second pedestrian light by Sydenham station

[stuart]

Of course you would as would many others if you take what I said literally.

Which is why I used the word 'imagine'. Its about a direction of travel where we all, or at least most of us, enjoy a better shopping experience and get a revived town centre to boot. It is up to you to recognise that the current configuration is bad and getting worse. That change is difficult, has to have widespread support, will take decades of sustained pressure to achieve. Other countries have reconfigured their cities to be more people friendly. Do we have to lose out?

Its not a Sydenham thing, its not even a Lewisham thing. As you correctly identify it has to be tackled at the Metropolitan or National level.

Take the long view Dick. Use your imagination too and think how we can get there. Not easy - the vested interests (dominant retailers and the media and politicians they support) will fight to frustrate moves in this direction.

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

By way of amusing coincidence, this article popped up on my feed today and is worth a read in the context of this discussion: http://www.urbanmovement.co.uk/2/post/2 ... dales.html

And some of the reports that it links to

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policy ... gurban.htm

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ww ... q9bgYhqrXw

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ww ... pN2MGw4CBg

[Aurorablast]

Ye gads my teenage son cracked it - it's an event horizon! Here's me thinking it's merely an crapulous bit of planning; when clearly it's cosmic forces at work.

[hairybuddha]

To go briefly back on topic - Is the OP referring to the traffic lights on the South side of the bridge and the next set, opposite the bookies?

If so, I had a look at this today and it seems like a fairly reasonable gap between crossing points for a semi-urban High St. Especially one that is trying to make itself an attractive retail destination.

Back off topic - A good article on 'motorists' and 'swivel-eyed loons' http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme ... 39542.html

[Aurorablast]

The problems, imo, result as the spacing between the set of lights just before the hump-back bridge, as you leave the roundabout, and the set just after. The congestion this causes down Westwood Hill and now all the traffic feeding off to use the Penge route is a disaster. Having a disabled member in the family I have to use a car. I would dearly like to hear from Sydenham High St Traders as to how this has affected them; poor souls have had a lot to put up with the last couple of years. Why couldn't just the one set of lights have been installed where the old Zebra crossing used to be - darn sight safer for pedestrians given the enhanced visibilty.

[Rachael]

Has anybody popped into Riney's office to ask about the two sets of lights? Or contacted tfl? If the second set (at the bottom of Venner Road) was added as part of a different protocol (the cycle route) there's a good chance that one hand didn't know what the other was doing. If having the two sets of lights together is causing real problems, tell the people with the power to do something about it.

[biscuitman1978]

A few (on topic) points:

- I'm not sure which 'original plans' people are referring to. The crossings being implemented are certainly consistent with the plans on Lewisham Council's website at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/reg ... treet.aspx People really should have shouted a couple of years ago if they were concerned about the proximity of the crossings

- The locations of the crossings were, I seem to recall, driven by (a) a desire to remove the crossing from the brow of the railway bridge (which many people thought was unsafe) and (b) a desire to address pedestrians' natural desire lines (i.e. the routes that people actually take), and work undertaken in the design stage suggested that many pedestrians were leaving Station Approach having got off the train and then crossing Sydenham Road outside Palace Wines. You can see this in the image at the bottom of the page at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollecti ... yPlace.pdf

- Of course, there is a balance to strike between traffic movement and satisfying pedestrians' needs and desires (although where it's an issue of pedestrian safety vs traffic movement I'll generally favour the former). But at this stage it's surely impossible to draw any conclusions about the proximity of the crossings and their impact on traffic flow until the temporary traffic lights at the junction of Sydenham Road and Newlands Park have been removed. Perhaps we could have a more well thought out discussion once the works have been completed?

[hairybuddha]

Cheers Biscuitman, interesting background. If the issue is with the sets of lights before and after the bridge then I haven't got a problem with it. It makes sense that pedestrians should be able to cross at or near the roundabout and it also makes sense that they should be able to cross outside the station. Pedestrian needs should be prioritised over everything else (contrary to TFLs current hierarchy of provision, but ho hum) and if it creates a bit of congestion for motorised traffic so be it.

Just got in from the High St and it was bumper to bumper all the way from Dartmouth Rd to Kent House Rd, business must be booming!

[Rachael]

Having just driven Sydenham Road in both directions, I can confirm that the current tailbacks are entirely caused by the temporary lights at Newlands Park and have nothing to do with the two sets of pedestrian operated lights.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Unbelievably, with so many permanent and temporary lights, many people are still crossing just where and when they please. Even if the pedestrian crossing lights are 20 paces away! As my dear dad always said, "You can make a system foolproof; you can't make it idiot proof."

On the subject of the Greyhound roundabout though: I'm hoping we will have some yellow boxes painted there (and policed!) because part of the frustration there is caused by cars blocking the roundabout. It's a roundabout for heaven's sake! Not a car park! If you can't exit, don't enter.

I'll try to get into Riney's office this week and find out if there are plans to paint a yellow box.

I still think traffic lights (which could easily have incorporated pedestrian crossing signals) would have been better than a roundabout, given that so few people know how to use one. I'm told traffic lights were considered, but that it was decided a roundabout was a better system.

As, Rachael says - time will tell.

[Eagle]

I was in Sydenham Road this morning at at 10.00 am traffic moving quite freely , but by 11.00 bedlam set in and the roundabout was a joke.
Why do so many people toot the horn when obvious just have to be patient.

The area from Cobb's to Venner looks really good. Well done contractors


Seems far to many cars going nowhere. Somehow have to charge a lot of these motorists out of their cars to make like acceptable to the majority.

[Rachael]

Unbelievably, with so many permanent and temporary lights, many people are still crossing just where and when they please. Even if the pedestrian crossing lights are 20 paces away! As my dear dad always said, "You can make a system foolproof; you can't make it idiot proof."

On the subject of the Greyhound roundabout though: I'm hoping we will have some yellow boxes painted there (and policed!) because part of the frustration there is caused by cars blocking the roundabout. It's a roundabout for heaven's sake! Not a car park! If you can't exit, don't enter.

I'll try to get into Riney's office this week and find out if there are plans to paint a yellow box.

I still think traffic lights (which could easily have incorporated pedestrian crossing signals) would have been better than a roundabout, given that so few people know how to use one. I'm told traffic lights were considered, but that it was decided a roundabout was a better system.

As, Rachael says - time will tell.

Do they put yellow boxes on roundabouts?

I find that MOST people do the right thing at Cobbs Corner roundabout during slow moving traffic, which is not to enter if doing so will block other exits (especially as the exit at Westwood Hill and entrance to Kirkdale are so close together. You need to clear the latter to let traffic coming around to exit up Kirkdale). Also, MOST drivers, when already on the roundabout, do the courteous thing and let cars exit from Kirkdale (I have a policy of always letting one car exit from Kirkdale in front of me if the traffic approaching Sydenham is very slow. It will hardly add more than a few seconds to my journey). The traffic around the roundabout may be slow, but it does move. It is human nature to notice people doing the wrong thing, and that sticks in the mind, but generally I find people quite sensible (I often use the roundabout at peak times so I've had plenty of time to observe this!)

As far as pedestrians are concerned - where there is slow moving traffic and a lot of temporary lights, they are much more likely to nip across the road where they can. If and when the traffic is moving more freely, I would expect MOST people to use proper crossings. However, some people seem to find it an admission of weakness to use a crossing. In time, Darwinism may take effect and reduce their numbers.

[mikej]

If pedestrians ONLY crossed at the new crossings then I could happily - when I'm driving - live with that. It is the random crossing at any point that is so dangerous and upsetting for road users of all sorts. Obviously it works when traffic is backed up, but people seem to think they have the right to just cross when they like.

With regard to the Cobbs Corner roundabout, I rather preferred it they way it was a few years ago when there were two lanes going past the Greyhound towards the high street - that way the Kirkdale traffic could merge more easily into the roundabout and beyond. Someone didn't seem to approve of that though, and it didn't last long.

[hairybuddha]

Mike - You might not like it, but people DO have the right to cross wherever and whenever they like. If you find that upsetting perhaps just slow down and chill out. If you're on Sydenham High St you're not going anywhere fast in any case.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Other road users (including cyclists) have to give way to pedestruans who have already started to cross the road when a vehicle approaches. The highway code uses as its example a t junction. Obviously if a pedestrian intent on mischief, suicide or insurance claim - or is just too lazy, or arrogant, or dozy to walk an extra few yards to cross at a safe place - steps out in front of a moving vehicle, they are likely to case an accident. As I said before, no motorist can stop on a sixpence. Even at 20 mph or less. Cyclists need a safe stopping distance too.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Mary - I take your comment as being mostly in my direction (apologies if I'm mistaken). My comment to Mike was merely a statement of fact. Pedestrians have the right to cross wherever and whenever they like. We can debate all day about the merits of them so doing and what that says about their intelligence, but their right is a matter of fact.

I would say that it's a shame that we have a High St, which is supposed to be a place for people, to enjoy and gather and go about their business, that we have configured it in such a way that pedestrians are reduced to designated "safe places" to cross the road. I'm surprised that people don't see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that balance in a community public space.

On main roads and roads away from towns and cities, fine, prioritise motor traffic. But in the middle of a High St? Bonkers.

[stuart]

I'm surprised that people don't see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that balance in a community public space.

On a matter of fact - you are wrong

There was a clear consensus people wanted zebra crossings and the end of controlled crossings. That was in the first Sydenham Road consultation. This did not fit well with TfL's overiding imperitive of maximising traffic flow (this is of metal objects, not people). Hence our only Sydenham Road zebra disappeared and we have even more controlled crossings Weehee!!

The only problem good Brits as we are - we don't like being controlled. They are working on that.

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

This did not fit well with TfL's overiding imperitive of maximising traffic flow (this is of metal objects, not people).

Is this quite accurate? I thought TfL merely required no reduction in capacity, rather than the more extreme 'imperitive of maximising traffic flow'.

[marymck]

Sadly, unless the shopping centre ups and moves sticks to bell green, or some other purpose built site there is always going to be through traffic and the only things that will make it workable are common sense and common courtesy. I do give way to pedestrians waiting to cross the road, whenever it's safe and sensible for me to do so. But it is crazy for anyone to step into the road until they've established it's safe for them to do so.

Sydenham high street is one of the best supplied streets for crossing points, yet is scarier than driving down oxford street because of the number and unpredictablity of jay walkers.

Upper kirkdale, since the introduction of so called traffic calming measures has made it impossible to judge the speed of oncoming traffic, is a much more scary place to cross the road. Maybe upper kirkdale, from Dartmouth road to sydenham hill, could be made access and residents only? In fact I'm sure every town and village in the country (businesses aside) would like their patches for their own use. But let's save that for a Little Britain script and just all try to give way to anyone, motorist, cyclist, biker, or pedestrian, who needs it most.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

I'm surprised that people don't see that there is something fundamentally wrong with that balance in a community public space.

On a matter of fact - you are wrong

There was a clear consensus people wanted zebra crossings and the end of controlled crossings. That was in the first Sydenham Road consultation. This did not fit well with TfL's overiding imperitive of maximising traffic flow (this is of metal objects, not people). Hence our only Sydenham Road zebra disappeared and we have even more controlled crossings Weehee!!

The only problem good Brits as we are - we don't like being controlled. They are working on that.

Stuart

Actually, the old zebra crossing was very dangerous, especially at night when, because the zebra crossing was on the brow of a little hill, drivers were dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. That at the fact that some pedestrians would sidle up to it and step off at the last minute, while texting. I used to assume everyone was going to cross and it took forever to pass there.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]