new puffin crossing

[Twirly]

What happened to the reflective armbands that were issued when I was young (admittedly, quite a long time ago now). I remember being thoroughly educated in the Green Cross code etc. as a child, and the reflective armbands were all part of remaining visible.

[maxxi]

peckhamboy Wrote:

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

> maxxi Wrote:

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

> -----

> > peckhamboy Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > As a pedestrian, it's a massive detour at

> > > present if, for example, you wanted to visit

> > the

> > > deli and green and blue using pedestrian

> > > crossings.

> >

> > Apologies - you obviously have very, VERY

> little

> > legs.

>

>

> Yes I do. And you obviously think it's funny or

> clever to mock the disabled. I can imagine you

> chuckling away whilst you typed that, your tiny

> little brain lost in a paroxysm of mirth about

> just how unbelievably witty you are. No doubt your

> parents are very, very proud.

What a ridiculous overreaction.

My jibe about the size of your legs was a response to your use of the word 'massive' when referring to the 'detour' when it is clearly none of the sort. Anyone can see that and if you are truly disabled particularly by having very little legs I am sorry but that is merely a faux pas and not an intentional anti-disabled attack.

You did not say "As a disabled pedestrian..." and make the point that the new crossings would be of enormous benefit to one disabled as you were, which would have been fair and reasonable comment, so there was nothing to suggest that you were anything other than an able-bodied pedestrian who could walk the extra FEW yards.

I wonder why you would call it a massive detour without explaining why it is particularly massive for you but then your triumphalism and gloating in having - as you see it - caught someone out being anti-disabled is probably fun for you.

Or perhaps you are not disabled?

Perhaps you are as able-bodied as the peckhamboy who posted about playing cricket and wanting to join a team (with no mention of a disability that might make things difficult - particularly as you desribe yourself as "I'm mainly a bowler though, i'd much rather be playing on a massive pitch!"). But surely not. No. I must again be mistaken because nobody who wasn't a complete wretch would behave in such a manner just to dish out insults would they?

[Big D]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi David A,

> Costing costs do vary wildly.

> For example a Zebra crossing where lampposts are

> already in helful places would costs a few

> thousand pounds + legal costs versus the other end

> of the sprectrum with a raised treatment, new

> electrics needed could cost toward the top end of

> what you've suggested. (?111,000)

Did I miss something here or did the two new crossings cost around ?1/4 million not including moving the tree & BT box?

[David A]

I do hope so.

I've taken a spread at a tenner for every grand it is over ?100k.

[Alexthecamel]

"Making our children brightly clothed is not the apporoach other countries have needed to drastically reduce child injuries and deaths from road traffic crashes"

I can't think of any other country where Children wear a dark uniform. For several months there are hoards of children, dressed in black, around between the hours of 4-5, in the dark. The schools may finish 3- 3.45, but they are still travelling an hour later.

It just seems unnecessary that schools insist on dark coats, gloves and scarves.

[Worker]

"That?s only exacerbated by the fact that they?re making the request of Southwark Council, an authority with a level of financial acuity which makes lottery-winning fatty Michael Carroll look like Warren Buffett"

We might disagree on the value of the crossing (sorry, crossings), but I'm going to be using this phrase as often as possible in conversation and claiming it as my own.

[Callie]

There is no crossing outside the co-op at the mo that I can see only a largish ramp on the road. Where is this new crossing or is it yet to be built?

[James Barber]

Hi Callie,

That lump is where the Puffin crossing will go. BT need to move their phone box. TfL need to connect up the lights. Anti skid surfacing needs to be placed on the road.

[Callie]

Thanks James for the info. I look forward to the crossing. No more trudging up to Iceland to cross over. Fab.

[indiepanda]

Well, as both a pedestrian who shops and socializes on Lordship Lane and a driver, I have to say I am really pleased to hear about the new crossings. I think they will be of far more benefit to pedestrians than they will ever be bother to drivers.

[Gimme]

People are by nature selfish. If something doesn't benefit them they criticise it. And if it benefits them they praise it.

For those of us who live just off Lordship Lane, have a pram and constantly need to cross LL - which is time consuming and dangerous (unless you want to trek an extra 400m with a pram through the crowds and pavement debris and across more than 1 sidestreet to the nearest crossing and back), the new crossings are absolutely fantastic news.

For those of you that like to drive too fast down Lordship Lane or who just complain about the council spending money on anything that directly benefits you, these new crossings are dreadful news, a complete blow to the solar plexus in fact, and you are quite right to complain about them.

So from those of us in the former camp, thank you so much for sponsoring these crossings James. You continue to proactively work for the residents in your wards and continue to deliver road safety improvements; we are very lucky to have you as a councillor.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

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

> I can't think of another stretch of road with so

> many crossing points crammed into such a short

> space, even in places like the Kings Road which

> are shopping meccas. I know that the Lane is very

> busy at the weekends but still....

>

> I was behind an ambulance earlier that was trying

> to get through to Kings and it kept having to slow

> right down for the speed tables and jiggle through

> our new road pinches, on a blue light run.

> Presumably the people who want this level of

> traffic 'calming' are those that are up in arms

> when the emeregency services can't keep to their

> arrival times.

>

> Stop the world please, I think I want to get off

> :'(

[maxxi]

Will either crossing have railings?

[James Barber]

No. Big efforts going on to remove railings across Southwark and London.

Weird, but instinctively railings seem a good idea to make things safer but have been shown to make life more dangerous for all road users. Belief is railings mean people driving discount the risk of running over people walking, etc. Higher speeds driven mean more vehicles collisions. It also means people walking and cycling have fewer escape options.

For Lordship Lane all vehicles should be going at slower speeds because its a busy residential and shopping street so we shouldn't need railings...

hope that makes sense maxxi.

[StraferJack]

railings = B.A.D

Traversing London is much easier since so many have been removed

Am I misunderstanding or have a couple of posters berated people for not wanting to walk 40 yards just to cross the road?

Because the problem with installing crossings is that it inconveniences people who happen to not want to walk more than 5 yards to their car?

[henryb]

I think the idea of caging pedestrians to protect them from speeding car drivers has gone out of fashion town planning wise.

[murphy]

If you are going to use the Green Cross Code video please use the East Dulwich version.

[maxxi]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> No. Big efforts going on to remove railings across

> Southwark and London.

>

> Weird, but instinctively railings seem a good idea

> to make things safer but have been shown to make

> life more dangerous for all road users. Belief is

> railings mean people driving discount the risk of

> running over people walking, etc. Higher speeds

> driven mean more vehicles collisions. It also

> means people walking and cycling have fewer escape

> options.

>

> For Lordship Lane all vehicles should be going at

> slower speeds because its a busy residential and

> shopping street so we shouldn't need railings...

>

> hope that makes sense maxxi.

Perfect sense - I think railings are a terrible idea.

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> railings = B.A.D

>

> Traversing London is much easier since so many

> have been removed

>

> Am I misunderstanding or have a couple of posters

> berated people for not wanting to walk 40 yards

> just to cross the road?

>

> Because the problem with installing crossings is

> that it inconveniences people who happen to not

> want to walk more than 5 yards to their car?

Oh dear, back to the propoganda or Old Smac's bizzare belief that all car drivers never walk, never cycle or commute other than in the car....They are just car drivers

[StraferJack]

now now, play nice - I never said anything of the sort in that post

What I was getting at was what's with the beef against people wanting to cross a road at a more convenient spot?

Probably people complaining about the extra crossings also walk as well as drive - so why the complaints? Genuine question.

Why do so many people drive to Lane from short distances (not talking about people driving from further away) when they could walk? I';m not complaining if they do btw - but it's a bit rich to take the "easy option" and then complain if other people (who may also have driven. or not. I don't care) want a similar "easy option"

[StraferJack]

And another reminder that I can and do drive. So that, you know, qualifies me as a "car driver". Shocking isn't it? i don't see the world as b&w as you try and say I do

My beef is with people complaining about the new crossings - not much fussed if they drive or don't. but I do suspect many of them happen to just be driving down LL, inconvenienced by crossings, because they can't be fagged walking full stop - much less 40 yards

That is not an unfair point. Much less propaganda.

[maxxi]

My objection to the new crossings was and is a cost one - I think it is an unnecessary expense and not a badly needed amenity. The response from some has been as though I was against a new maternity ward or meals on wheels. It's a couple of crossings we don't need at a time when we have no money.

But at least there won't be railings.

[StraferJack]

not every cost is a bad thing tho - it's looking at just one side of a balance sheet

More pleasant shopping experience = more people shopping = more money spent = area doing better than just not spending anything

It's arguable that this particular expenditure doesn't = more spending - I'm not claiming it's definitely the case. But an attitude of "stop spending any money" is a bit "cost of everything, value of nothing" as well

[StraferJack]

maxxi - worth saying as well that I don't think anyone has portrayed your posts "as though I was against a new maternity ward or meals on wheels"

My responses have largely to posts by ED - NAGAIUTB for example

[tomsav]

Crossing or not (I can see both points of view) I would question why the road surface needs to be raised? It seems to be all the rage across Southwark.

As I've said elsewhere, if the intention is to have a big 20mph zone across London then have the balls to put it out to consultation and we'll see if it floats. But at the moment the town hall penpushers seem to be doing it through the back door - ie by installing something you can only drive at 20mph over every fifty yards. My suspension's knackered again, but it hardly seems worth fixing it.

[Twirly]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> No. Big efforts going on to remove railings across

> Southwark and London.

>

> Weird, but instinctively railings seem a good idea

> to make things safer but have been shown to make

> life more dangerous for all road users. Belief is

> railings mean people driving discount the risk of

> running over people walking, etc. Higher speeds

> driven mean more vehicles collisions. It also

> means people walking and cycling have fewer escape

> options.

>

Bit off topic, but maybe that explains the disappearance of the railings on the island at the crossing just opposite London Bridge station then, near the bus stops. I am not 100% certain about this, as standing in the middle of all that traffic does leave one feeling a bit exposed at times. One problem was that too many people tried to fit on the island in the middle of the road - what worries me now is that too many people will fail to fit on and end up falling off and into the road. The removal of the railings on the road edges doesn't bother me in the slightest, just the ones on the traffic island. Anyway, don't want to take the thread off track, but that was interesting information.