Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> ?Denmark Hill, at least up to the top of Ruskin

> Park, is nearly all shops and hospital

> premises...?

>

> And Ruskin Park to Herne Hill?

Is a four lane highway with the majority of houses being very well set back from the road; obviously, unfortunately, some roads will have to remain as main arteries when they're wide enough.

[jimlad48]

I would welcome reopneing the bridge, mainly because the lights will hopefully slow the lunatic cyclists on there at present.

Currently they use the lack of lights to accelerate at speed over the bridge, just at the point where pedestrians cross, and refuse to slow down. I had unprovoked and vile abuse thrown at me the other week by a cyclist as I crossed the road, even before he reached the bridge to go down hill, because it forced him to brake slightly.

I would strongly endorse any measure that reopens the bridge and slows the cyclists down to prevent the minority lunatic militant in lycra killing someone because they are going too fast.

I know plenty of cyclists do cycle responsibly, and plenty of pedestrians can at times be foolish, but the current set up, which forces cyclists down a narrow channel at speed, without forcing them to slow, means it is only a matter of time till someone is very badly hurt or killed. They need to get the bridge open again, and this is before we consider the huge amount of extra traffic it generates elsewhere.

If CG were a minor side road, such as the one by DMK station by Phoenix, then I'd be more chilled. But its a major road and transport link and it needs to be kept open, not shut.

[nxjen]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ?Denmark Hill, at least up to the top of Ruskin

> > Park, is nearly all shops and hospital

> > premises...?

> >

> > And Ruskin Park to Herne Hill?

>

> Is a four lane highway with the majority of houses

> being very well set back from the road; obviously,

> unfortunately, some roads will have to remain as

> main arteries when they're wide enough.

Nevertheless, it is still a residential road and cannot be classed as ?non-residential?

?So if people have houses or flats that are not in cul-de-sacs they have no right to campaign for their streets to be cleaner, quieter and safer??

Of course they do but demanding their road is closed to all traffic other than their own is a very extreme anti social solution.

[rendelharris]

Jim, would you step out in front of a car, where there wasn't a crossing, if that car was going to have to brake to let you cross? If not why would you do it in front of a cyclist?

That doesn't excuse anyone being abusive, but many people in recent times have decided that cyclists must adhere to a higher standard than car drivers.

Reopening the bridge will not slow cyclists down when the lights are green in any case - in fact in many circumstances it will increase speed as currently one slows down to enter the narrow corridor left.

[Beulah]

You're a bit slow jimlad - we've already had the "dangerous"/"evil" cyclists rant

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Of course they do but demanding their road is

> closed to all traffic other than their own is a

> very extreme anti social solution.

Whereas demanding the right to drive down other people's roads in dangerous polluting vehicles as one pleases is lovely and social. We're never going to agree, because you see car driving as some sort of inalienable right, despite its many and obvious negative impacts on the community.

[nxjen]

I knew you?d say that! I am a non driver and do not see car driving as an unalienable right, indeed I applaud any measures that reduce car ownership and driving, but this has to be dealt with by an overall strategy, not by one road at a time declaring a kind of UDI.

[Penguin68]

So if people have houses or flats that are not in cul-de-sacs they have no right to campaign for their streets to be cleaner, quieter and safer? Gotcha.

In fact, you have, ONLY, if the ONLY route to CQS is to institute borough wide cul-de-sacs. In which case I hope you are protesting, loudly, at all expenditure proposals under the CQS banner which are not devoted to cul-de-sac creation.

I would be very happy, personally, if pedestrians were stopped from walking down my street, peering into windows and dragging pooping dogs behind them. That, for me, would make my street cleaner (definitely), quieter (no barking) and safer (few houses are actually robbed by passing cars). It tends to be pedestrians who break into houses (even where they additionally have wheeled transport).

As a pedestrian I could also argue that my life would be safer without any traffic, including of course bicycles. Why should they be excused 'no entry' into cul-de-sac roads - they are vehicles after all, with expensive dedicated roads for which they do not have to pay.

Or maybe I'd look for ways of creating a CQS environment which didn't chose one group of citizens to inconvenience above all others.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> We're never going to agree, because you see car driving as

> some sort of inalienable right

... whereas you hate it with a vengeance.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> As a pedestrian I could also argue that my life

> would be safer without any traffic, including of

> course bicycles. Why should they be excused 'no

> entry' into cul-de-sac roads - they are vehicles

> after all, with expensive dedicated roads for

> which they do not have to pay.

Funny that, because last time I looked I paid council tax and income tax, a portion of both of which goes towards the upkeep of local and national highways and cycleways.

[jimlad48]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Jim, would you step out in front of a car, where

> there wasn't a crossing, if that car was going to

> have to brake to let you cross? If not why would

> you do it in front of a cyclist?

>

> That doesn't excuse anyone being abusive, but many

> people in recent times have decided that cyclists

> must adhere to a higher standard than car

> drivers.

>

> Reopening the bridge will not slow cyclists down

> when the lights are green in any case - in fact in

> many circumstances it will increase speed as

> currently one slows down to enter the narrow

> corridor left.

If a car is up the hill and travelling at me, then I will consider whether I have time to safely make the 3 steps from the traffic island to the other side (that being the case here). In this instance, the cycist was some distance up the hill, I had to make 3 steps and was already some distance from crossing point when he passed - despite this he still shouted abuse.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > We're never going to agree, because you see car

> driving as

> > some sort of inalienable right

>

> ... whereas you hate it with a vengeance.

Not quite, I see the place for sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles; if you mean I hate their lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use to the detriment of the health and quality of life of others, then yes, yes I do.

[rendelharris]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> If a car is up the hill and travelling at me, then

> I will consider whether I have time to safely make

> the 3 steps from the traffic island to the other

> side (that being the case here). In this instance,

> the cycist was some distance up the hill, I had to

> make 3 steps and was already some distance from

> crossing point when he passed - despite this he

> still shouted abuse.

Well then he was a twat, get 'em everywhere. I'm still missing your point about the opening or otherwise of the bridge making any difference though?

[jimlad48]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > If a car is up the hill and travelling at me,

> then

> > I will consider whether I have time to safely

> make

> > the 3 steps from the traffic island to the

> other

> > side (that being the case here). In this

> instance,

> > the cycist was some distance up the hill, I had

> to

> > make 3 steps and was already some distance from

> > crossing point when he passed - despite this he

> > still shouted abuse.

>

> Well then he was a twat, get 'em everywhere. I'm

> still missing your point about the opening or

> otherwise of the bridge making any difference

> though?

Before it was closed, there were lights in both directions to filter traffic and a pedestrian crossing with green man. Closure has shut the lights, meaning that now there is no way to safely cross the road. Reopening would put the lights back to help ensure all road users should (in theory) stop.

[rendelharris]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> Before it was closed, there were lights in both

> directions to filter traffic and a pedestrian

> crossing with green man. Closure has shut the

> lights, meaning that now there is no way to safely

> cross the road. Reopening would put the lights

> back to help ensure all road users should (in

> theory) stop.

The pelican crossing was a little way down from the bridge, opposite the opening of the cutthrough, wasn't it? I don't see why that shouldn't be reinstated anyway, with or without the bridge opening - it'd not only stop any poor cyclists (hopefully) but also perhaps slow those drivers who take the bend from McNeil Road absurdly fast, to the detriment of both pedestrians crossing and cyclists coming down over the bridge.

[jimlad48]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Before it was closed, there were lights in both

> > directions to filter traffic and a pedestrian

> > crossing with green man. Closure has shut the

> > lights, meaning that now there is no way to

> safely

> > cross the road. Reopening would put the lights

> > back to help ensure all road users should (in

> > theory) stop.

>

> The pelican crossing was a little way down from

> the bridge, opposite the opening of the

> cutthrough, wasn't it? I don't see why that

> shouldn't be reinstated anyway, with or without

> the bridge opening - it'd not only stop any poor

> cyclists (hopefully) but also perhaps slow those

> drivers who take the bend from McNeil Road

> absurdly fast, to the detriment of both

> pedestrians crossing and cyclists coming down over

> the bridge.

Completely agree. Most people now cross at the old bridge point, partly because the traffic islands make it safer to hop across - the problem with barriers is also that visibility is very poor uphill, particularly at night. Again, highlights need for cyclists to have lights/reflective gear as it can be difficult to see them due to obscure view.

[Earl Aelfheah]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> So just to be clear, we mostly agree that traffic

> is undesirable (even those who claim not to mind

> it aren't exactly queueing up to encourage more on

> their own road), and yet most people are unwilling

> to cut back on contributing to said problem, or to

> support measures encouraging or compelling others

> to cut back?

>

> It's like complaining about the amount of litter

> on the street yet being unwilling to inconvenience

> yourself slightly to put your own rubbish in a

> bin.

No, it's like saying we all agree litter is a bad thing and if asked if we'd like to have it regularly removed from the street we live on, would probably say yes... Even when we suspected it was being dumped again in neighbouring roads. Because, given the choice we'd rather live on a clean street. In such a scenario however, you might expect council leaders to come up with a better plan, which take account of everyone.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > rendelharris Wrote:

> >

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

> >

> > > We're never going to agree, because you see car driving as

> > > some sort of inalienable right

> >

> > ... whereas you hate it with a vengeance.

>

> Not quite, I see the place for sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles; if you mean I hate their

> lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use to the detriment of the health and quality of life

> of others, then yes, yes I do.

That sounds a bit like a kipper saying "I don't have anything against immigrants. After all, I do like a good curry after the pub on Fridays. And that Nigerian bloke who drives the 176 is a decent geezer."

Let's face it, in any debate involving roads you are just going to take an anti-car line. You hate them.

[first mate]

Oh well, I think a fair few on here want CG bridge back open for most traffic. There's been no really persuasive or compelling argument to suggest otherwise. Hoping common sense prevails.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

> That sounds a bit like a kipper saying "I don't

> have anything against immigrants. After all, I do

> like a good curry after the pub on Fridays. And

> that Nigerian bloke who drives the 176 is a decent

> geezer."

>

> Let's face it, in any debate involving roads you

> are just going to take an anti-car line. You hate

> them.

Yes, it's just like that, I'm impressed you know me so well. My wish to see reduced car traffic and to have cleaner, safer streets and healthier air for all Londoners makes me the exact equivalent of a racist.

On second thoughts, maybe you're being a little bit silly.

[Sally Eva]

There is no plan or proposal to re-open Camberwell Grove Bridge to "most traffic". The consultation is whether to open it as it was before the latest closure -- to one way traffic, cars only.

Sally

first mate Wrote:

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

> Oh well, I think a fair few on here want CG bridge

> back open for most traffic. There's been no really

> persuasive or compelling argument to suggest

> otherwise. Hoping common sense prevails.

[first mate]

Thanks Sally for clarifying, hoping it opens to 'more' traffic soon.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > That sounds a bit like a kipper saying "I don't

> > have anything against immigrants. After all, I do

> > like a good curry after the pub on Fridays. And

> > that Nigerian bloke who drives the 176 is a decent

> > geezer."

> >

> > Let's face it, in any debate involving roads you

> > are just going to take an anti-car line. You hate

> > them.

>

> Yes, it's just like that, I'm impressed you know

> me so well. My wish to see reduced car traffic

> and to have cleaner, safer streets and healthier

> air for all Londoners makes me the exact

> equivalent of a racist.

>

> On second thoughts, maybe you're being a little

> bit silly.

Yeah, you might want to re-acquaint yourself with the definition of an 'analogy'. Clue: it doesn't mean 'exact equivalence'.

Because the analogy I made is really quite apt.

[rendelharris]

I'm quite aware of what an analogy is, thank you: I'm also quite aware that silly people like to draw analogies between entirely different things for the purpose of causing annoyance. Your analogy is both inapt and petty and clearly chosen simply because you don't like my point of view, rather than to advance any argument.

[Loz]

Well, if you knew what an an analogy was, why did you make the obviously incorrect 'exact equivalence' claim?

But, the analogy is spot on. You just can't bring yourself to admit you are anti-car, so you make nebulous claims that you hate "hate their lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use" and drop in that you somehow are OK with "sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles". I'm surprised you didn't go the whole hog and slip in "well, some of my best friends drive cars".

Just admit it - you are anti-car. You want to see the bridge closed to traffic because you hate cars.