Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What is going on with the building repairs on quiet path between Peckham and the Old Kent Road? The Conway builder chaps 'doing the work' seem more intent on developing their four bend SAFETY chicane to slow cyclists than mending the bridge in a timely manner - like before I die. I'm forty in case etc.


Their SAFETY chicane is a crap joke. I like it a little bit, all that careful maneouvering makes me feel like I'm on Junior Kickstart - no bad thing the feel on the way to work. That aside, the situation is a farce. No one heeds their shouty "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT!" sign, a big bold notice that no-one notices. There's no-one actually working, save one fella hitching his low-ride fluro legs up to just below his arse. Even the cyclist police hang out and don't challenge people cycling through the chicane and under the bridge.


Conway (and Southwark Council), please. You're using my council tax to fix a bridge slowly and interfering with a lot of people's journeys. You're meant fixing a bridge. Get on with it.

I think the chicane is fun - they should put some more in, and maybe some jumps.


Who says we may lose this cycle route?


What's stopping the council from making it a demarcated split use path like the one which runs up from East Dulwich Grove past the back of Sainsbury's??

Yes - It's getting frustrating isn't it...


If the first friendly cyclist through it on an evening after Conway have knocked off for the day could push the chicanes a little to each side so that we can get through with just a wiggle rather than full lock, that would be great! We could take it in turns....


Seems unnecessary to dismount - surely the only necessary thing is a sign saying 'Slow Down' - there's actually nothing I've seen going on that directly impacts bikes going through..


Are the 'cyclist police' referred to above by the OP the SUSTRANS guys lobbying for more cycle paths - if so they're on our side..

I'm sure the guys from Conway are doing it just to annoy the cyclists, right?

Or maybe some cyclists are so arrogant they think they're above it all. The building work is making the route through narrow for both cyclists and pedestrians. It's frustrating for pedestrians to give way to the cyclists.

Safety.!!! Just get off your bike and walk it. It will only cost you 30 seconds.

But that said I agree with AnotherPaul, Conway get a move on with fixing the bridge.

Yesterday, the chicane was beautifully done. It would have graced the Badminton horse trials. Difficult enough to run though it.


There is a bit of an issue with how fast some cyclists go down the Surrey Canal path. That area is a park and cyclists should be prepared to give way and ride cautiously. Lots of dog walker cyclist tension I've seen recently.

nununoolio Wrote:

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

> 3 choices. Dismount and walk through, cycle up the

> ramp on to the road or cycle through the chicane

> and risk being fined.


There is no legal weight behind the signs saying to dismount anymore than if I put up a sign saying all dogs or small children must be carried. You can't be fined by anyone for it.

I should add, I'm always a considerate cyclist and prompt pedestrians to go first when we've met along this terrible area. Not seen anyone come afoul on any side, except cyclists having to akwardly navigate for a while.

Incidentally, dismounting makes it harder to get through the chicane because they're so narrow there isn't room to turn and wheel my bike at the same time.

A word of warning, Matryx: I cycled through there the other day (at a careful walking pace, it goes without saying...) and I got stopped by a pair of community support officers waiting to pounce. They told me they'd already fined someone ?30 that morning, but they let me off.

Thanks for the warning, I'm very curious what they're trying to fine people for. I've seen no bylaws on the park signs and it's not in the highway code at all, nor in any road legislation I'm aware of - also not a road, so there's that.



Edit: Should anyone else wish to read up on cycling and the law, this has a useful plethora of information http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ including a small section on Cyclist Dismount signs.

This morning the chicane was on both sides of the bridges and under it too.


For me this issue is a two-fold. Conway's ad-hoc law-making is daft and those police should be asking them what they're doing. More importantly, what kind of deal have Southwark done with Conway that they can leave equipment here and all over the borough? Any ideas?


nununoolio, sorry to contradict you but there are four options, the fourth being to cycle carefully through. You may not like it but it's the option I'm taking.

I had a similar experience with the chicane enforcement police the other week threatening to fine.


I'm all for considerate sharing of the path, but even with the work going on the path (without the chicane) is wider there than at most other parts along the Surrey Canal. It just seems rather unnecessary.

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

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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