Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Basically the road is now divided in to three.

The park side is now all for parking.

The other two lanes are driving / riding / cycling up or down.


And there are pinch points up the road, which are now rather pointless since one lane is for parking.


I think it must be much more dangerous for cyclists, but as a biker I am loving the smooth new road quality.

It will mean that you can't bomb along it when caught behind the 343 or 484 but as someone mentioned about Barry Road, there's a khama element there when being made to slow down behind a bus!

By making one side double yellow lines along a stretch that was previously parking both sides, they've effectively made it easier for cars to speed up that side of the road (something I pointed out in the consultation process). Parking on both sides was in itself a form of traffic calming but it should be safer for cyclists now who won't need to swing out around parked cars (so maybe that was the thinking). I agree with PB that the pinchpoints seem to be designed to facilitate pedestrian crossing but then why not have just have zebra crossings?

I disagree, there won't be room for cyclists to do much overtaking when technically they only have one narrow lane, cars parked on one side and on-coming traffic on the other.

This may be why I have seen more cyclists on the pavement and the park recently. And I don't mind either as long as they don't ride aggressively and expect you to move, which some teenagers do, and most adults do not.

It's lovely having a smooth road to ride down! Enjoy it while it's there before the council put a stop to it!

MrPR Cyclist disagrees with this being safer for cyclists and so would I. Now everyone has just one lane. Putting a painted picture of a bicycle on tarmac does not make it safer for cyclists.



Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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

> These measure were implemented in order to make

> safer for cyclists. The current thinking is that

> informal crossing points are safer than zebras

> (I'm not expert on this!).

> Renata

I only cycle a short section of that road, but for what it's worth, the new surface is very welcome indeed. As for the parking only on one side, and how that affects traffic lanes/room for cyclists, the simple fact is that it is not a wide road. Two lanes of traffic, lots of which is buses, plus parking - that's never going to be a particularly nice place for cyclists to be.


My main concern has already been mentioned above, and that is the cars going up the hill away from the Peckham end who now see clear road and just put their foot down. It's happening already, I've seen it. Those calming devices dont' seem to pose much of an obstacle. Agree with DJKQ - zebra crossings make most sense. Those new crossings are not good enough.

I agree Tomy...the now 'clear' road travelling south seems likely to encourage speeding. A speed calming ramp has been put in at the Solomon's passage point so maybe that will counter that a little. I think we should wait and see how it works out especially with the busy summer coming and the increase in park use that brings. There were very few accidents before when cars, busses, cyclists and pedestrians had to negotiate parked cars that forced then to slow down. If we now see accidents occuring then there will be a good case for lobbying the council to reverse some of the changes.


What I don't want to see is the parking on the park side ever becoming pay and display though.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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