who cut the corner and then

> ride over the pedestrian crossing into the

> (pedestrian) piazza at the library. Shared spaces

> can work, but not here.


The piazza outside the library is not a pedestrian area, it's a shared space where cycling is permitted. Similarly cyclists are not "riding over the pedestrian crossing": it's a shared cycle/pedestrian crossing (ETA so, apparently, a "puffin" not a "pelican"), as can be seen from the fact that when crossing is permitted there's not only a green man but a green bicycle as well. I agree there is a problem with cyclists cutting the corner from the cycle path to the crossing rather than following the path round to the crossing (there have been CPOs there in the past to monitor this) but neither the crossing nor the piazza are banned to mounted cyclists.

alice Wrote:

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

> now's the time to resurrect a previous popular

> thread. but how to find it?


Search via your username and lo!


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1624090


The above just makes me even more convinced that the fault there is not pedestrians or cyclists, it's actually the design. Councils once again wasting taxpayers money and putting in substandard designs that actually make things worse.

whilst they're at it they could take a look at resurfacing the eastbound Peckham Road. It's not fit for purpose, with more potholes than good bits of road. It is safer to cycle out in the road than down it, and then you have impatient cars wondering why you're not cycling in the cycle lane.

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

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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