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

    • Seems a pretty dangerous position to me - apart from getting in the way of pedestrians trying to cross the road large vehicles heading south have to edge into the oncoming traffic lane to get past. I've got a normal-sized car and had to squeeze through a gap the other day.  
    • When a car is left damaged by the road-side it may be that the insurer is tasked with recovering the vehicle to assess it and (possibly) take it for repair. Only if it is in a dangerous position will the police recover it - which saves money for the tax-payer.  You may also have some recovery options with e.g. the AA (other organisations are available). Were the car to have been stolen or abandoned then it will take some time to sort this out, and again unless the vehicle is in a dangerous position the police won't be rushing to deal with that. Not sure who the 'they' are in this case.
    • I wouldn't like to speculate, Sue. Not my thing. Teddy Boy is your man on the ground for that sort of first-hand detail. It's six points for driving without insurance and six points for using a phone, so that's an automatic ban of at least six months. They're going to be practically uninsurable for a considerable period after that. So, nobody's hurt, a clearly crap driver is off the road for some time and the good burghers of SE22 get a lovely, shiny new post - probably paid for by the driver. Every cloud, and that. If only Franklins wasn't changing hands, Lordship Lane would be almost perfect.
    • Was the driver still with it when the police arrived?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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