Dangerous pedestrian crossing on Sydenham Rd

[Robin Orton]

Driving up Sydenham Road this evening, I nearly failed to see pedestrians on the crossing on the crest of the railway bridge just above Sydenham station. This is not the first time this has happened to me. The lighting on the crossing is inadequate or non-existent, and its position means that to anyone driving up the hill people on the crossing wearing dark clothing are barely visible against the background of the dark sky, particularly if one is also being dazzled by headlights of cars coming in the opposite direction.

Has anyone else noticed this? If so, is anything going to done about it in the forthcoming Sydenham Road improvements?

[davegr]

Totally agree. I've almost been knocked down on that crossing so many times at night. That crossing really is an accident waiting to happen.

[JeeBee]

It's getting moved in 2158 when the high street revamp finally occurs - there will be a crossing opposite the Greyhound instead. I've been nearly knocked down there too (I've complained on this forum about it some time ago), so I'm careful driving up to it - but I've never had visibility issues.

Some drivers are clearly not aware that they're meant to stop at that crossing when someone is waiting to cross, as they sail through oblivious.

[mosy]

I think many have either been nearly knocked down themselves or have seen someone who nearly was. I wish the public information office (whatever that is now) would run a similar TV advertising campaign to that one years ago: "Wear something white at night!" It's almost impossible to see people dressed head to toe in black in the dark however good the lighting if cars are going at speed, so...

My best suggestion would be to install a traffic light control, or, failing that, one of those "Slow your speed" flashing light signs saying "Pedestrian crossing ahead" placed well in advance of the crossing on either side, especially one on Kirkdale from which the crossing itself is invisible in advance, so too late when a car is already whizzing round the corner as some cars do.

On a car forum a while back, it was shown that safety is considered to be "risk management" in that councils take action only if enough people get knocked down as otherwise such accidents in accident black spots are written off as statistically insignificant. It seems inconceivable to me that a life or an accident victim can be considered insignificant and that nothing has or is being done regarding this crossing despite the known danger because a future potential revamp is planned in the future.

*soap box mode on*

Dear Council, we are not just numbers, we are people. Please don't forget the trauma caused to a car driver in an accident either. It's too easy to say that people should wear white and that car drivers should be more responsible as we know they won't and they don't respectively. I think that sidestepping responsibility for an obvious hazard should not be brushed aside or under the carpet by either yourselves or TFL and that something should be done now, especially as dark nights are drawing in.

*soap box mode off*

[admin]

A little history can be found here:
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id ... ra&x=0&y=0

NB "An accident waiting to happen" is an Admin Trademark. Infringement is treated seriously may result in settlement of my bar bill or a period of indefinite detention on the wobbly roundabout, viz:

http://www.sydenham.org.uk/sailor.html

Admin

[Robin Orton]

Thanks, Admin. I'm not surprised to learn that this is an old story.

But, so far as I can see at a quick glance, the most recent substantive reference is as far back as February 2005, when someone was knocked down on the crossing. After that, everything seems to have gone quiet. I wonder if there have been any further accidents? Did the campagn to get the crossing moved or modified just fizzle out? Or has it all been subsumed in the discussions about the Sydenham Road improvements, as JeeBee suggests?

[mosy]

Thanks Admin and I'll endorse your trademark. I certainly wouldn't flout it with a bar bill at stake in any case

Hi Robin Orton, Anyone who's lived here for any length of time (be it short or long) will know why Admin has trademarked the expression. Perhaps it can be brought up at the next Syd Assembly meeting (she says with hindsight given there's just been one). Another alternative is perhaps to set up one of those petitions to parliament that have to be taken account of if enough people sign up to it? I've no idea what effect such petitions have but since protestations seem to fall on deaf ears locally, perhaps "they" will wake up and smell the coffee if enough people are of the same voice.

I'd sign up to such a petition. I have on more than one occasion stopped schoolchildren from walking straight onto the crossing and being told in return that "It's mine once I step onto it". My under-breath thought is, "Yes, it should be, but in your dreams mate in reality for this crossing." Rather makes a mockery of training kids to cross at zebra or pedestrian light crossings. As for older people who can't exactly run so are sitting ducks once on the crossing...

I'm sorry, but I think it's quite shameful. Closing the crossing and forcing people to jaywalk might change the "cause of accident" statistics - but why can't there just be a safer crossing? It's not rocket science.

[Robin Orton]

NB "An accident waiting to happen" is an Admin Trademark. Infringement is treated seriously may result in settlement of my bar bill or a period of indefinite detention on the wobbly roundabout, viz [...]

Thanks Admin and I'll endorse your trademark. I certainly wouldn't flout it with a bar bill at stake in any case.

Hi Robin Orton, Anyone who's lived here for any length of time (be it short or long) will know why Admin has trademarked the expression.

I don't, I'm afraid, and I've lived here for thirty years. Is this an in-joke to which I am not privy? Do tell.

[Tim Lund]

I'm confused too by this one, Robin

[mosy]

As I see it, Admin showed links to initial reports from which it was and still is all these years later clear that the crossing was then and still is an accident waiting to happen.

I was tempted to use that phrase, that it was an accident waiting to happen, and I don't think that saying a serious accident waiting to happen from what I've seen would be an infringement of Admin's trademark What's not to be understood?

Well at least about the posts which clearly are not an in joke, just history being reported.

What is to understand in my opinion is why nothing is being done to change the accident waiting to happen. I've lived here for several years and know full well the risks on that crossing. Even if cars in one direction have stopped, it doesn't mean that others whizzing round the corner, or uphill cars, or motor bikes will.

[bensonby]

If it is such an "accident waiting to happen" then why haven't there been a plethora of accidents on it? Surely when it was put in place it was risk-asessed and so on?

Is there any actual evidence to show that there have been lots of accidents and/or near misses - apart from anecdotally. Personally I hever never experienced any accidents on or near the crossing or ever had any problem crossing there.

Perhaps an FOI request to The Met would reveal how many accidents have occured on that crossing since it's been there?

If there is any danger identified perhaps it could be mitigated in a rather cheaper fashion by a few signs a short distance away warning of the crossing ahead - rather than relocating the whole thing...

[admin]

As I see it, Admin showed links to initial reports from which it was and still is all these years later clear that the crossing was then and still is an accident waiting to happen.

I think I should make clear that was a view I held when it was created and campaigned against it - as can be gleaned from the reports. Since then I have only been aware of the one incident and it was not clear whether that had anything to do with the positioning of the crossing.

In light of experience I have reversed my view. Indeed it is now my preferred crossing point when I walk down Sydenham Road. Much preferably to the infamous cattle pens further down. I shall be sorry if and when it is replaced by a controlled crossing (that is controlling pedestrians so passers through can, well, pass through more quickly).

Yes it looks dangerous. That may paradoxically why it appears to be safe. People take extra care when crossing not assuming cars will stop. I don't think it was deliberate but road safety thinking now includes making places look dangerous so people don't chance it. Either that or we have been very lucky!

But as Bensonby suggests - its the stats that should decide.

Admin

[mosy]

How can near misses be reported other than anecdotally? I doubt they'll arrive in statistics.

I sort of agree about obvious danger being a reason to take extra care, but that only applies once one is aware from experience of how traffic flows (it is not until then that it can be viewed as an obvious danger) and so of little use to children or relatively immobile people already on the crossing who set off when it appeared safe to cross. I know I say "obvious danger" and you say "dangerous" but in semantics how would a first-timer be it on foot or in car know that it was either? Better to signpost the crossing in advance for car drivers.

"Suicide corner" (the right and left turning traffic whilst trying to cross Newlands Park) is an "obvious danger" (my phrase) IMO, but there it is clear that one has to have one's wits about them. That is different from the purported safety of "cross across a crossing".

For Newlands Park, the Syd Road lights have different time phases and can go from green to red to green almost instantly depending on time of day; the upcoming traffic lights go green before the downgoing ones go green (and clearly a pedestrian walking can only see the down-going lights. See, I've learned that, but wouldn't expect to learn that sort of thing if walking across a zebra crossing. Either it is a zebra crossing that motorists should and can see or be warned of in advance or it will continue to be a "run the gauntlet" jobby. (Or don't run if you can't.)

I fail to see how the crossing can be defended in its current form, but that's just me.

[Robin Orton]

People take extra care when crossing not assuming cars will stop.

This didn't seem to be happening in my near-miss experience the other night (see OP).

[davegr]

Is there any actual evidence to show that there have been lots of accidents and/or near misses - apart from anecdotally. Personally I hever never experienced any accidents on or near the crossing or ever had any problem crossing there.

Over the years I have nearly been hit 3 times by cars-all when I was halfway across the crossing. This may count as anecdotal but they are my anecdotes.

I guess people have been lucky. Do we have to wait until we have fatalities before the crossing is lit better/moved/whatever?