Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, this is starting to get ridiculous - there was yet another crash on the Barry Road / Underhill road crossing again today.


I don?t think that anyone was badly hurt, but the ambulance turned up to check the occupants out.


This is the third crash there in as many weeks, and in fact I think there has been two crashes there over the past 4 days...


I think the council needs to do something there, as it has only been luck that someone hasn?t been hurt more seriously.


Take care when driving up Barry Road guys!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/7201-yet-another-crash-on-barry-road/
Share on other sites

Blinking eck I was only crossing that junction shortly after 12.30 today - have to say the cars were zooming up and down that road without much care so not really surprised to hear another crash.


...and just another reason why Barry Road deserves it's own permanent Thread

trentk69 Wrote:

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


>

> I think the council needs to do something there,

> as it has only been luck that someone hasn?t been

> hurt more seriously.


Someone was seriously injured a few weeks back on a scooter. I live on that corner and it's insane how many incidents happen there. I guarantee there will be fatalities soon.

There is a real visibility problem for those travelling on Underhill towards Lordship Lane, particularly when large trucks are parked up looking left as you cross the road. I reckon a well placed traffic mirror might address that problem - although you see those more commonly on the Continent and not here. Additionally it can be quite dangerous when pedestrians decide to cross Underhill Road (on either side) without warning just when a car has committed to cross Barry Road - the car can be stranded in Barry Road unable to exit into Underhill. The 'traffic calming' reduction in road width in Underhill on both sides also makes clearing Barry Road more difficult, as do cars parked up to narrow the road even more. Barry Road and Underhill Road are both very useful rat-runs through ED, as an Underhill resident of 20+ years I welcome the attempts to reduce traffic speeds, but speed through crossings can be quite important. Possibly raised road platforms at that intersection could reduce the speed of Barry Road vehicles - allowing those travelling along Underhill to cross more safely. Barry Road is such a long straight road that it undoubtedly encourages vehicle drivers to forget that it is still very much a local and residential road.

Yeah more traffic lights, every single junction preferably, more bumps in between every junction, more and more things to punish the already sensible driver.

Or... we could concentrate on the training of drivers and punishing more sensibly those whose driving skills are found wanting and retrain them.

Just a thought.

Im with you PR I've walked and driven my car in this area for years on a daily basis and I have never had a problem with this junction ,just gotta know what your doing and drive or walk with care >Even some pedestrians seem to be away with the fairies half the time.I agree that some drivers do take advantage of the long straight road but anyone with a bit of sense should know there are lots of side roads and should drive accordingly..Punish the bad uns not careful considerate ones.

Not surprised at all...


I recently changed my cycling route to avoid Barry Road as I was beginning to fear for my life; cars going up there at dangerous speeds and not giving me enough space. I must say I came close to being clipped a few times by cars. I now go up Friern Road which is much nicer...

I think visibility is the problem here. I now avoid the junction because I find it difficult to see traffic coming from the top end of Barry Rd when driving out from the LL end of Underhill. This is not a matter of skill or ability of the driver (especially in my case!;-). A set of traffic lights would not go amiss.

Pechamrose wrote:-


Yeah more traffic lights, every single junction preferably, more bumps in between every junction, more and more things to punish the already sensible driver.

Or... we could concentrate on the training of drivers and punishing more sensibly those whose driving skills are found wanting and retrain them.

Just a thought.


Interestingly this is a rehearsal of a Benthamite argument - should we legislate so that factory machinery would have to be fenced - thus stopping child labourers falling into it, or would it be better to set a very high penalty on factory owners if workers were injured, but leave it up to them whether to fence or not (or whether to train people to work carefully, employ others to pull children away from machinery if they looked like falling in etc.) It is one of the fundemental arguments about freedom - whose freedoms should you protect, by taking away the freesom of others? British legislation decided that fencing-in machinery (taking away the factory owners freedom to choose what course of action they should take) was the better option. Putting in traffic calming measures is the equivalent, as opposed to setting high punishments on those who jeopardise life and limb through their driving skills or lack of them. I am not arguing that either way is 'right' - but it is nice to see the same philosophical issues as yet unresolved.

I think there's a fine line here between poor driving skills and poor design. I don't think anyone was asking for lights at every corner or speedbumps on every street, but this corner is clearly more dangerous than most or the thread would just be named "A crash on Barry Road".


I would happily give up my "liberties" and have lights installed if it meant all the village idiots could be a bit safer. They are, after all, our friends and neighbors.

It's not my Community COuncil area but I'm with you on that - and we do raise the problems with our Nunhead and Peckham Rye area. And of course they listen, which is why there are more bumps and traffic lights than ever before and STILL the bad drivers drive badly.

Are you suggesting that roadbumps and traffic lights don't actually help with injuries and fatalities PR?


or do we have to drag out the stats all over again


You are correct to say that no matter how many measures are in place, bad and stupid drivers will still be there - but their impact will be lessened


And if you want to enforce the existing rules more rigorously, you are probably aware that this will require methods (more use of traffic cameras )which will have people screaming "police state" before you can say "now that I think about it, traffic-calming measures weren't that bad"

I did inform the council about this a couple of years ago and they said they wouldn't be doing anything about it, partly I suspect because the emergency services use it for their needs _ irony being that they would use it less were Barry Road a safer place to drive. Barry Road has been a hellish place to drive up and down for years now. I don't know if you guys remember the incident a couple of years back on the corner with Upland when a car pulling out at 6 in the morning was hit by some nutter doing going at a ridiculous speed. Both cars ended up by the doorfront of Barry's off license. Lucky no one was hanging around, even the local fag poncer, to get mowed down! Time for humps, speed cameras, whatever...

Speed humps create excessive noise, damage cars and are bad for the environment (they waste petrol, causing cars to slow down & speed up repeatedly).


Hate to say it but what Barry Road needs is speed cameras! I never did understand why they chose instead to put up that silly sign that tells you to slow down (which everyone ignores).

I generally agree re: speedbumps and you have listed the bad points. But if the good points includes reducing deaths by even 5%, is that not so bad?


Oh and they don't waste petrol. DRIVERS waste petrol by doing the speedy up thing - if I drive on a road with speedbumps, that's telling me I should be doing 15-20 mph anyway

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Oh and they don't waste petrol. DRIVERS waste

> petrol by doing the speedy up thing - if I drive

> on a road with speedbumps, that's telling me I

> should be doing 15-20 mph anyway


This is of course true, but you have to be realistic and accept that in practise lots of (most?) people do speed up in between the bumps.


They always seem to get speed bumps wrong, anway. They're either great big lumps forcing you to slow down to under 10mph (encouraging accelerating and braking), or they're small individual mounds which any medium size car can drive over quite happily at over 30mph.

Of course, the wonderfully counter-intuitive thing would be to give priority to Underhill Road, not Barry Road (though the buses wouldn't like it). I have never had a visibility problem when in Barry Road about traffic in either leg of Underhill Road (when turning into it, for instance). That's actually what happened along Underhill about 10 or so years ago, when its priority was broken up by giving priority to even more minor roads (and by putting in a mini-roundabout). At the time, as an 'Underhiller' losing my priority seemed irksome, but it certainly also seemed to reduce minor (and not so minor) accidents.


So would enforcing a 20 mph limit on Barry, using those warning signs which light-up when you go over the designated speed.

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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • 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.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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