Burgess park path builders 'chicane'?

[AnotherPaul]

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.

[picmicnic]

I agree, the focus (incorrectly) seems to be on the chicane rather than the building works.

[nunhead_man]

For cyclists, you could always use the alternative cycle route along Sumner Road, especially if you are one of those cyclists that travel at more than 12 mph - there is some danger we cyclists might loose this shared route

[DuncanW]

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??

[Al&Em]

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..

[spooniferous]

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.

[edhistory]

Is this the "Conway" that does East Dulwich?

John K

[taper]

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]

3 choices. Dismount and walk through, cycle up the ramp on to the road or cycle through the chicane and risk being fined.

[matryx]

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.

[adamc79]

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.

[matryx]

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.

[AnotherPaul]

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.

[nununoolio]

That sounds very much like option three to me!

[AnotherPaul]

Touch?

[matryx]

Honestly they should use a bit of common sense and try a more sensible sign like this (taken around Wandsworth Common): http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/52433/cyclestreets52433-size640.jpg

[damzel]

There is not enough room to walk whilst pushing your bike through those chicanes! Safest/easiest/quickest way is to cycle slowly and give pedestrians priority

[KPinED]

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.