Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi rahrahrah,

Sadly Southwark Council has decided it doesnt want any cycle street clutter of the likes of cyclehoop products. REally frustrating as we had funding for such measures but were rejected!


Hi veralucia,

I understand ths townley Road/East Dulwich grove junction will have diagonal crossing points recognising those 'desire lines' as well a regular junction arms.

Does the ?285k include providing cycle storage facilities on the schools premises and if so is there room ? Most of the local state schools seem pretty tight on space.

Which schools in Dulwich and Herne Hill will benefit from the funds ? I'd be unhappy if public funds were being used to subsidise the private schools.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi rahrahrah,

> Sadly Southwark Council has decided it doesnt want

> any cycle street clutter of the likes of cyclehoop

> products. REally frustrating as we had funding for

> such measures but were rejected!


James make sure the decision to reject cycle "parking" is widely circulated. It's already impossible to find a proper lock up space when you are shopping.

Is this linked in anyway to the survey carried out by Dulwich Young Cyclists, that was promoted on a previous thread? The schools involved in that were:

- Alleyn's School (including Junior)

- Bessemer Grange Primary School

- The Charter School

- Dog Kennel Hill School

- Dulwich College (including Junior and DUCKS)

- Dulwich Hamlet Junior School

- Dulwich Infants School

- Dulwich Prep London

- Dulwich Wood Nursery

- Herne Hill School

- JAGS (including JAPS)

- Kingsdale Foundation School

- Langbourne Primary School

- Oakfield School


So most of the East Dulwich schools were not included.


As someone who cycles across the Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove junction on a daily basis, and sometimes with my children (aged 9 and 7), I would say that was one of the safer juctions to navigate. They should try Dunstans/Underhill or Townley/Lordship Lane.

That's a real shame regarding the Lambeth hangers - I believe the lack of secure, on-street parking for bikes really reduces take up. Most people either don't have the room to store their bike inside, don't have a garden / shed, or else can't be bothered carrying a bike through the house twice a day. It's interesting that cars aren't considered 'street clutter' despite the fact that one car takes up enough space for half a dozen bikes.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> That's a real shame regarding the Lambeth hangers

> - I believe the lack of secure, on-street parking

> for bikes really reduces take up. Most people

> either don't have the room to store their bike

> inside, don't have a garden / shed, or else can't

> be bothered carrying a bike through the house

> twice a day. It's interesting that cars aren't

> considered 'street clutter' despite the fact that

> one car takes up enough space for half a dozen

> bikes.


These "Lambeth Hangers" look like a great idea. Difficult to see why Southwark council would discount them as an option while spending ?285,000 on improving the cyclists lot?


Ron70

What are the actual current perceived hazards?


What are the "Cycling to School Partnership" and the "Schools Partnership", both mentioned in the above copy and in http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1449/285_000_of_funding_awarded_to_support_cycling_in_dulwich_and_herne_hill?

JackieO Wrote:

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

> That's brilliant news about funding for the

> junction, I have complained to the council in the

> past about it being unsafe for cyclists, I'm

> really pleased to hear improvements are being

> made.


It's just a shame they spent tens of thousands on redoing some of the crossings, the Townley Road / Calton Avenue junction and the junction's road surface not much more than a year ago. Joined-up thinking is only a dream when there's someone else's cash to be spent.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I emailed Southwark Council about the Lambeth Hangers. Apparently they have not discounted there

> installation in the Borough, but are in fact looking at 300 possible locations as part of a pilot!


Thanks very much for (1) your asking the council clearly (2) their quick response (3) relaying it here. Now we're all better informed. That's the way to do it.


I see btw that the Lambeth Bikehangars are a different animal from the cycle hoops, of which ISTR Southwark trialled a few several years ago.

Cyclehoops http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/cyclehoops/cyclehoop-for-lamp-post/ are banned from Southwark street by council officials.


so amazed if officers now telling you people cycle hangars are acceptable - http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/bike-lockers/bike-hangar/

Re cyclehoops: I emailed the council in September 2010, after seeing the mentions in this thread, to ask how I could distinguish them on the interactive map. After a reminder, I got a reply in November 2010, from which:


We do indeed have some trial sites for this particular type of cycle

parking. A couple of sites that I am aware of are Union Street by the

Palestra building and Cathedral Street by Borough Market.


I believe that the interactive map has been removed from the website

pending an up to date audit of cycle parking across the borough.


I'm also aware that these stands have not proved to be very popular with

our engineers and our Streetscape Design Manager and so will most

probably not be used within the Borough in the future.


Please contact me should you require any further details.

The project is being managed by Phil Thompson at Southwark Council. Here is an excerpt from his email:


"...We have over 300 locations around the borough that we are currently looking at and from this number we will hope to install a small handful of hangers in order to gauge response from our residents. All being well, after this stage, we will be looking to install cycle hangers borough-wide..."

In my opinion as a cyclist first and aesthetically as well I just want loads, hundreds, of standing lock loops


http://www.cycle-shelters-direct2u.co.uk/sheffield-bike-loops.html


James Barber Wrote:

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

> Cyclehoops

> http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/cyclehoops/cycleh

> oop-for-lamp-post/ are banned from Southwark

> street by council officials.

>

> so amazed if officers now telling you people cycle

> hangars are acceptable -

> http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/bike-lockers/bike

> -hangar/

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Cyclehoops

> http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/cyclehoops/cycleh

> oop-for-lamp-post/ are banned from Southwark

> street by council officials.

>


Why on earth are they banned? You can retrofit to existing street furniture, don't need to dig up streets and look quite pleasing to the eye. They must be a cost saver?

  • 3 months later...
Just to let you know that Southwark Cyclists are having a public meeting on Wednesday 12th Feb at 6.30pm at the Peckham Liberal Club to decide on a list of demands that they will try to get candidates to commit to ahead of the local elections. All are welcome.
I would be interested to know why this junction was chosen specifically. Is it based on statistics? I have cycled through it many times and with the traffic lights etc, it has always struck me as being safe. How does it compare with, for example, the junction of Barry Road and Underhill Road / Upland Road?

the OP says 'decision to improve the East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road junction follows a feasibility study carried out earlier this year. Analysis showed the junction was potentially hazardous to the four schools located nearby.


other junctions, some mentioned above are 'actually' rather than 'potentially hazardous' and don't get a penny.


same old

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

    • 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.   
    • Aria is my go to plumber. Fixed a toilet leak for me at short notice. Reasonably priced and very professional. 
    • Anyone has a storage or a display rack for Albums LPs drop me a message thanks
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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