Yet another bad smash in Lawrie Park Road

[stuart]

The 176 was on diversion at 4am this morning - Lawrie Park Road was blocked because of yet another bad smash. The police were removing two badly damaged vehicles - there may have been more judging from the amount of debris scattered around.

Too many people have already been killed on this road. It ought to be a pleasant wide open road. Instead it is a death trap with dangerously parked cars, buses that have to squeeze passed each other with keep left signs often taken on the right or used to demonstrate their Jeremy Clarkson slalom skills.

What to do? Imposing a 20mph limit might help, but will it stop those who think the 30mph limit is a joke? Any better suggestions?

Stuart

[mosy]

You might (or not) find this useful, being a .pdf of who's in charge of accident improvements:

"Roger Lawson chairs our Transport sub-committee. He has written a note that sets out the responsibilities for decision making on traffic matters in Chislehurst here..." (2010)

You'll have to use the "here..." from the webpage as I don't know how to copy .pdf addresses:
http://www.chislehurst-society.org.uk/P ... affic.html

Anyway, although it specifically relates to Bromley, I imagine it's the same for other boroughs.

My one-line synopsis is that a proposed improvement has to be cost effective against a backdrop of registered fatalities being measured in monetary amount vs budget availability. It might be useful to know that although bus routes are TFL controlled, parking on them still seems to sit with the council (according to my reading at least) so an indicator of whose cage to rattle?

---

I'm sure the traffic planners could think of something, like those remote controlled gates that only buses and emergency vehicles can pass through, or those rise & fall bollards that would stop cars speeding through. But if it's down to cost, forget it. I recall a statistics schedule about 5-6 years ago of how many fatal accidents had to occur before a blackspot was deemed worthy of fixing. I was astonished - no such fear of "accident waiting to happen" by a very long chalk.

[stuart]

Thank you for your reply. Trouble is half of LPR is in Lewisham and the other half in Bromley which probably makes it at least twice as hard to get anything done. You probably can't quote deaths in the other borough.

One thought I did have is to try and get TfL to campaign for a 24hr bus lane on the east (towards Penge) side. AFAIR all properties that side have off street parking or space for it so we could de-clutter one side without too much inconvenience. This would give very much better sight lines for pedestrians and motorists (particularly those emerging from side roads/entrances), make it easier for buses and reduce swerving round obstacles without replacing it with a wider racetrack for budding Sterling Moss's. It would be much safer for cyclists too.

The west (towards Kirkdale) side has a lot of housing without off road parking so that may be more challenging. Still some double yellow lines around corners (Border Road, Lawrie Park Gardens etc) would also improve sight lines avoiding a lot of 'poking out in hope' manouvres. Cost is mostly paint. I think we have lost about 6 lives in recent years which ought to enough to buy us a few cans.

Are the Bromley speed advisory/warning signs effective at slowing motorists do we know?

Stuart

[leenewham]

The most effective signs are the smily face ones that look sad when you exceed the speed limit, otherwise known as Vehicle Activated Signs (I have no data, I was told it ages ago).

"In a study conducted by TRL for the UK Department for Transport one of the conclusions was that vehicle activated signs appear to be very effective in reducing speeds; in particular, they are capable of reducing the number of drivers who exceed the speed limit and who contribute disproportionately to the accident risk, without the need for enforcement such as safety cameras."

[somerandombloke]

The most effective signs are the smily face ones that look sad when you exceed the speed limit, otherwise known as Vehicle Activated Signs (I have no data, I was told it ages ago).

"In a study conducted by TRL for the UK Department for Transport one of the conclusions was that vehicle activated signs appear to be very effective in reducing speeds; in particular, they are capable of reducing the number of drivers who exceed the speed limit and who contribute disproportionately to the accident risk, without the need for enforcement such as safety cameras."

I dunno theres one over on Croxted Rd told me I was driving at 690 the other day!!!

[chrisj1948]

I dunno theres one over on Croxted Rd told me I was driving at 690 the other day!!!

.... which must have been extremely irritating when you were scrupulously keeping your speed at or below 685!

Regards
Chris

[stuart]

"In a study conducted by TRL for the UK Department for Transport one of the conclusions was that vehicle activated signs appear to be very effective in reducing speeds; in particular, they are capable of reducing the number of drivers who exceed the speed limit and who contribute disproportionately to the accident risk, without the need for enforcement such as safety cameras."

That's good. I prefer persuasion to enforcement where possible.

Getting back to dangerous corners. Here is the corner of LPR/LPG right now. Imagine you are turning left to go onto LPR towards Sydenham. Note the line means you have to go near the centre of the road before you can actually turn. If that red Micra was the white van on the left (it quite often is) you are completely blind until part of your vehicle has crossed the centre line of LPR. While I was taking it a bus doing 30mph zoomed by in the middle (lower picture). Imagine it or another vehicle had been going the other way. With vehicles parked on both sides side there is no way for it to go. This situation is repeated in many places in the road. This accounts for a fair proportion of the crashes. And who gets blamed? I doubt it is the owner of the parked vehicle.

There used to be a rule of not parking within a certain distance of a junction. I've forgotten it. I guess few now learn it. No one enforces it.





BTW that pillar box has been replaced at least once having been demolished by a speeding vehicle on LPR that 'lost it' and swerved to avoid a head on.

Stuart

[Rachael]

There has never been a rule as such, just guidance in the Highway Code that is not enforceable. Should be, though. Like people who park right by traffic islands and stop other traffic getting through, forcing it on to the other side of the road.

[stuart]

A bit of research shows that a properly authorised PCSO can issue a FPN for 'Causing an unnecessary obstruction' - Contrary to regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

HC rule 243 gives guidance, as you say, that this includes being within 10 metres (32ft) of a junction. The HC uses SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT because if there is no obstruction but is within 10 metres there is no offence. I think you will probably agree, however, that in the picture above the driver of the red Micra is obstructing and would have little defence if such a FPN was issued.

But they don't do they? Should recent events encourage us at, say, the next Sydenham Assembly to request the police to consider issuing FPNs if a polite warning has been ignored?

When I took the test none of these regulations or metres existed so there was something else in force. I find it frustrating that no one ever updates you on changes in motoring law. It would have been simple and helpful up to October last year to include a short written annual summary when DVLA sent you your tax disc.

Stuart

[Rachael]

I took my test about twenty years ago and I distinctly remember being taught to park a certain number of feet away from the junction, and learning that distance for the bit where the examiner used to ask you questions on the Highway Code.

[Bunty]

I live on a corner (Newlands park / Tredown road) and we have double yellows around the junction on both roads. I assumed this was consistent and the law. Parking is bad enough but safety is paramount. I cannot believe that people park as per the pictures.

[alywin]

[There used to be a rule of not parking within a certain distance of a junction. I've forgotten it. I guess few now learn it. No one enforces it.

15 foot?

Bromley enforce it insofar as they have painted pretty excessive double yellow lines at all their junctions with Venner Road, so Byne, Wiverton etc. The lines take up so much space you could probably safely park another car at any of those junctions. It didn't stop someone parking on Venner and totally overlapping the end of one of the side roads the other night, though

[Suzee]

I live on a corner (Newlands park / Tredown road) and we have double yellows around the junction on both roads. I assumed this was consistent and the law. Parking is bad enough but safety is paramount. I cannot believe that people park as per the pictures.

Well they do on Tredown and Homecroft corner.... because that side is under Lewisham. I could post some photos on crazy parking there. No yellow lines. Opposite, however, on Tredown and Byne, the newly repainted double yellow keep you well away from the corner. That bit is in Bromley.

Don't get me stated on the current parking problems on Tredown. Roll on a CPZ!

I agree getting anything done is difficult with two councils.

[JRobinson]

that is one reason why there are double yellow lines at corners, making it 'more enforeceable' not to park too close to the corner - still not enforeced as often as it should be though.
there is a legal document that some of you might have heard of, it gets updated with new legislation, traffic rules, regulations etc, on a regular basis, and you can buy a copy of it at most good book stores - it's called 'The Highway Code'. If you buy a recent copy and read it, you might be surprised at how the law has changed since you passed your test.
#justsayin

[edit to add] - where a borough boundary goes across a road, or along the middle of a road, it's normal for both parties to have a boundary agreement so that only one council is responsible for the whole road, even though some of it is in the other borough.

[jabbba]

The double yellows on the Tredown / Newlands Park junction were installed by Lewisham council because the dangerous nature of that spot was brought to their attention by local residents. Ok, it took a while (over a year) but action was taken. Whatever other actions might be considered re CPR, it must be worth flagging up the obvious trouble spots to the relevant council.

Initial contact was to transport@lewisham.gov.uk

[Suzee]

The double yellows on the Tredown / Newlands Park junction were installed by Lewisham council because the dangerous nature of that spot was brought to their attention by local residents. Ok, it took a while (over a year) but action was taken. Whatever other actions might be considered re CPR, it must be worth flagging up the obvious trouble spots to the relevant council.

Initial contact was to transport@lewisham.gov.uk

Thanks! Was looking for a parking contact at Lewisham. Will drop them an email.

[Rachael]

that is one reason why there are double yellow lines at corners, making it 'more enforeceable' not to park too close to the corner - still not enforeced as often as it should be though.
there is a legal document that some of you might have heard of, it gets updated with new legislation, traffic rules, regulations etc, on a regular basis, and you can buy a copy of it at most good book stores - it's called 'The Highway Code'. If you buy a recent copy and read it, you might be surprised at how the law has changed since you passed your test.
#justsayin

[edit to add] - where a borough boundary goes across a road, or along the middle of a road, it's normal for both parties to have a boundary agreement so that only one council is responsible for the whole road, even though some of it is in the other borough.

Not all off the Highway Code is legally enforceable. Only those rules that state that you MUST or MUST NOT do something, using those words. Others are advice.

[bensonby]

There used to be a rule of not parking within a certain distance of a junction. I've forgotten it. I guess few now learn it. No one enforces it.

I've given tickets for it before. Funnily enough police can't enforce double-yellow lines but the only parking ticket they can give out is one for "unnecessary obstruction" for which parking within 10m of a junction would include. I must admit I've only ever given them out to those cars that are really taking the absolute mick by virtually overhanging the junction.