Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I asked James B about this over on the ask a councillor thread .

At one point he says it's an option and then he says he's not aware of it being a new rule .

So who knows .

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,1382419,page=125#msg-1382419

vgrant Wrote:

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

> how come the ED pedant suicide cadre have not

> declared this post null and void 'cos the the

> spelling of kerbs ?


Ok...


I blame little Miss Muffet-


Oh wait, that's curds-


No, they're the ones fighting Ices-


No wait, they're cold deserts-


No wait, that's the atac-Karma...


a-and so on...

Roundabout Wrote:

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

> The disabled and mother/s with pram/s using same,

> would have to be seen by on-coming drivers. Seems

> reasonable to me to have space to enable both to

> be seen clearly.


As Jeremy queries... What?


Not sure what this has to do with dropped kerbs a long a stretch of road - surely it's the responsibility of the pedestrian, regardless of "disability", to ensure they cross at a safe place - being able to see clearly across the road. If they can't see another safer place should (yes I know people cross where ever and frustrates the hell out of me as an observer) should be found to cross.


Whilst many a time road users are unfriendly to the non road users (personal opinion) I can't see, in this instance, how visibility is an issue... perhaps I'm missing something?

If you have a yellow line that spans only the length of the actual drop kerb, then in theory 2 vehicles could park either side of it. If you are in a wheelchair, you are lower than a standing adult, so these vehicles don't even need to be vans / people carriers in order to obscure the vision of on coming drivers to the fact a wheelchair user is about to try and cross the road.


Also, if you are in a wheelchair, you'd need to lean forward in order to peer around the parked vehicle to see if you were safe to cross. This in itself is not safe as it is likely that the front of your chair would now be further out in to the road than the parked vehicle. It's not the same as a standing adult quickly peeking out from behind a parked van.


It sounds to me as if this has been done for the safety of disabled pedestrians, probably after consultation with the likes of RNIB and other charities.


Thank me later.

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

    • Considering the private revision study that my children undertook, perhaps 15 to 20 years ago in that library it seems a shame they have timed the refurbishment so it won't be open at this crucial time for children. But hey, so long as it's greener... 
    • Enforcement costs money which I doubt the fines actually pay for. Presumably it hasn't been a priority. 
    • Details here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/2025/dulwich-library-closing-refurbishment
    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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