second pedestrian light by Sydenham station

[Rachael]

Wow! lots of debate! My reason for asking was not about the differing opinions of divers and pedestrians or even cyclists. It was simply a question as to why there are now two sets of lights (only one of which is on the plans that are available online) 25 feet from each other and why is it that they didn't consider separating them a bit more. It just seems illogical to have them so close regardless of traffic.

Driving along Sydenham Road yesterday at rush hour with both sets of lights operational, it didn't make too much difference to the flow of traffic. The traffic is slow approaching the roundabout anyway, and having to stop for thirty seconds to a minute at one or other (or both) sets of pedestrian controlled lights didn't make it any slower. Although it seems strange that they are so close together, I don't think they will cause much delay.

The explanation for why there are two sets of lights is in this thread somewhere - the second set are related to the cycle route that comes out at Venner Road and are not on the original plans due to the usual problem of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. It does seem daft having two so close together, but it's done now.

[mikej]

OMG, Harrybuddha is completely off his head.
He seems to think it is fine to stroll (without looking) into the road and all will be fine.
Go back to planet zog you hairy plonker

[admin]

Calm down please. This is the place to criticise other people's views and correct errors of fact. It isn't the place to directly abuse other posters. It doesn't promote constructive discussion and it's what you agreed not to do.

If I can help it is pointing out that HB may have confused you on strict liability and presumed liability. Strict is indeed only to be found on Planet Zog. Presumed is very different and is what some countries have or being campaigned for rightly or wrongly.

I may split this thread into Sydenham Road lights and general road safety discussion depending on any following posts.

Admin

[mikej]

Dear Admin
Many apologies for my OTT outburst. I was out of order.
MJ

[Tim Lund]

Well said, Mike.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Admin et al - I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken, strict liability is what the system of road accident liability in the Netherlands and Denmark is called. Both countries a little closer to home than planet Zog.

It's a system that campaigners are trying to introduce here. Mike's little outburst shows that there's a long way to go to convince everyone of its merits.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mikej]

At least my firm"little outburst" makes sense, hairy b*****

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Did it?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[admin]

Admin et al - I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken, strict liability is what the system of road accident liability in the Netherlands and Denmark is called. Both countries a little closer to home than planet Zog.

Sorry, I was trying to move the discussion away from misleading definitions to substance.

The definitions I was using (which I should have clarified):

STRICT LIABILITY: Any liability arising from an incident between car/bike/cycle/pedestrian than liability is assigned backwards. That is the car driver is liable for any incident with bike/cycle/pedestrian and so on.

PRESUMED LIABILITY: As above but it is only presumed. It is the onus on the presumed to show they were not. In our parlance innocence has to be proven rather than guilt. Bit like when you get a speeding or parking ticket.

To confuse matters presumed is sometimes called strict and campaigners against use images of drivers being held responsible for collisions by suicidal peds. And for people who are not into the subtleties of legal language to misinterpret what is being campaigned for. Hence a change by many campaigners to the more accurate definition. There are some who really want strict STRICT but I believe that doesn't include the main groups.

If we could use the definitions above in this debate it would be helpful to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Maybe HB could clarify which is closest to their point.

Admin

PS I will split this post when I get back to a proper computer. So if you don't see it here it will be in Town Pub.
PS2 There is also a similar issue over the word accident. This has been used whether the event was accidental or not. The Met now use the words incident or collision on their yellow boards rather than accident as the point is to determine whether it was or not.

[hairybuddha]

Admin - Thanks. Although this doesn't really clarify anything as I don't really agree with your definitions. Not that it matters as the thread has gone past the "reasonable spirited debate" stage and is well into the "mike throwing insults around" stage.

So you might as well just lock this one up and be done with it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[admin]

I was hopeful that you and Mike might at least agree on what you disagree about.

However we determine liability will be unfair to some. The difficulty is weighing up the benefits to the individual and the community (which may differ) before deciding which way to legislate. Its never going to be unanimous. Its dangerous if we let misunderstandings continue to cloud the debate.

Perhaps you can clarify your view on liability so Mike (and me) can properly understand your position.

Admin

[Checkmate]

Wow! lots of debate! My reason for asking was not about the differing opinions of divers and pedestrians or even cyclists. It was simply a question as to why there are now two sets of lights (only one of which is on the plans that are available online) 25 feet from each other and why is it that they didn't consider separating them a bit more. It just seems illogical to have them so close regardless of traffic.

I have to say, after seeing the thread title, I hoped to find an answer to this question as well coll!

Perhaps I should casually divert this thread onto a discussion about the futility or not of trying to keep a thread on topic? Maybe Admin can split it into three threads by the time we're done?

Or maybe not!

back to topic..... we now have a set of lights each side of the railway bridge, one half way down the high street, and pedestrian lights on the Mayow Road junction..... Plus I believe the Newlands Park junction is going to be done? And I bet you will still find people crossing the road in random places.

[mikej]

Checkmate, you are sure to be right!
Sydenham is not a place for nervous drivers with all these pedestrians trying to be run over.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

What is called strict liability on the continent is loosely what you define as presumed liability above. I would be in favour of that system in this country, especially in civil courts. This wouldn't work on its own but would contribute to more civilised streets if combined with better design. Sydenham, and the whole of Lewisham really, is 40 years and counting behind best practise in this area. So we have to put up with our high street being a convenient through route for most of SE England it seems.

Our thinking is so car centric that people can get away with saying that the High St is "dangerous for drivers" or we get annoyed when people want to cross the road (probably gridlocked in any case) somewhere other than designated crossing places. The roads were not built for cars and it is time that the balance was tipped back in the other direction.

Lewisham btw has the lowest car ownership of any borough in London so why do we keep building to accommodate an inefficient, polluting, selfish mode of transport?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Aurorablast]

On a positive note...after injecting the 2nd thrombosis in Sydenham's main artery....Penge looks so much more attractive. Well done.

[Eagle]

It is an artery but does it benefit Sydenham people ?

The artery is purely for through traffic and one wonders how many of them need to be driving.

[dickp]

Perhaps we should set up barriers at each end of the high street, and appoint a committee to vet each car driver individually, to ensure their journey is "important".

Jeeuss, the level of anti-car sentiment on here is tedious. It is also a decidedly "London" thing. Those of us who grew up outside the capital, and have a life beyond zone 9 (yes, it does exist), just can't comprehend why the car is hated so much.

Perhaps, just once, you should consider what life would be life without private transport: no deliveries to your beloved "local" shops; little old ladies confined to their houses because they can't lug shopping onto the bus; families and friends separated from each other because one party has ordacity to live outside London's travelcard zones; tradespersons who can't fix your boiler because they can't carry their tools to your property; the countryside and outer London suburbs completely off-limits.

Shall I go on?

[hairybuddha]

How do people in Assen or Copenhagen get their boilers fixed Dick? All those little old ladies must be so lonely with no family to visit and the population must be starving with no food in the shops.

Or perhaps they have worked out a different way to arrange their public spaces that works better than ours? Take the blinkers off.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Ironically you have stumbled across one solution to Sydenham high st. Setting up filtered permeability at either end, allowing access only for residents and deliveries would make a huge difference. That is not anti car, it is pro people and public space.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dickp]

Modal split, all trips in relation to the City of Copenhagen:

Cars: 33%
Bus / train: 22%
Cycle: 26%
Walk: 19%

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europea ... nhagen.pdf

Yep, no one travels by car in Copenhagen. Except that 33% that do. How annoying.