second pedestrian light by Sydenham station

[stuart]

Forgive me Maestro but your right to go (or not to go) through this pedestrian crossing once a month en route to Cumbria is hardly relevant to this discussion. Nobody has, yet, suggested banning traffic. Just ways in which traffic might be encouraged to reduce ever so little which, indeed, would help drivers and cyclists make their essential journeys to Cumbria or John 'O Groats when the need arises.

So would you be in favour of reconsidering the layout around the bridge to make it easier for everyone?

Stuart

[maestro]

There's some great fishing around Cape Wrath, I frequently get to Scourie just down the road from it. As for the High Street, so long as the dangerous crossing on the brow by the station is replaced, this would be a considerable improvement. Is it going to be?

[hairybuddha]

I think we can safely put maestro and his driving habits in the "statistical outlier" category

[mikej]

Whenever I drive through Sydenham (not often) I am amazed at the way pedestrians stroll into the road without looking even if they aren't on their phones or ipod-ed up.

Some sort of death wish?

[hairybuddha]

Some very silly people around. Although it would be nice if as pedestrians we didn't have to be perma-vigilant for fear of traffic. The danger is caused by the presence of motor vehicles, not the actions of the pedestrian.

[marymck]

Good grief. Of course one should be vigilant crossing the road. Night times are especially dangerous. Remember "wear soething bright in the night?" If someone wanders into the path of a train or tacks across the bow if a container ship, there's an expectation the vehicle Can't stop on a sixpence. The same is true if cars. Even at a polluting 20mph. Pedestrians have a responsibility to engage their brains before stepping off the kerb. The fact is that the high street is not a pedestrianized zone.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Yes I agree you should be vigilant at all times when out. Not on i pods , phones etc. Especially vigilant when crossing the road even with light in your favour as you would at a railway level crossing , even if light in your favour.

Some people are asking to be knocked down or mugged.

Why do people have to have head phoned on whilst walking. Is it a disaster if they miss one Archers episode ( their is an omnibus on Sundays ).

[hairybuddha]

Which part of my post do you disagree with Mary?

"It would be nice if we didn't have to be perma-vigilant for fear of traffic"?
"Danger is caused by the presence of motor vehicles"?
"Some very silly people around"?

No I don't remember "wear something bright in the night". Although it sounds like exactly the kind of victim blaming mentality that makes people think cyclists should be clad in fluorescent yellow and covered in body armour.

[hairybuddha]

Why do people have to have head phoned on whilst walking. Is it a disaster if they miss one Archers episode ( their is an omnibus on Sundays ).

Eagle - That's a very odd thing to say. We should be able to live in an environment where walking around wearing headphones is not some kind of deviant, dangerous activity.

[Eagle]

Unfortunately HB people with crime on their mind thrive on people who have no idea what is going on round them.

Sad but we do have criminals in our society , who seem to have to commit many crimes before being locked up.

[hairybuddha]

OK - But why blame the person wearing headphones?

[marymck]

Which part of my post do you disagree with Mary?

"It would be nice if we didn't have to be perma-vigilant for fear of traffic"?
"Danger is caused by the presence of motor vehicles"?
"Some very silly people around"?

No I don't remember "wear something bright in the night". Although it sounds like exactly the kind of victim blaming mentality that makes people think cyclists should be clad in fluorescent yellow and covered in body armour.

Your first and second points, as in you list above.
1. I believe pedestrians should be sensible when crossing the road. This means being vigilant.
2. Pedestrians can and do cause motor accidents, by being unaware of their surroundings.

Re. your third point. I agree there are some silly people around. Sadly, motorists as well as pedestrians and other road users. But whereas all motorists are at some point pedestrians, not all pedestrians are motorists. So maybe there is an element of genuine ignorance in that some cannot even imagine what the view from a car is like. The "wear something bright (or white) advertising campaign was I believe aimed at those pedestrians who had no imagination and believed motorists could see invisible figures in the dark. It wasn't't about blame. It was about encouraging people to think.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Vigiliant? Yes. Perma-vigilant, which is what I said, surely not. In any case, the burden of responsibility is on the person conducting the activity which presents the danger. That means the motorist. Pedestrians have absolute right of way. If you want to drive through a built up area the onus is on you to not run anyone over.

In more enlightened countries they have "strict liability" which means the motorist is presumed to be at fault in collisions with more vulnerable road users. This is a far more sensible reflection of the balance of risk attached to each activity.

I don't disagree that people should be vigilant when crossing Sydenham High St, but that is just a consequence of the environment that we have chosen to build. It doesn't have to be like that.

[marymck]

In more enlightened countries they have laws against jay walking.

Pedestrians have absolute right of way? On British highways? Hmm don't remember that one in the highway code. But if that's so, it's as sensible as sail before steam. Many a yachtsman's last words.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Jay walking enlightened? So you are in favour of criminalising walking in the road?

Pedestrians and cyclists have access to the public highway by right - Motor vehicles under license.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Oh for God's sake! I'm beginning to see why sydenham high street is such a dangerous place for drivers. Thankfully our courts have some sense and, unlike in some of your"enlightened" strict liability countries, such as Saudi Arabia, no driver would be convicted if a reckless person wilfully stepped out in front of them, giving the no time to stop, and thereby causing an accident. But thankfully not everyone wants their last words to be "it was my right of way". I hope we teach our children the green cross code and they'll have more sense than some of their elders.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Sydenham High St is dangerous for drivers? Oh dear, beyond parody.

Case law shows that the courts find liability weighted against motoristsin most car/pedestrian collisions.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

I think you are confusing strict liability with Sharia Law. I am referring to the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Are you an ambulance chasing lawyer or professional claimant? No offence meant. Just joking and I can see we'll never agree. jay walking an offence in Canada, Australia, Switzerland and many other parts of the world. Northern Ireland too, though unlikely you'll be fined there. Be especially careful in Singapore though, where it gets a prison sentence. Good luck and keep safe.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[coll]

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.