Jump to content

Recommended Posts

TfL are consulting on improving the junction at Dulwich Common/Lordship Lane to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists.


Main points are:


New traffic islands on Lordship Lane (by the Grove) and Dulwich Common at Cox's Walk.

Signalled crossings for pedestrians.

Cycle island on Lordship Lane.


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a205-dulwich-common-lordship-lane/

I?ve agreed with the proposals and I?ve also suggested that:


There needs to be a pelican style crossing at the island between the Gove pub and the Dulwich riding school.


The current crossing facility is a danger to life. It is unlit (in bad weather/at night) and is a risk to pedestrians especially when vehicles are speeding. Cars are under no obligation to stop and the island is too narrow to fit a buggy or wheelchair. It would be sticking out and easily hit by oncoming traffic!

Love this quote - " At present there are informal crossing arrangements at all three arms of the junction, meaning pedestrians can only cross when there are gaps in the traffic. "


Or, in other words, there are no crossing arrangements whatsoever apart from run for it..


Survey done. Hopefully the crowds coming to the new bar place will be safe.

Do be careful what you wish for. TfL and Southwark combined have an amazing capacity for creating the worst possible solutions (taking the most time and costing the most money) to any traffic problem - I can't imagine what the worst solution for this very real problem will be, but trust me, 'they' will find and implement it.

Are these the same designs as were approved, costed - and funded - many years ago, then cancelled as Mayor Livingstone's 5-year plan to improve junctions without a pedestrian phase began (and took five years to reach the point where it had failed to publish the framework for assessing prority), which was then swept away by Johnson and replaced with a start-from-scratch 6-year plan, which ultimately concluded that smoothing traffic flows was more important?


If so, then it's lovely to see the idea resurrected, but I won't be holding my breath.

'Do be careful what you wish for'


That would be even worse traffic jams. There is very light pedestrian traffic using that junction, and heavy traffic, particularly from Lordship Lane turning right onto the Common. During the rush, getting across the existing lights can take five or six sets of changes.


Also, heading east along the Common toward Forest Hill regularly sees traffic tailing back beyond the duck pond.


A crossing there, ensuring the safety of imaginary pedestrians will make it unimaginably worse.

Captain Marvel Wrote:

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

> 'Do be careful what you wish for'

>

> That would be even worse traffic jams. There is

> very light pedestrian traffic using that junction,

> and heavy traffic, particularly from Lordship Lane

> turning right onto the Common. During the rush,

> getting across the existing lights can take five

> or six sets of changes.

>

> Also, heading east along the Common toward Forest

> Hill regularly sees traffic tailing back beyond

> the duck pond.

>

> A crossing there, ensuring the safety of imaginary

> pedestrians will make it unimaginably worse.


Put off by using that junction currently thanks to the currently dangerous junction which isn't suitable for crossing. I welcome it as it'll encourage more patronage of Cox's Walk and Sydenham Hill Wood. It'll also encourage pedestrians to use it instead of crossing Lordship Lane along the section where the shops are to reach the bus stop.

Captain Marvel Wrote:

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

>

> A crossing there, ensuring the safety of imaginary

> pedestrians will make it unimaginably worse.



Imaginary pedestrians?


What do you mean?


I would use it frequently and I know many others who would as well.


I presently have to make a five minute detour to avoid having to try and cross the road there.

Captain Marvel Wrote:

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

> 'Do be careful what you wish for'


> A crossing there, ensuring the safety of imaginary

> pedestrians will make it unimaginably worse.


Presumably, it will be a 'request' phase rather than a standard part of the sequence. So if there are no imaginary pedestrians, it won't impact the light sequence. But the real pedestrians will still get a benefit. Don't underestimate the number there. There might not be people waiting to cross on every set of light changes but I sit at the front of the ASL on my bike most commute days and see quite a few trying to scuttle across when they can.


The traffic along Dulwich Common has been far worse since the junction at the top of the hill (Wood Vale, Sydenham Hill, London Road) was changed a few years back. The change there to the road layout and lights there - and at the junction outside the Horniman didn't improve anything.

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Captain Marvel Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A crossing there, ensuring the safety of

> imaginary

> > pedestrians will make it unimaginably worse.

>

> Put off by using that junction currently thanks to

> the currently dangerous junction which isn't

> suitable for crossing.


I run there quite regularly and I see lots of other people trying to cross.

hertburs Wrote:

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

> Imaginary pedestrians. What an extraordinary

> comment! That is just how I feel when I try to

> cross the road at Dulwich Common. Roads are for

> everybody pedestrians, cyclists and not just motor

> vehicles. It is time we redressed this balance.



Ironically I find the traffic island on Dulwich Common by Firemans Alley safer than the main crossing at Cox's.

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 lovely bit of writing, which perfectly captures that strange world. I know few men undamaged by public boarding school. 
    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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