Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Indeed let's hope the person is ok. But a note of caution on that junction. I have noted it on several occasions but nothing seems to be done. Huge blind spot coming out of Goodrich onto Lordship, especially if there are vans near the junction. Much easier to drive down and come out on Heber if council not going to do anything about it.

Totaly agree!!! I wont risk driving out of goodrich rd again

as seen smashed golf and firemans cutting the roof of it!


TonyQuinn Wrote:

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

> Indeed let's hope the person is ok. But a note of

> caution on that junction. I have noted it on

> several occasions but nothing seems to be done.

> Huge blind spot coming out of Goodrich onto

> Lordship, especially if there are vans near the

> junction. Much easier to drive down and come out

> on Heber if council not going to do anything about

> it.

Agree it is a blind spot- you only just see people coming out as you are nearing the junction when driving up the hill.

The other day I noticed that 2 women with buggies and a child in tow were attempting to cross LL at that point. Fortunately a car coming up the hill spotted them and was able to slow down and indicate them to cross. I was on a bus going down the hill - who also spotted the group and stopped.

Well, it looks like poor sightlines again, caused by parked vehicles (see pic). Just extend the double-yellows up and down LL for 10 metres and road users will see vehicles sooner.


The same problem remains at the Barry Road/Underhill Road, despite the improvements to the junction.

It's a tricky one kford.

Good sight lines often result in speeding.


Barry Road/Underhill Road will take a year from the changes to decide whether they've had the impact I hope they will.


Lets find out the crash stats for this junction.


One my current understanding of crashes in East Dulwich we should get Lordship Lane between Goose Green and Melbourne Grove 20mph.

Good sightlines cause speeding? Based on what evidence?! Good sightlines are a fundamental of safe road design.


If your ambition is to slow the traffic on LL, then you should've prevented the repainting of the white centre lines last week - there is ample evidence to prove that no road markings slow traffic. It's one of the principles of the SharedSpace movemnent, of which I know you are a fan.

James, if you are requesting the crash stats for the junction in question, could you also look at the stats for the stretch of road between the library and Upland Road? There have been several incidents to my knowledge, including a serious one outside my house a few months ago. Thanks.

Hi kford,

Agree on the white lines but they don't ask cllrs before doing maintenance.


I've just been sent the crash stats for the junction of Goodrich Road with Lordship Lane. In the 3 years up to March zero reported crashes.


Slightly further afield - 5 slight and 2 severe road casualties on west half of Lordship Lane between Heber Road and Townley Road, 3 slight injuries across from junction with Landells road, and finally 1 slight injury 50m south from junction with Milo Road.

I'm hopeful that the road layour changes near to Plough Lane will resolve those 3 going forward.

What has come from this is a problem around the bus stop by the dentists. Echnically being the west side of Lordship Lane these happened in Village ward but I don't think I'l be treading on their toes by asking where this location fits in officers plans for reducing road casualties.

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

    • A friend has asked me to recommend Juliene for regular cleaning as she has some slots available. Her phone number is 07751426567
    • I'd put short odds on that but who would be his likely successor?
    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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