pedestrian crossing east dul grove/lordship lane

[skidmarks]

Pedestrian guard railings are lethal for cyclists. That person is proposing to put them on the radii of the kerb line to force peds down to the zebra crossing. That increases the risk of cyclists being crushed between turning vehicles and the railings as they can?t escape on to the pavement. Two cyclists have been knocked down at this junction in the last 5 years already.

Guard railing is a 1960 solution and doesn?t promote freedom of movement in a pedestrian shopping environment. Now if it was the A406 i may agree to seprate peds from vehicles

[Jeremy]

But he was only talking about railings for a few metres along the pavement to make sure pedestrians cross in a safe place. Nothing to do with cars being more "important". That's why I took exception to your post.

Freedom of movement? Why do people want freedom to walk into the road?

As for cyclists... perhaps setting the railings one foot into the pavement would cure the problem.

[Gimme]

Interestingly I've been discussing this question over the last year with Southwark Council traffic planning dept (in the context of them breaching their Southwark road safety strategy by sending traffic down Matham Grove instead of allowing a right turn into Lordship Lane from ED Grove).

They are apparently considering the traffic light option (and recognise that the crossing is an issue) and have found funding for putting a traffic light scheme in place but apparently the big sticking point is TFL because there is a bus lane on LL at that point (so for some reason TFL don't want the traffic lights as it impacts their bus lane).

It's bemusing as to why they should be objecting firstly because the impact isn't clear anyway and secondly because the bus lane seems to be more of a car park rather than a bus lane.

[skidmarks]

It?s a shopping environment people on foot should be able to move around as they wish. Guard railings are set 450mm from the kerb edge and what you find is that shops suffer as people are funnelled past they won?t stop and window shop as they block the way.

Research has shown that guard railing lengths less than 20m has no effect in stopping people crossing inappropriately. So for anything to be effective you?re going to have quite a substantial length of railing. Also to make it work you would need guard railing on the eastern side of LL to stop pedestrians crossing then getting trapped by the railings on the EDG side ? it would be horrible no more A-boards or footway seating area?s.

The accident statistics show that there isn?t really a problem; the people who are not confident are crossing elsewhere. I would expect that a zebra crossing there would have a higher number of pedestrian collisions over the same period.

[BJL]

I wonder if the changes in Brixton (opposite Morley's) have had an effect on the number of accidents? The metal barriers have been removed from the pavements and the middle of the road and the area - IMO - looks and feels much better as a result.

[skidmarks]

I agree, removing railings makes for a better environment. Someone mentioned the other day that some nutcase was looking dodgy on LL and they just crossed the road to put space between them and the nutter ? guard railings prevent this freedom of movement.

[Jeremy]

Did you actually look at Jim The Chin's example? Just 5-10 metres of railing at the corner of the road to make sure people use the crossing.

[skidmarks]

Do you want to read the research that anything under 20 metres of railing does not prevent inappropriate crossing?

[Jeremy]

No I do not.

I do not believe that most people would rather climb over a fence than walk for 5 seconds to a proper crossing.

[skidmarks]

They wouldn?t climb over it they would walk around it. 5 to 10 metres of railing is nothing people on foot take the shortest route they can. There is a pedestrian desire line across this junction and nothing is going to stop this.

[Jeremy]

Yes they would walk around it. And when they got to the end... they would find a crossing.

Please look at the link Jim The Chin posted, because this is making my brain hurt.

Over and out.

[skidmarks]

Ok, as a picture is a thousand words. What I?m saying, even with what Jim The Chin is saying you would still get pedestrians taking the shortest route (blue line) and not using the zebra. The guard railings would need to extend metres up Lordship Lane and be extensive on the Bishop pub side. Then you get all the problems of cyclists getting squeezed between railings and lorries and alike.

[????]

I'm gonna sit on the railings on this one

[SimonM]

Anything involving railings is definitely a worst-possible option!

[charliecharlie]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=4846

think this looks a good option but without the railings...

those want to cross as they did before the zebra crossing can, and those who want to use the crossing can...

you can't force people to all do the same thing and the data shows it is not ahigh risk crossing anyway

[skidmarks]

That is a solution what I have drawn there but there is one problem, the zebra needs to be as close to LL as possible for people to use it but as the EDG is a bus route the zebra ideally will need to be set back a bus length to allow a bus to turn into EDG from LL and not block through traffic on LL while waiting for peds on the zebra crossing.

The more you shift the zebra crossing up EDG the less likely people are going to use it?.without forcing people with loads of railings.

I looked at a similar site to this which has two zebra crossings recently. Bennett?s Castle Lane junction with Green Lane.

[rgutsell]

HI all

I see the discussion went off the rails (geddit!) onto subjects like pavement railings and so on.

Here is my basic motivating belief position on this; (and remember I am a lorry and coach driver).

Where people live is a community (call it community, village or anything) and no one traveling through, whether on foot, bike, car or bus, or lorry or coach, (or horse historicaly!!) should expect to go through without hindrance or respecting the local residents who live shop, and walk there.

In fact ( I am very "Reclaim the streets" about this) they should be thankful to be allowed through at all!! In my view, in some way, they are guests!!

Government planning and transport actions over the last four decades have inured us to the roads driven through our living areas, and lead us to think it is all unstoppable. We have stopped feeling that the road area itself is "OURS". When we drive through other area's in our cars, or on our bikes, we do not think of that road as "theirs" (But it is!)

I certainly would not suggest blocking off the Lordship Lane/East Dulwich Grove, but I have no regrets at all that traffic (including me in my car) should be delayed and stopped by traffic lights and pedestrianised surface in the junction.

Looking forward to more replies!!

[easytiger]

Perhaps traffic lights with a fast changeover time would be appropriate for this junction?

[contrary mary]

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Pugwash Wrote:

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

> -----

> > At the Living Streets walkabout over a year

> ago,

> > several local residents asked for a crossing

> > outside Somerfields, when this was proposed by

> > councillors and officers, there was an out cry

> > from some shop keepers etc. Whatever is

> suggested

> > for the East Dulwich Grove /LL area - will not

> > meet with approval from everyone!

>

> Are you telling me that local shopkeepers were

> more concerned by not losing business (by using

> new crossing to Somerfield) than people getting

> run down on the road?

Hi all nice to meet you I have a long standing interest in this topic. The initial location of the pedestrian crossing outside Somerfield was opposed by the local police and TFL. The location was deemed unsafe simply because it is on a bend. There is a meeting with Southwark council to discuss the issues of the East Dulwich Grove/Lordship Lane junction.

Contrary to a previous post on here, there is no funding for that junction as confirmed by Southwark council.

The post I quoted is also incorrect, a consultation was carried out to determine whether a pedestrian was needed outside Somerfields, the consultation recorded 200 replies out of 2150 forms were returned of which over half had opposed the crossing. You need at least over 10% of the replies to agree. A copy of the consultation can be requested.

The shopkeepers along with the police disagreed because of location and the logic behind it.

Look forward to hearing your views.

[rgutsell]

HI all

I had to laugh at the details provided about the data collection effort in the last post. (Excellent post)

The shops and police don't want the crossing because its on a bend?? LOL

So how would they explain the only crossing that is provided; right on top of the roundabout ( ie on a bend) outside the EDT, where traffic comes at you from several directions, where drivers need to have eyes in the back of their heads to watch the traffic on the roundabout, the traffic on the road they are entering, and the likelihood of suicidal pedestrians stepping straight of the pub onto the road whilst still thinking about the last beer they had.

And then of course, there are the cyclists, many zipping along, that ignore most of the rules and carry on any way, even when pedestrians are on the crossing!!!

I believe that there is a general consensus that a crossing is needed. If a census team sat at three points along Lordship Lane and counted all of the pedestrians who risked a crossing between moving cars over the road, it would be in the hundreds in a day.

Sadly , what is needed is a death. Where fatalities occur in other parts of London, crossing shave magical appeared despite all concerns about position. But I am not volunteering!!

I'm still up for traffic lights and raised pedestrianised crossing surfaces.!!

[easytiger]

Hello Mary and hello all.

The data collection process and stats do seem to be odd. There have been several accidents with a car almost squashing a baby and people sitting outside of the Bish. To answer Rgutsell briefly as nobody else seems to be doing so, drivers must slow down anyway when approaching a roundabout no? A third crossing on that roundabout should come in usefull.

[contrary mary]

Hi easytiger to reiterate the ongoing issues with the ED grove/Lordship Lane Junction will be resolved soon, we all know that junction is dangerous. My first post spoke about the Pedestrian crossing outside Somerfields. The fact that it is on a bend was not ideal, ideally moved down to the junction with ED grove would be much better.

Today I stood by the traffic lights by Icelands for 45 Minutes and the amount of people including mothers with babies had crossed over by the Palmerston Pub. I asked a couple of the people who did this why they did not use the crossing, their answer was "could not be bothered to wait for the lights to change", although they change very quickly???

Rgutsell I am happy you found my post amusing, although that was not the response I expected, however I am slightly concerned with a "death needed to make a change" statement. This is not true, there is a meeting with Southwark officers next week concerning road safety issues, and after that I will be happy to report the outcome.

Thanks again Forumites

[Gimme]

Contrary Mary - You tell me that the post I made saying that there was funding for traffic lights at the junction was incorrect. That's interesting given that someone pretty senior in Southwark Council told me that there was funding for this during a phone conversation I had with them.

Having said that, it wouldn't be the first time someone senior in Southwark Council has been telling porkies. Another senior council officer told me that the council were pulling together a plan to make Matham Grove safer (from all the traffic that the council directs down Matham Grove to save them implementing a right turn on East Dulwich Grove/LL) and that hasn't materialised. In fact, Contrary Mary - taking a guess at who you really are - you may even have been there when they said that.

I get the impression that Southwark Council talk a good game but the only thing they seem to be spending money on is low ramps on roads off LL which have absolutely no impact on car speed. In fact, why did they spend all that time and money on those ramps???