Pedestrian/ cycling artery into Peckham Rye severed - UPDATE

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Sorry Jeremy, but the stats just don't

> back up any fears about cyclists and danger.

I know that deaths resulting from cyclists hitting pedestrians are very rare. I don't think cyclists are a menace! (well... not many of them, anyway). It just seems obvious that cyclists should use bells and exercise caution when they are sharing space with pedestrians. I don't understand why you are debating this. Anyway, can't be bothered to argue further, it's pretty trivial and not particularly interesting.

[henryb]

Lets all agree that neither kids on scooters or dogs or bikes or people in general in park are a serious menace or safety problem but a friendly smile or tinkle on the bell where appropriate by all is appreciated.

[Lee Scoresby]

Ms Hamvas, thanx for that. We can now see the drainage trench following the curve round to the main system. And this was planned all along? Not decided hurriedly and recently? Well, whichever, it's all very good.

Blah Blah, I am HUGELY pro-biking. I just don't buy the myth that bikes in motion can safely share 'people' spaces and pathways. (That's just special pleading from SUSTRANS, and complacency and stupidity from public authorities.) Loz, thanx for those stats. (INJURIES by cyclists on walkers would show much larger numbers.) Well, all injuries and fatal accidents are horrible. I wanted to convey to EDF'ers that the potential for injury is not delusional. I'm not trying to raise an anti-bike mob.

It's all very well to say that, GENERALLY, bikes, dogs, or anything else aren't a menace in public parks. I ask anyone interested to go and look for themselves. You will see the point of my remarks: A downhill bike, carelessly or inexpertly handled, will build up considerable velocity on the improved surface and long straight incline. By the time it reached the bend, that bend will be more or less blind for the rider.

Mine is a modest proposal (attention Councillors): Why not take the reasonable step of constructing a bike hump on the uphill side, to engineer-out that potential hazard, and make an accident that much less likely? There has been a long, sordid history in this country of so-called 'accident black spots'. Translated, road authorities traditionally wouldn't devote budget or effort to a dangerous area of road until at least one, and quite often several deaths and/or serious injuries had occurred. No, this isn't a main road, of course not. But the principle is the same. Any fair-minded observer can see the potential for an accident. We don't need to wait for it to happen.

And please Ms Hamvas, you're OUR representatives to council officers and contractors, not THEIRS to us. Don't just relay their self-convenient line: 'No Time! No Money!' As I said previously, the reasonable definition of a works timeframe and budget must surely include all necessary elements.

No, Blah Blah, I do not want to wager money on some poor person being injured or not by a hurtling bike. (Good grief!) And no, henryb, there's always rather too much RELIANCE on "the friendly tinkle" - human good intent and behaviour, basically.

(A PS To Blah Blah: As I made clear, your view is certainly as valid as mine. What I do not accept is your saying we shouldn't be discussing this. You are not forced to participate. I am not remotely outraged. The happy fact that you have not yet been hit by a bike proves nothing much by itself.

Let me concede your general point: People can and do complain too much about trivial things - the term 'first world problem' expresses this idea. I just don't agree that this is trivial.

On the contrary. EDF'ers might be familiar with my challenging the system where a cotery of senior council officers and their pet circle of contractors decides what happens - in ED and Southwark, as thru the UK. This problem goes back at least to the 19thc. It still happens in 2015 because our local-democratic systems are deficient. (Sorry, Councillors). I myself believe that, in the 21stc, online forums like the EDF can and should be incorporated much more into local democracy and governance. So that, for example, any new smaller-scale public works might be 'published' online, accessibly, for scrutiny and comment. Then sunlight would fall upon the faceless-nameless ones.)

Lee Scoresby

[Blah Blah]

But that's why bicycles have brakes Lee. I just don't think it's going to be the problem you think it is and that's my view. Cycles hitting pedestrians are rare and that is fact too. Here's a case in point. The path that runs accross the park in front of the cafe often has cyclists going along it and on the downhill section you can pick up quite a speed. But cycles DO slow down if they are approaching children, dogs, people. There's a lot of common sense out there and there's no reason to think the same common sense won't be used on the new path.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Cycles hitting pedestrians are rare and that is fact too.

'Rare' is subjective - calling it a 'fact' is pretty brave.

Given the sheer number of pedestrians and cars in London, you could argue that cars hitting pedestrians is 'rare' as well. Doesn't mean that positive steps to reduce both cars and cycles causing pedestrian deaths and injuries shouldn't be taken.

[Blah Blah]

If there's a genine problem yes, but again I come back to this being the park we are talking about, where most people exercise common sense, BECAUSE it's a shared space.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

See also: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1315935,1315935#msg-1315935

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> If there's a genine problem yes, but again I come

> back to this being the park we are talking about,

> where most people exercise common sense, BECAUSE

> it's a shared space.

[Blah Blah]

lol thanks for that help-ma-boab. I see there's a pattern here :D

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Reckon Oor Lee's a patter merchant, although I did see what he was talking about re the path last weekend. The cricket on the other hand...naw.