Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As part of Southwark Council's Cleaner Greener Safer funding, I'm going to put forward a proposal to enable a cycle lane to be established at the junction of Copleston Road, Oglander Road and Grove Vale. Currently access from Copleston/Oglander is blocked to all traffic and half the junction covered in a wide pavement from when it used to be open to traffic both ways. I'm going to suggest that the Council remove part of the pavement to make way for a cycle lane so cyclists can exit on to Grove Vale legally and safely without climbing the pavement.

I'd like to hear from other cyclists who use this route as to whether or not they think this is a good idea.


file.php?5,file=692

Quite a few cars ignore the one way system there as well. Hardly surprising though - if you don't know your way around, it's impossible to get out once you're in. Taxis hate going in there. Maybe the whole one way system needs reviewing?
I'm not suggesting doing away with the one way system, TJS - I just think there should be a better way out! Ondine Rd could be one way going the other way, for example. Anyone living at that end of Copleston has to go round the houses to get out of there in a car - up Bellenden or Adys Rd, or through the DKH estate. None of which is particularly easy to find if you don't know the area.

LostThePlot - I expect there would be far too many objections from residents of Coplestone and the surrounding roads to close the junction to cars, and to be honest I would have a great deal of sympathy with them.

Scotslass - you're right, cyclists do climb the pavement but as I said in my original post the point of the cycle lane would be to enable them to exit onto Grove Vale legally and safely without climbing the pavement.

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> LostThePlot - I expect there would be far too many

> objections from residents of Coplestone and the

> surrounding roads to close the junction to cars,

> and to be honest I would have a great deal of

> sympathy with them.

Fully agree, however I re-read my post an spotted an omited "only"


"might it not be wise to change that to no entry for motor vehicles ONLY be in order also?

I sometimes see some one dimensional fellow on a ugly fat black harleyD copy ( complete with sad leather satchel on the rack ) pootling through the junction the wrong way and causng problems with cars trying to turn into Copleston - would a bike lane envourage people like this ?
  • 1 month later...
I am a keen cyclist but let's face it - most cycle lanes in London are a waste of time. A total overhaul would be welcomed but spending ?X'000 on a "lane-ette" to get people over what is a very small stretch of pavement is largely pointless. It's not that much of a big deal to get over on a bike is it?! I for one would rather see the money spent elsewhere - like targeting the numerous people who think it's ok to walk their dogs through the area fouling the pavements and leaving it there for example....

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

    • Looks like Rachael is getting close to the toaster again! The media is out to  get her after they got duped.
    • I think “high rises” and “crime” might be your words not mine  “liking the character of an area” is something I imagine mos people feel.  But it is subjective.  What year was your home built? Should it not have been? To preserve the character of the area at that time?    I don’t think building is the only solution.  Investment landlords and multiple property owners could also be tackled but simply saying “no. Because character of area” isn’t going to help anyone growing up in the area get a place to live 
    • I had a frustrating (non) delivery experience with Yodel recently who I believe are now part of InPost. Fortunately the supplying company had some kind of customer service so got a refund Totally agree with last paragraph, one of the excuses I was given for non delivery was bizarre. Delivery companies and suppliers offer delivery on a certain day and when they're unable to fulfil this they lay a false tracking trail. Think Amazon may also do this.
    • I called InPost when I saw the first parcel had been refused twice, they said it was because the shop didn't have capacity / space. I went to the shop and they basically said that was BS, that they had plenty of space and showed me the parcels from that day's InPost delivery - they even went through all the parcels to see if mine was there. I called them again a couple of days later after the tracking showed the first parcel had been refused twice more, and two others had also been refused. They said they'd investigate and would send me an email (nope) and to contact Vinted. I called them again today after further refusals, again they said they'd investigate and for me to contact Vinted - they seemed to intimate that they could only do something if Vinted contacted them, despite me trying to explain that it is impossible to contact anyone at Vinted, let alone get them to chase up parcels. Tbh I don't believe the tracking updates are based on actual events, it stinks of lost parcels that they just don't want to admit to, so just keep pretending they're trying to deliver them and update the tracking info. I can't think of any other reason this would happen. Although very odd if it is this, as all the parcels were sent from different places and at different times.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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