Traffic Lights @ Forest Hill Road

[*Bob*]

Never mind the traffic systems.. bring the Danish girls over.

Although thinking about it, that might slow things up, traffic-wise.

[James]

Wouldn't affect my concentration!

[eccentric]

everyman Wrote:

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

> What all the postings seem to have forgotten so

> far is just how blooming dangerous Forest Hill

> Road is. Let's not pretend the zebra crossing was

> exactly safe as cars/bikes/buses came accelerating

> out of the speed camera that is pointlessly placed

> one hundred or so metres prior to where the hazard

> is -

I'm not sure if anyone picked up this point but that speed camera was installed as a result of a childs death crossing to the now defunct Waverley School.

[*Bob*]

I can understand why there's speed camera there. It's a speeder's paradise. Nice long stretch with no side roads - I'm not surprised there was an accident there before the camera.

The junction in question is exactly the opposite though. Lots of side roads.. plenty of opportunities to get your precious motor pranged, so drivers were always more cautious.

[kford]

And why do people speed in built up areas? Because they perceive that they've been delayed (by new traffic lights, perhaps) and have to make up lost time. It's the so-called champagne cork effect.

[kford]

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=65663&in_page_id=2

Also on BBC news website.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Errr... because like most people behind the wheel they have a false sense of security and confidence, allied to a victim mentality?

[Brendan]

IMO people speed in built up areas ?cos they?re either too stupid to realise how dangerous it is. (Not surprising when most drivers don?t even know how an automobile actually works.) Or they are just cunt who feel they have something to prove. Or a mixture of both.

Either way it is inexcusable.

Sorry I don?t mean to rant and be off topic but it is a pet bug bear of mine. I?m a motorcar enthusiast who loves driving but never ceases to be shocked by the way so many people approach it.

[kford]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> Errr... because like most people behind the wheel

> they have a false sense of security and

> confidence, allied to a victim mentality?

And that too, yes.

[beatnic]

Whilst I agree that the lights could do with improved phasing I'm interested to know...

Of those people on the forum against the lights, how many of you have to cross Forest Hill Road to take children to the park?

And what alternatives do you suggest for those people who do have children, or are considering letting older children go to the park on their own?

[Marmora Man]

Cars are now beginning to use Marmora Road and Scutari Road as a rat run to avoid the lights - either turning right onto Colyton Road and along east side of Peckham Rye or left onto Colyton and rejoing Forest Hill Road / Peckham Rye at these blasted lights. Usual morning traffic has probably doubled in last week. This manoeuvre also creates holds ups at the Cmberwell Cemetry light as cars queue to turn into Marmora.

Very little planning seems to have gone into these lights. Removing them asap and puttting a Thames Water man with a Red / Green Stop / Go sign would be cheaper, more flexible and would only impact on traffic 9 - 5 Mon - Fri. Let common sense rule.

Keep e-mailing the council and councillors

[zephyr]

As I sais before I am in favour of the lights as it makes driving across Forest Hill road alot less hazardous. There will obviously be more peope against the lights as I would suggest that many more people use the junction driving along Forest Hill Road than across it.

I can understand the objection as I drove along there today at 4.30pm - there was a huge queue not helped but the 25second lights phase.

[SimonM]

>>And what alternatives do you suggest for those people who do have children, or are considering letting older children >>go to the park on their own?

Errr....how about a zebra crossing with an island in the middle? Seemed to work fine before...

And I have used this junction for years and years both as a driver and as a pedestrian

[beatnic]

SimonM Wrote:

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

>

> Errr....how about a zebra crossing with an island

> in the middle? Seemed to work fine before...

>

> And I have used this junction for years and years

> both as a driver and as a pedestrian

People drive too fast up and down Forest Hill Road.

I don't have any statistical evidence, but I'd imagine a child stands a better chance of crossing the road safely when there's a red light for traffic and a green man for pedestrians, than chancing it at a zebra crossing.

I've witnessed countless drivers ignoring people waiting to cross. And many of the pedestrians include families with children.

[beatnic]

And I'm sorry you felt the need to be sarcastic.

[SimonM]

>>And I'm sorry you felt the need to be sarcastic<<

You asked for a suggestion, and I gave you one in all seriousness: the previous set-up worked. There's nothing illegal or even dangerous about drivers not choosing to give way to people merely waiting to cross a zebra crossing. In my own experience most drivers at this particular crossing seemed to be pretty generously-spirited, although obviously there were always exceptions.

And "Chancing it at a zebra crossing"? isn't this a little bit alarmist? Isn't it also the case that children will learn to cross roads much more safely if they realise there is always going to be some risk, even at zebra crossings, even, I daresay, at junctions with traffic lights and little green men and all kinds of bells and whistles: that they should rely primarily on their own eyes and ears and common sense?

[beatnic]

The previous set up may have worked for you.

I know of quite a few people, particularly parents with young children and pushchairs, who hated it and found it dangerous.

There are plenty of other places where children can practice their zebra crossing skills. I don't think this one was a particularly good example.

[Asset]

Not sure about that as a child would wait at a zebra to be sure traffic is stopped, but would cross on a green man without looking. Any cars going to fast to stop at a red light would not be seen by the child. I think zebras are safer.

[Mrs Y]

To get back to the original question, did anyone apart from the DIY shop receive formal notification or consultation letters before the works commenced ? If not could anyone throw any light on the legality of it ? Because I believe it's a fact that throughout the borough, no transformed traffic junctions where lights have subsequently been installed have ever been reinstated. Judging by the comments posted so far, the overwhelming majority would like the zebra's restored and in three years time when everyone's used to the lights, will the argument still be as strong. I think there should be some form of binding agreement from the council and Thames Water to this effect.

PS

Did the cost of restoring the original crossing form part of the monies paid to Southwark by Thames Water ?

[Marmora Man]

Mrs Y Wrote:

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

Because I believe it's a fact that throughout the borough, no transformed traffic junctions where lights have

> subsequently been installed have ever been reinstated. Judging by the comments posted so far, the overwhelming majority would like the zebra's restored and in three years time when everyone's used to the lights, will the argument still be as

> strong. I think there should be some form of binding agreement from the council and Thames Water to this effect.

I contacted the Council on this issue. See question and answer below (was also posted on 11 Sept). It appears that the Council will have to make a case for retaining the lights - but only intends to consult the Community Council. In my experience that means reporting an intention to the CC and, in the absence of vociferous objections, carrying on with their plans. We will need to ensure the CC understand the volume of objections to these lights. Does anyone know of anyone on the CC for this area??

To: 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.

From: Southwark Council:

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. [My italics]

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

[*Bob*]

A pedestrian crossing is not always safer than a zebra. What we have now is a temptingly dashable narrow bit of road with an interminable wait for the green man to appear.

Where are all these parents who want to give the new crossing the thumbs-up?! I'm one. I don't.

[AnotherPaul]

Simon M, much as I rate my children's intelligence relying on their self awareness (eyes, ears and common sense) is asking for trouble as kids are well known for their absent mindedness. You might have been happy with the previous set up but I've had occasion to feel my children were at risk and I'm not easily scared.

At lights drivers stop, at zebras they sometimes don't so I'd much rather have lights but better phased would make sense. Dunstans and Colyton Roads are nowhere near as busy so give them less time.

Aside from child safety there is one other massive upside to these lights. I can now be buying a paper in the newsagent, see a bus go pass and be pretty certain to catch it. Joy.

ap

(edited for typos)

[demery]

Aside of traffic light phasing issues and extra delays that may be caused, my main concern is the additional noise. Cars, buses, lorry and motorbikes make far more noise pulling away from the lights. I've just purchased a flat above the parade of shops which I'm now thinking was mistake.

Oh, and another thing, traffic sitting there stuck in queues, stopping and starting, is generating far more pollution than traffic moving through at a steady pace. Far better solutions could have been found.

a 20 mile speed limit through the parade would mean getting out of the side road would be much easier.

[demery]

Aside of traffic light phasing issues and extra delays that may be caused, my main concern is the additional noise. Cars, buses, lorry and motorbikes make far more noise pulling away from the lights. I've just purchased a flat above the parade of shops which I'm now thinking was mistake.

Oh, and another thing, traffic sitting there stuck in queues, stopping and starting, is generating far more pollution than traffic moving through at a steady pace. Far better solutions could have been found.

a 20 mile speed limit through the parade would mean getting out of the side road would be much easier

[Mrs Y]

Yep they will not get 1.7 million for the elms, with traffic sitting outside all day, and I still cannot undestand why the lorry traffic cannot go east along Colyton Road and along the other side of the Rye.

Mrs Y