Accident on Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Grove

[henryb]

Yes and a cctv camera for enforcement.

[James Barber]

Hi PGC,

But then many many car etc would drive down Zenoria/Oxonian making that the new problem junction and those two streets are even less suitable for high levels of traffic.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Make Zenoria one way towards LLane, and encourage drivers to use Melbourne Grove, with traffic lights if necessary onto Dulwich Grove.

Surely pedestrian safety has priority over a few minutes for a car driver?

[James Barber]

But you'd make Melbourne Grove and Zenoria much more dangerous.

The result has to be greater overall safety. Not just shifting danger around.

[Jeremy]

Could you have a pelican crossing over East Dulwich Grove, linked to the existing traffic lights on LL? So whenever anyone wanted to cross, traffic on both roads was stopped? Too extreme?

[spider69]

it is amazing how danger has appeared since gentification.How did ED reach 2015.

Safety is paramount but it does appear that people do not want to take responsibility for their own lives.

If accidents do happen at this juction any offenders should have the book thrown at the. However Human rights will negate that.

I seem to recall that the 20mpy for LL from GG to Whately road was going to stop all this.

Why not get rid of the lights and put proper zebra crossings on EDR and both sides of LL yellow box , before and after EDG.

Install cameras to monitor and charge if an offence is made.

[Jeremy]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Why not get rid of the lights and put proper zebra

> crossings on EDR and both sides of LL yellow box ,

> before and after EDG.

Because drivers are still likely to take the corner at an inappropriate speed, and not notice the crossing/crosser until it is too late.

[MarkE]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Surely the easiest/cheapest thing to do would be

> to ban right turns from Lordship Lane into Dulwich

> Grove except for buses. The near misses I have

> had/seen, all come from cars speeding right to

> buck the traffic lights.

This was my thinking too. I'd even consider encouraging traffic at Goose Green roundabout to go down Spurling Road (switch the one-way) in order to loop round for EDG, although that was presumably shut off back in the day for a good reason.

But then it seems like a lot of hassle to allow for the bus to take that right turn but nobody else, given as it's only the 37 and there are only about six of them a week. Rerouting the 37 feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nut, but it's not unfeasible (taking it via Townley Road, for example wouldn't be outrageous).

The danger, it seems to me, stems from those turning right off LL onto EDG, and the key must be encouraging those away, again possibly as far as Townley if they want the Village, Herne Hill and beyond. Those wanting to get to the local area can use the side streets, and you put off rat runners by turning EDG into a no through road after Melbourne Grove (which would also aid that ridiculous junction).

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi worldwiser,

> A three way signalled junction has been considered

> and modelled a number of times. It sounds so

> easy.

> But such a junction would need to remove all

> parking on Lordship Lane for 100m north and south

> to effectively create 2 lanes both ways.

This feels like a red herring to me. It would be desirable to have two lanes both ways, but by no means necessary. Particularly if the southbound traffic had preferential phasing over the northbound. It feels like if a signalled junction was desired enough, a way could be found. There would be inevitable consequences, but if the outcome is desireable enough, they would surely be worth it?

[Zebedee Tring]

MarkE, have you seen how dangerous the Townley Rd/LL junction is and the congestion in Townley when the Alleyns coaches are parked there? It would be even worse if the crazy no right turn proposal at the Townley/EDG junction goes ahead. Routing the 37 along Townley would be a total non-starter.

[maxxi]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi worldwiser,

> A three way signalled junction has been considered

> and modelled a number of times. It sounds so

> easy.

> But such a junction would need to remove all

> parking on Lordship Lane for 100m north and south

> to effectively create 2 lanes both ways.

Why?

There is no reason the parking arrangements on LL heading towards towards Goose Green should be changed at all and only the stretch heading away from GG, between Franco Manca and the EDT, would need changing; meaning the loss of maybe 6-8 spaces (the zig-zags at GG and Franco Manca already limit parking here) as traffic returns to the middle of the carriageway after the junction.

A 3-way system with filter right light from LL into EDG with 3 phases;

1.pedestrian lights red all traffic on green

2.north and south bound on red except for filter right into EDG, pedestrians green across LL but still red across EDG.

3. All traffic red pedestrians on green.

[Charles Notice]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Could you have a pelican crossing over East

> Dulwich Grove, linked to the existing traffic

> lights on LL? So whenever anyone wanted to cross,

> traffic on both roads was stopped? Too extreme?

To simple to be considered.

Consultants need to produce to justify their fee. Whether it is relevant or not.

As someone's else posted why has this suddenly become a problem. It has always existed and been accepted. Perhaps self awareness is required

[worldwiser]

Perhaps there's finally a bit of public momentum towards getting something done. To misquote Hugo, there's nothing like a problem whose solution's time has come.

[Jennys]

Rerouting the 37 along Townley Road would not only cause a huge bottleneck and be pretty dangerous but would also take the only bus service away from part of East Dulwich Grove. This is a road which will soon have at least one school and a health centre which people will need to access. So more people will drive their children to school than might be the case if there was a direct bus.

[maxxi]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

>

> As someone's else posted why has this suddenly

> become a problem. It has always existed and been

> accepted. Perhaps self awareness is required

The pedestrian crossing hasn't always existed there Charles and it is this that has created a dangerous crossing.

Cars coming from Goose Green see the red light and know that - for a limited time only - they can turn right into ED Grove without having to slow down or worry about what may be coming (in fact they often speed up in case the lights change) and without checking for pedestrians already crossing ED Grove.

[Charles Notice]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Charles Notice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > As someone's else posted why has this suddenly

> > become a problem. It has always existed and

> been

> > accepted. Perhaps self awareness is required

>

>

> The pedestrian crossing hasn't always existed

> there Charles and it is this that has created a

> dangerous crossing.

>

> Cars coming from Goose Green see the red light and

> know that - for a limited time only - they can

> turn right into ED Grove without having to slow

> down or worry about what may be coming (in fact

> they often speed up in case the lights change) and

> without checking for pedestrians already crossing

> ED Grove.

You have pointed out the problem, why is it so hard to solve.

As mentioned the danger never existed before, why was it ever changed to create the problem.

Change needed for no reason?

[intexasatthe moment]

Maybe it's the introduction of the traffic light/crossing over lordship Lane that's increased the danger to pedestrians crossing EDG .

[James Barber]

I have asked the head of council service for highways when I can meet officers on site to explore what and when we can improve this junction. I'm awaiting his response.

Hi spider69,

London has suffered under both Mayors of London from a dramatica reduction in traffic police. Our new ED Police Safer Neighbourhood Team sgt is an ex. traffic police officer. Surprising in one respect but hopefully a useful new skill we can pick to make our local roads ever safer.

Problem with zebra crossings of Lordship Lane - and we had this battle when we were campaigning for the two recently added sginalled crossings - is TfL would not agree to zebras as they'd be constantly in use with people crossing and causing traffic chaos. I was horrofied and thought this barmy. But for the last 8 motnhs I've been cycling to and from work via Covent Garden and a zebra that does cause this problem and cars get impatient and don't follow zebra crossing rules.

Hi Jeremy,

It is one of the options Lib Dem cllrs asked about. You'd proably have it one a different phase. At the time we wer told it was too close to a turning. But I will certainly be asking about this again.

Hi MarkE,

Any changes would need all stakeholders to be supportive. I don't see local residents on quiet residential narrow streets welcoming becoming major through routes. But more importantly I think it would result in great danger overall. Replaxcing one junction causing understand alarm with several new ones that previous didn't cause such alarm.

Hi Maxxi,

The advice we've had from council officers and traffic consults who have studied this junction is that by removing the parking would give the ambience of a faster road and people would drive faster.

The danger people are reporting is cars turning too fast right from LL into EDG.

How would increasing traffic speeds reduce that danger?

It would also create higher speeds along LL.

[kford]

The traffic lights have caused a problem. They create a false sense of priority when green and encourage rat-running across the junction when red. This didn't happen before, and I speak as someone who has motorcycled, driven, cycled and walked across this bit of road every day for 10 years.

The solution is to create uncertainty and encourage eye contact between motorists and pedestrians.

So:

Lose the lights.

Build a table-top raised junction across LL and the end of EDG to slow traffic down.

ZEBRA crossings where the Pelican crossing is, and across the mouth of EDG.

A half box-junction on the EDG side of LL.

Enforce with a box junction camera if you must, like TfL does in town.

[Blah Blah]

There are cameras fining people for being in the bus lanes in Lordship Lane, so a camera on this junction surely is possible?

[maxxi]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Hi Maxxi,

> The advice we've had from council officers and

> traffic consults who have studied this junction is

> that by removing the parking would give the

> ambience of a faster road and people would drive

> faster.

> The danger people are reporting is cars turning

> too fast right from LL into EDG.

> How would increasing traffic speeds reduce that

> danger?

> It would also create higher speeds along LL.

This is only the case because they (officers) make the mistake of starting with this parking fiction.

Forget about this apparent "need to remove all parking on Lordship Lane for 100m north and south" as that is clouding judgement and is not necessary.

Removing all the parking as you initially suggested might do as these officers and consultants say, yes - but removing the few bays from EDT to Franco Manca, and only on that side of Lordship Lane, would not. It would allow the traffic coming from Goose Green to pass the traffic queuing to turn right into East Dulwich Grove before resuming a middle-of-the-road position and continuing up Lordship Lane.

No other parking would be removed so all other traffic would continue at the speed it does now. Cars turning into East Dulwich Grove would cease to pose a danger as they would be controlled by a filter-right light and a pedestrian crossing.

[jaywalker]

kford Wrote:

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

> The solution is to create uncertainty and

> encourage eye contact between motorists and

> pedestrians.

>

This is the essence of the matter. As a pedestrian I need to be woken up at this junction and as a driver I need to be made uncertain. The problem is that as a pedestrian I am so used to being molly-coddled in LL that I just walk without thinking. As a driver the absence of control is tacitly taken as an invitation to go forward blithely.

Rationally, this really is a problem induced by too much regulation - but the only practical answer we can collectively imagine is more regulation. That is a one way street. What in fact is the evidence of accident incidence in those European towns that have abolished all road markings together with the difference between roads and pavements?

[Charles Notice]

At last a sensible admission of the problem by jaywalker.

Common sense is what is needed

[kford]

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> kford Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The solution is to create uncertainty and

> > encourage eye contact between motorists and

> > pedestrians.

> >

>

> This is the essence of the matter. As a pedestrian

> I need to be woken up at this junction and as a

> driver I need to be made uncertain. The problem is

> that as a pedestrian I am so used to being

> molly-coddled in LL that I just walk without

> thinking. As a driver the absence of control is

> tacitly taken as an invitation to go forward

> blithely.

>

> Rationally, this really is a problem induced by

> too much regulation - but the only practical

> answer we can collectively imagine is more

> regulation. That is a one way street. What in fact

> is the evidence of accident incidence in those

> European towns that have abolished all road

> markings together with the difference between

> roads and pavements?

Indeed. I've suggested on here that the simple removal of white lines on roads like Barry Road will reduce speeds without the need for unproven, intrusive and eye-wateringly expensive SPECS cameras or clumsy back-shuddering humps.