Pavement widening outside M&S nr East Dulwich station...

[Sue]

21 hours ago, Moovart said:

Fortunately it wasn't at a junction near us.

Coming to a junction near you soon!

[Guest]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

Love to see some photos of the 27 signs.  Which roads I will have to check them out 

SAD

[malumbu]

Sad that I am interested in this apparent excessive signage, sad that it may exist (I'd like the evidence) or sad that it may be a distraction to motorists?  Or all three?

[ArchieCarlos]

An absolute specimen decided yesterday to ram the plastic fences by Derwent Grove and drive his Golf over them

[Sue]

2 hours ago, ArchieCarlos said:

An absolute specimen decided yesterday to ram the plastic fences by Derwent Grove and drive his Golf over them

Is that the car involved? Knowing nothing about cars, I can't tell if it's a Golf.

The number plate is clearly visible.

[vladi]

2 hours ago, ArchieCarlos said:

An absolute specimen decided yesterday to ram the plastic fences by Derwent Grove and drive his Golf over them

 

Did you actually see it happen?
I ask because the evidence in the photo suggests that all the cones and green barriers appear to be pushed over from the left  to the right -possibly by a pedestrian. They would have been used to cordon off the area on the left where materials are being stored. 

The cones and green barriers are also in  are all in a straight line whereas if they were rammed by a car then they would have been scattered randomly more to the left.

[exdulwicher]

On 26/05/2025 at 17:46, malumbu said:

Sad that I am interested in this apparent excessive signage, sad that it may exist (I'd like the evidence) or sad that it may be a distraction to motorists?  Or all three?

Back in about 2016 there was a rewrite of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives (it's not exactly a fascinating read, I warn you now...) that required certain signs - things like "New Road Layout Ahead" or "Changed Priorities Ahead" - to have a yellow sticker on the back with a note that they were temporary signs and they should be removed by [date]. And to have a contact number for the council on there. 

So any of those can easily be reported. IN theory, councils are supposed to have a record of this stuff but in practice, most no longer have the resources to manage small scale highways assets effectively. Thanks, austerity.

[Nigello]

Austerity or CBA-ity? 

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

Back in about 2016 there was a rewrite of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives (it's not exactly a fascinating read, I warn you now...) that required certain signs - things like "New Road Layout Ahead" or "Changed Priorities Ahead" - to have a yellow sticker on the back with a note that they were temporary signs and they should be removed by [date]. And to have a contact number for the council on there.

Thanks, yep there is good guidance out there.  But to date I've not seen signage that people have complained about that is not obvious. I understand there had been some confusion over the timing of restrictions but not that it is not clear that there are restrictions.  Of course in more rural areas I've seen signage obscured by foliage and the like.

9 hours ago, ArchieCarlos said:

An absolute specimen decided yesterday to ram the plastic fences by Derwent Grove and drive his Golf over them

I really try not to get into us Vs them but stories like this do get my hackles up about entitled motorists.  There is also the case of not alienating motorists when reasonable people get done, including me, for relatively innocent stuff yet*, yet there are some who couldn't give a fig who park on double yellows, on pavements, drive up bus lanes and the like and get away with this.  Two out of the three because local authorities generally do not enforce parking restrictions at night, and this has long since been a police priority.  The third when they know there is no camera.  At the worst when they have illegal number plates that cannot be read by ANPR.

Whilst I am on the subject of entitlement smoky exhausts get my goat, usually because the particulate filter has failed or worse still been removed.  Police, again, no longer stops such vehicles, and there is always a friendly MOT inspector where you can get away with this.

* I've admitted to my fines on chats and now just take a lot more care.  Or just don't drive!

Edited May 28, 2025 by malumbu
Typing too quickly

[ab29]

9 hours ago, ArchieCarlos said:

An absolute specimen decided yesterday to ram the plastic fences by Derwent Grove and drive his Golf over them

Is this not a regular Southwark council BAU - we are now back in 70ies? 

[Guest]

On 26/05/2025 at 17:46, malumbu said:

Sad that I am interested in this apparent excessive signage, sad that it may exist (I'd like the evidence) or sad that it may be a distraction to motorists?  Or all three?

the first

[ab29]

On 28/05/2025 at 18:30, ab29 said:

Is this not a regular Southwark council BAU - we are now back in 70ies? 

 

On 28/05/2025 at 18:30, ab29 said:

Is this not a regular Southwark council BAU - we are now back in 70ies? 

Traffic cones and traffic fences seem like a motif this year; some have been there for months and months - council is really busy wasting taxpayer money 🤔

Edited May 31, 2025 by ab29

[pecksniff]

A new Zebra crossing has been installed  just before Derwent Grove. Also bike lane near new island turning right into Melbourne  Grove.

[ab29]

15 hours ago, pecksniff said:

A new Zebra crossing has been installed  just before Derwent Grove. Also bike lane near new island turning right into Melbourne  Grove.

What are there benefits for pedestrians?

[march46]

The new zebra crossing makes it easier, and much safer for pedestrians to cross the road. It’s really great to see the council prioritising pedestrians as they should in the hierarchy of road users. 

[ab29]

4 minutes ago, march46 said:

The new zebra crossing makes it easier, and much safer for pedestrians to cross the road. It’s really great to see the council prioritising pedestrians as they should in the hierarchy of road users. 

Was there a pedestrian crossing there before?

 

[Sue]

On 05/06/2025 at 20:40, march46 said:

The new zebra crossing makes it easier, and much safer for pedestrians to cross the road. It’s really great to see the council prioritising pedestrians as they should in the hierarchy of road users. 

This new crossing is totally unnecessary, surely.

Just a few metres down the road, towards the station, there is a pedestrian island. I just used it this morning after having walked down Melbourne Grove.

OK it's not a zebra crossing, but it's a perfectly safe and easy place to cross East Dulwich Grove.

Why on earth are so many  places for pedestrians to cross needed on such a short stretch of level road?

[march46]

It’s not a pedestrian island, nor a safe place to cross. It’s an island to protect people cycling whilst they wait to turn right. Not where you would want children crossing the road. 

[Sue]

On 26/05/2025 at 10:56, jazzer said:

SAD

Has Jazzer morphed into Trump?

On 10/06/2025 at 13:08, march46 said:

It’s not a pedestrian island, nor a safe place to cross. It’s an island to protect people cycling whilst they wait to turn right. Not where you would want children crossing the road. 

Eh? 

Islands like this  are all over the place, or used to be - nothing to do with cyclists, or didn't used to be.

Are we talking about the same thing? I can't see how cyclists would fit in there!

I'd have  been  quite happy for my grandchildren to cross there when they were younger. They are grown up now.

ETA: I looked at it yesterday while passing,  and I see it is intended for cyclists to stop there,  but given the vertical island indication (don't know what it's called, sorry) I don't think it's clear that it isn't also intended for pedestrians.

I had no idea such things for cyclists existed! 

Edited June 16, 2025 by Sue

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 05/06/2025 at 19:34, ab29 said:

What are there benefits for pedestrians?

What are the benefits to pedestrians? Of a zebra crossing and larger pedestrian area?

I guess if you flip the question it might help - is it better for pedestrians to have less space and fewer safe crossing points?

[ab29]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What are the benefits to pedestrians? Of a zebra crossing and larger pedestrian area?

I guess if you flip the question it might help - is it better for pedestrians to have less space and fewer safe crossing points?

No idea what this fluffy words mean. Southwark council waste my council tax money on - what exactly?

[alice]

It was an expensive council error to put another crossing in that area  when there are busier roads with no alternative crossings nearby. 
 

On it is not an island? Well, it looks like an island. It acts like an island people use it as an island so I think that makes  it an island.  Aka a little safe spot where people with bikes canpause while waiting to make a safe right hand turn

[Earl Aelfheah]

People would also have moaned had they put in other crossings nearby. It's the same people who object to every single change to the public realm, regardless of what it is.

[first mate]

I watched an online discussion between Cllr McAsh and a street planner. Cllr McAsh stated that it had been felt within the Council that they could not be upfront there was a war on cars, that this had to be kept quiet because it could lose votes. But once in his current role he had decided to be frank and clear that there is...led by him. 

He also said that his response to residents who had complained to him about the impact on street changes turning relatively short car journeys into long ones, was 'that is the point'. In a nutshell, he quite deliberately intends to make car journeys as unpleasant as possible.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2025 by first mate

[malumbu]

Make short unnecessary journeys unpleasant?  I wouldn't use those words but happy with the sentiment.