Traffic Lights @ Forest Hill Road

[Mrs Y]

I totally agree with Simon, The most obvious exit route would be to turn right into Colyton Road but this would take them passed the school, so presumably this is why this route has been chosen. As for Everyman comments I was sitting in sationary traffic this evening heading South on Forest Hill Road when I witnessed two near misses with cyclists having to ride up the centre of the road and even worse children trying to cross behind a stationary bus. I have lived near Forest Hill Road for Twenty Five Years and have never seen or heard of an accident on the old crossing and it certainly never casued the the problems the lights have in such a short time. Surely the whole point of change is to improve the environment not to take backward steps. Fine if its a short fix, but there is most definately a need to restore the orginal crossing on completion. People have also mentioned consultation, surely this is not only to mention it at Community Council meetings for the usual few activists to decide upon but for the local community to have a voice.

Mrs Y

[SeanMacGabhann]

I have been reluctant to chime in on this one - I am undecided myself. I can think of several badly phased traffic lights on many a road around routes into ED and by badly phased I mean "not helping anyone - driver/pedestrian/bus"

But I do happen to use this particular junction in question and can see everyman's point as well. I like to think I don't need a helping hand from over-zealous lights but I have crossed that particular junction a few times and thought I had "been lucky" with respect to dodgy interpretation of the crossing in it's current form. So I think something needs to be done around there - just not sure the light-phasing is it

Then again drivers who take the "I am frustrated so it's not my fault if I get aggressive to people around me or drive recklessly which may endanger people's lives" should either take a chill pill or not drive. There is a bigger world than your journey to and from wherever.

[PowerCorruptionLies]

I may be missing a trick here but surely the easiest way to deal with this issue would have been to "temporarily" close the pedestrian crossing at this point in the road (if my memory serves me correctly there are two alternative crossings within 20 metres or so of this spot).

It seems that the root problem is that effective town planning would involve setting out the streetscape to allow for the free and safe movement of all modes of transit (people, cars, buses, bicycles etc.) whereas in reality much of the decision making by local government in these areas is "politicised" to meet an agenda (e.g. we are pro-bicycle and anti-car etc.) resulting in ineffectual results as town planners impose "solutions" that work in their political theory but fail in reality. In this case I'm sure that Southwark would find it politically unacceptable to contemplate a solution that might be conceived to inconvenience pedestrians (i.e. ask them to walk 20 metres to the next crossing) and hence we end up with a situation where all other modes of transit are disadvantaged (with the consequential negative impact on the local environment in the form of increased pollution, noise etc. and as some comments have indicated greater danger to cyclists who attempt to jump the resultant traffic queues.)

Unfortunately, many of the services charged to local government a similarly blighted by such "politicised" thinking which results in their delivery being sub-standard. I remember reading the Walworth Road Project consultancy documents produced by Southwark in which it was stated that the leading factor in decision making were the views of the London Cycling Campaign. All very nice in theory until you remember that the majority of people travelling down Walworth Road probably do so by bus, not on a bicycle. As a result the narrowed road space (left behind after the pavements have been widened) means that in reality rather than a utopian space in which bicycles freewheel down empty streets we have the reality in which harried cyclists struggle along with a line of slow moving buses trapped in a crawl behind them (unpleasant for the bicycle rider and annoying for the bus passengers!) I am not of course suggesting that views should not be taken and considered from all relevant sources, however any decisions need to be lead by the practical needs of the situation (which in London, as I said from the outset means to keep everybody moving, freely and safely) not the utopian dreams of Ivory Tower planners.

Afterall, as I believe the tag line of a Honda advert once ran: "aren't we all just trying to get someplace!"

[Asset]

everyman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> And, Asset, as for the idea that queueing causes

> frustration and reckless driving so that's why the

> lights should go I would suggest that as traffic

> lights are not uncommon sight in any London

> commute then if someone is going to be affected by

> one more set they really shouldn;t be at the

> wheel. But hey, let's pander to them rather than

> think about the safety of lcoal residents.

There is a big difference between being held up in excessively long queue and stopping for a few minutes at a red light, wouldn't you agree? Most people who drive accept stopping at red lights for an acceptable time but aren't we talking here about extremely long hold-ups?

[SimonM]

There is certainly no crossing 20 metres away and you really do need a pedestrian crossing between the doctors's surgery, park entrance and bus stop on one side of the road, and the parade of shops on the other.

[MadWorld74]

the new lights create a damn load of traffic congestion. It took me ages to get home last night on the 63. Why are they there for f*cks sake?! If there's going to be any accidents, it'll be me hurling myself out of the window of the top deck of the bl**dy bus.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Walking is very stress-relieving. By the time you get to these lights you'e nearly home anyway. Hop off a stop earlier adn you will avoid the problem, get that little bit fitter and be less stressed

(I'm not saying the traffic lights shouldn't be re-phased - just offering practical solutions. )

I know people can say "well why should I just because..." etc and that may be true but it's not going to help. Walking helps. Trust me

[Nero]

Walking is good for you. We are designed to walk and be active. Sitting on a slow-moving bus with a driver who doesn't understand that amber lights mean slow down and passengers you'd prefer not to be with is stressing. You might not think it is, but it all adds up. I walk as much as possible and wouldn't think twice about walking from the Upper East Side to LL and back again a few times each day. As for the road to-do, I suspect the lights are a fixed feature for a good few years, unfortuunately. (And not having a zebra x-ing means that in order to keep up my pace when running and not stop, I have to run around the electricity generator a couple of times to wait for the green man.) Nero

[PeckhamRose]

Which is why roundabouts are the answer in many, many cases. Each road leading up to it should have a zebra crossing, and all car drivers will know they will not be held up unnecessarily (ie just because the light is red, even tho there's no traffic crossing his path). We tried hard for this at the Peckham Rye SE15 junction with East Dulwich Road but the council ignored us. Have any of you emailed either or both of those two email addresses I listed (I think top email of this second page)? If everyone did that they may take note, as you who wrote regarding the 37 bus route made clear.

[kford]

The US stop sign system works well too. Again, eye contact helps the traffic flow safely. But that, like the US turn-right-at-a-red-if-clear system would be just too simple to consider.

[Mrs Y]

Evening,

Just a quick update, I have received an acknowledgement from Southwark's call centre following my recent email. Let's hope it gets to the right department before the new Harris Academy is built. On a more positive note it appears the lights have been re-phased as the South bound traffic seemed a little lighter tonight. Here's hoping!

Mrs Y

[therapist]

I signed up for the ED forum just so I could put my two-penny worth in about those traffic lights. I am relieved to hear they are a temporary measure. Traffic statistics show that junctions do not become safer because traffic lights are installed. It may be counter-intuitive but road safety engineers know that drivers take more care at junctions where they have to think about the crossing rather than it being timed for them. Roll on the end of the water works, I say!

[SeanMacGabhann]

And I notice you didn't stop at the traffic lights thread athome - good stuff

These particular lights seem to be especially annoying to most people (I still hate the ones on top of Dog Kennel Hill the most) but have you got any link to those stats you quote?

[*Bob*]

More traffic-light reports after the weekend.

Utterly ridiculous. Groups of puzzled-looking pedestrians standing for what seems like an eternity by their 'wait here' point just to get across a few feet of road that was perfectly safe to cross previously. Everyone is looking at each other on this and that side of the road with that 'wtf is going on?!' look.

The most stupid thing about it is that when there were no lights, driver drove more carefully because yes, there were zebras there, but more likely because here was an uncontrolled junction which required a tiny amount of common-sense driving they didn't want a prang. Now there are lights. And as everyone knows, in London, Green means safe to go. Yellow also means safe to go. And red also means safe to go if you get get up against the bumper of the car in front fast enough.

So even if you're a pedestrian waiting at crossing with very little car activity going-on, you don't want to cross in case someone comes hurtling down in a car, and seeing a yellow light, puts their foot down in order to beat it whilst forgetting to put their indicators on.

[SimonM]

Excellent post Bob...agree with every word

[Marmora Man]

FOR INFO:

I raised the following with Southwark Council:

"There is some concern that these temporary lights could become permanent.

Is there a fail safe mechanism that will ensure their removal unless positive action is taken to make them permanent ? or, as I fear, is it the other way around?

That unless positive action is taken to ensure their removal then, inertia and general bureaucratic laziness will result in them becoming permanent."

I received the reply below:

"I have been passed your e-mail and asked to respond to the query

The lights are temporary and funded both for the installation and the ongoing maintenance by Thames Water while the tunnel works for the ring main are in progress.

At the end of this period the lights will be removed unless a case is made for their retention on the grounds that the arrangement is better than reverting to the previous arrangement.

To establish this will require monitoring of the usage plus consultation with interested parties including the Community Council. If it is decided to keep the lights then the maintenance cost will pass to Southwark as part of its payment to TfL covering all the traffic lights in Southwark.

Thames Water works are due to complete in March 2010 but we expect the lorry usage to diminish before so the lights will be being review about the end of 2009"

Andrew Downes

Street Scene and Transport Infrastructure Manager

London Borough of Southwark

0207 525 2091

[kford]

"unless a case is made for their retention"

These lights will be kept, mark my words.

[SimonM]

>>These lights will be kept, mark my words.<<

I agree wholeheartedly. The argument the Council will employ for retaining them will be along the lines that as everyone will after two years be used to them being there, it would be dangerous to remove them....

[SeanMacGabhann]

my forecast is that lights will be phased out or properly phased LONG before then

[kford]

Simon M is on the money with that one. I've never known lights to installed and then removed. It goes against the general ant-car policy of local councils (even though poorly sited lights affect badly bus traffic).

[Nonie]

The traffic lights are creating delay and frustration, without any apparent return in improved safety. This morning, 10 minutes was added on to my bus journey from Forest Hill Tavern to Peckham Rye Station. This was not only caused by a traffic queue from Forest Hill Tavern to the lights, formerly a clear run, but also larger numbers of people at each bus stop. The lights seem to be spacing buses out to such an extent that it is most likely doubling numbers of people picked-up at each stop, thus causing more delays. I can't believe that anything but temporary lights would have been put in-place for 'water board works'. I am wondering whether the lights were put in as one or more fatal accidents took place at this junction. I've lived here for 6 years but have never seen any issues. Does anyone know?? If this is this case, it might just be a matter of re-timing the lights, rather than removing them. That might just ease the congestion everyone seems to be suffering from, whilst giving us the saftey we all need. I will lobby the council with this view.

[zephyr]

These ights are great as we have to use the junction to take the kids to school and back again. Crossing Forest Hill Road has always been a nightmare in a car. Even if the lights go I do not want the raised entrance to Colyton Road back as it can be quite dangerous if you are on a motorbike due to the way you have yo approach it.

I say keep them.

[Marmora Man]

So far the ratio for / against is about 3 / 50. It's in everyone's interest to ensure Southwark council does either remove the lights o/c of the Thames Water engineering or conducts a proper consultation about their possible retention.

If we become lazy or complacent they will certainly become a permanent feature.

[tor]

I agree - if everyone who has posted on here emails the relevant people at the council then at least we should get a proper consultation at the end of it to decide whether or not they stay.

Personally I think they're ridiculous: dangerous for cyclists, time wasting for car users and no safer for pedestrains. The least the council could do is change the timings so that the main road lights stay green for longer than 25 seconds (I timed them this morning!).

[James]

Was listening to a report on radio 4 the other day about a town in Denmark where the mayor has decided to remove ALL traffic lights and give cars, pedestrians and cyclists equal right of way in all situations - following a similar scheme elsewhere that REDUCED accidents.

Why are we moving in the opposite direction!? Is it some weird idea that we need to try to put people off driving by making it more inconvenient?