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

    • They are very good
    • Having  current and relevant experience of both Charter North and Charter East with regards to their conduct towards SEN pupils and their families, I would say that their conduct and behaviour is wholly lacking in understanding as well as making no effort to make reasonable adjustments for the SEN pupil as legally required under Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, I believe that their behaviour is wholly illegal. According to data from Ambitious About Autism, unfortunately that is not uncommon We have separately requested legal advice as to whether or not the specific conduct of the school and certain teachers constitutes a criminal offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or other legislation. These links have some very good materials to assist parents: https://www.ambitiousaboutautism.org.uk https://www.ambitiousaboutautism.org.uk/understanding-autism/education/exclusions-know-your-rights https://www.ipsea.org.uk https://sossen.org.uk   Also, this link specifically for girls with autism as this tends to be diagnosed at a much later stage than boys and requires different support and reasonable adjustments that the neither of the policies nor behaviours of Charter East or Charter North reflect. https://autisticgirlsnetwork.org   Helen Hayes MP for Dulwich & West Norwood and whose constituency includes Charter North is Chair of the Education Committee at the Houses of Parliament They published this report on the SEND crisis on 18 Sept 2025 https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8684/solving-the-send-crisis/   Ellie Reeves (Rachel Reeves’ sister and formerly Chair of the Labour Party) is the MP for Lewisham West and East Dulwich - the constituency under which Charter East falls I would urge any parents who are concerned about their children, whether SEN or not, who attend Charter North or Charter East to write to your MP canvassing their support and requesting that they write to their respective school on this subject, referencing this report of the Education Committee and the failures of Charter East and Charter North with regards to SEN, their illegal behaviour and soliciting a plan of action from them to immediately stop such behaviour and support SEN pupils with reasonable adjustments as required under the Equality Act 2010. Even if your child is not SEN, the school implementing the correct and legally required procedures materially improves the school environment for all pupils, teachers and non-teaching staff. Often the reasonable adjustments can actually be relatively minor but have a very material benefit. In our experience, there have been one or two teachers who have shown this with very positive results; however, this is the opposite of the institutional approach of both schools which is wholly negative, unsupportive and often illegal. In addition to EHCPs, there is also huge pressure at CAMHS and insufficient resource to support all cases and meet demand.  Even if families and their child are lucky to get access to it, there remains very long wait lists to access treatment.  The same is true in the private sector. A proactive and practical, common sense approach to SEN in this manner by Charter North and Charter East would also help to reduce pressure on CAMHS The latest tragedy last week at Charter North means that this is more pressing than ever.    
    • Thought I'd add a comment as sadly there are now too many primary schools for the number of children in this area... St Anthony's is a wonderful school and my 2 sons were extremely happy throughout the time they were there. They have some open days for reception and  nursery in Nov I believe and welcome children and families of all faiths and backgrounds. It has lovely staff and I cannot recommend it more highly!
    • Anyone has lavender buds they don’t want/that I could harvest/cut and use? Ideally in Peckham/ED goose green area.  Thanks in advance!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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