Anyone else nearly knocked down at pelican crossing

[Robbie1]

Ohh thanks for that Sue, I do think that those type of Pelican lights work better on very busy large/wide roads. The conventional green/red man indicator on tghe opposite side of the road seems a more user friendly choice for that part of Lordship Lane. Also looking for the red/green light for the cars from the pavement is very difficult as they are shuttered/blinkered and facing directly towards the oncoming traffic. I do worry that there will be more accidents there.

[James Barber]

Hi Robbie1,

Outside the Coop is a Puffin crossing. Road traffice people install them in preference to Peilcan crossings because they're slightly quicker for cars (have a sensor to cancel any request if system belives pedestrians has moved on/vanished) but not very clear for pedestrians - you have to have head down staring for a green light not looking around and up for green light. Terrible ergonomics

Absolutely no evidence Puffins are safer than Pelican's but officialdom keep quoting studies that are inconslusive at best. The ideal would be a cross between a Pelican and Puffin. A number of Puffin installations across Southwark in last two years breach the installaiton guidelines and best practice.

Eitherway I hope the person knocked over is ok and makes a swift recovery from any injuries.

[Robbie1]

Thank you very much James....maybe a "Puffican" crossing would be the solution then ! ;)

On a serious not though...It was quite an upsetting experience, particularly for the lady in question. (the driver wasn't too happy either). My worry is that older people, disabled people and people carrying young children or with babies in push chairs could be greatly at risk there.

[Sue]

Whilst obviously hoping that the lady in question is OK, it is a basic common sense precaution to check that there are no cars coming before you step out into the road, surely?

Or, if at a crossing of any kind, that any cars approaching appear to be slowing down for the crossing.

Unless the car in this case came round a corner very fast and couldn't have been seen?

I have several times been nearly knocked down by cyclists at crossings, who basically just ignore the red light, and once nearly by a car which again just went straight through the red light even though I was halfway across the crossing.

[ellabrunswick]

I saw the collision Robbie described on the 29th September. It was really shocking how violent the impact was even at a low speed. I think (this is my sense of what happened) that the driver had stopped on the crossing (because of stationary cars ahead). The pedestrian stepped out because she saw that the cars had stopped, and was standing at a crossing, so assumed that the traffic lights had changed (I have done this mistakenly myself on the new Lordship Lane crossings, especially as there's a long pause between lights changing and sound signal to pedestrians). When the traffic ahead of the driver moved on, he started off without looking beyond the back of the car ahead, at the very moment when the pedestrian stepped out. As Robbie suggests, it could easily happen again. That morning, after the collision, I kept noticing how many drivers were moving along LL bumper to bumper, not keeping the crossing clear, stopping over a crossing (forcing pedestrians to weave through cars when given the signal to cross), or driving on regardless through red lights. Bus drivers too.

It would help enormously to have the usual eye-level green/red man signals for pedestrians. It just seems to make sense to have the signal where it encourages you to look up and outwards! James B - can they ever be added on to a puffin crossing?

But it would probably also help if the police could spend a few hours (a Saturday morning is probably the most significant time) monitoring how drivers actually use the road and reminding them of the law and highway code (e.g. 192 'In queuing traffic, you should keep the crossing clear' and 194 'Allow pedestrians plenty of time to cross and do not harass them by revving your engine or edging forward') Any chance of that? Who do we ask?

[Pugwash]

The green crossing indication at waist level is very common in cities other than London, in fact recent trips to Nottingham and Liverpool have shown vertually all crossings there were of this type.

[Robbie1]

Thanks very much for the response Ella, I couldn't agree more to be honest. I am concious that there are very many young families with young children and pushchairs and also many elderly and disabled people using this busy part of Lorship Lane on most days but particularly on Saturday mornings. I think these pedestrians are put at risk by this crossing and I can really see it happening again if changes aren't made. God forbid a young child goes under the wheel of a car if they pull away from their parents grip for a split second. The "common sense" referred to by the last contributor really doesn't come in to play in a moment like this - it just happens. A little compassion and common sense from the authorities needs to be put in place and I hope they make the necessary changes before anything more serious happens. I find also that drivers on Lordship Lane (including bus drivers) are invariably passing through and are wanting to get to Forest Hill and beyond as quickly as possible and in this haste are often frustrated and impatient on this patch of the road.

[EPB]

Just because other cities have waist-level lights doesn't necessarily mean that they're an improvement on the old high-level ones.

In the olden days everyone could see the red/green man, and the visually impaired could hear the beeps. The waist-level ones are often obscured by people standing next to them. I really can't see the logic of the new design.

[Angharad_L]

I've almost been run down on East Dulwich Grove. What is wrong with people! If it's a zebra crossing with someone waiting, they should STOP, not speed up!

[cosmonaut]

Hey this might be a stupid question but can someone clarify this for me?

"Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing."

Does this mean that pedestrians have to actually physically step onto the road? Where does 'the crossing' begin? I've always assumed that as long as I have an obvious intent to cross, that is, standing on the curb next to the poles and watching oncoming traffic, that drivers had to stop.

Sorry I know it sounds dumb but I didn't grow up here and I don't drive in the UK (where I'm from if a pedestrian shows intent to cross at a street corner or a crossing you HAVE to stop for them)

Quite frankly the idea of having to walk out into the road, into oncoming traffic, to force vehicles to stop is absurd.

[peckhamboy]

Robbie 1 Wrote:

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

>God forbid a young child goes under the wheel of a car if they pull away from their parents grip for a split second.

How does the puffin crossing change the risks of this? It could happen anywhere along a road, whether there's a crossing or not. You obviously feel very strongly about the crossing but are you not at risk of getting things a little out of proportion? It sounds to me like the accident was a complete one-off, caused by a car stopping on the rcossing in traffic and not realising the lights had changed, whilst a pedestrian stepped out (on the green light?) just as the traffic started moving. I don't think a different type of crossing would have prevented that.

With any type of crossing, the safest way to get across is not just to go when the lights are green but to make sure you have eye contact with the driver so you know he/she has seen you.

cosmonaut Wrote:

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

> Hey this might be a stupid question but can

> someone clarify this for me?

>

> "Remember that traffic does not have to stop until

> someone has moved onto the crossing."

>

> Does this mean that pedestrians have to actually

> physically step onto the road? Where does 'the

> crossing' begin? I've always assumed that as long

> as I have an obvious intent to cross, that is,

> standing on the curb next to the poles and

> watching oncoming traffic, that drivers had to

> stop.

>

That's pretty much it - unless you have a foot on the road, the driver doesn't have to stop. It is a bit of an odd rule but without lights I'm not sure how else you could work it. Most drivers would slow down approaching a zebra if there was someone standing next to it, in order to see if they were intending to cross, although East Dulwich Grove seems to be a huge exception to that general rule - I've had cars speed up and swerve round me when I've been fully on the crossing pushing a buggy - so personally I'd be happy to see one of those zebras turned into something safer.

[howdood]

Here's my reading of the rules: it's not "the driver doesn't have to try to stop unless someone is on the crossing"; it's "once someone is on the crossing, the driver *has* to stop". In other words, the driver has to be looking far enough ahead to ensure that (s)he can stop before anyone actually gets a foot onto the crossing. Amazing how many people ignore this fact - including the speeding police car that nearly took out me and my 2-year old on the zebra next to the EDT a few months ago! The relevant section of the Highway Code is this - obv 1st, 2nd and 5th bullet points most relevant:

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

*look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

*you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

*allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads

*do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching

*be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing

[KalamityKel]

howdood Wrote:

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

> Here's my reading of the rules: it's not "the

> driver doesn't have to try to stop unless someone

> is on the crossing"; it's "once someone is on the

> crossing, the driver *has* to stop". In other

> words, the driver has to be looking far enough

> ahead to ensure that (s)he can stop before anyone

> actually gets a foot onto the crossing. Amazing

> how many people ignore this fact - including the

> speeding police car that nearly took out me and my

> 2-year old on the zebra next to the EDT a few

> months ago!

One assumes the vehicle had its light flashing and perhaps even a siren going? - what were you doing crossing the road in this instance?

[howdood]

"Assumes"? Wrongly in this case. No lights or siren - driver just hadn't bothered to check whether there was anyone on the crossing as he came round the roundabout.

[badger]

a few times now - I get the licence plate and report them here https://secure.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/

[Sue]

A 343 bus (out of service) going at speed went straight through a red light on a crossing in Church Street, Camberwell, as we were about to cross on Friday night. GRRRR.

[Robbie1]

Peckhamboy wrote:

"How does the puffin crossing change the risks of this? It could happen anywhere along a road, whether there's a crossing or not. You obviously feel very strongly about the crossing but are you not at risk of getting things a little out of proportion? It sounds to me like the accident was a complete one-off, caused by a car stopping on the rcossing in traffic and not realising the lights had changed, whilst a pedestrian stepped out (on the green light?) just as the traffic started moving. I don't think a different type of crossing would have prevented that."

The point being, this is a "crossing" ie a place where people think they can cross in safety. As the subsequent posts suggest, there is some confusion and lack of clarity on the merits of the "Puffin" crossing from the pedestrian's angle. As the chap from the borough mentioned this type of crossing is designed to make it "slightly quicker for traffic"! This involves a sensor which registers if there are no people ON the crossing which then allows the lights to change to green quickly to speed up the traffic. This doesn't allow for the pedestrian who steps on just as the lights change. The simple fact is, this accident wasn't a "one off" and has happened before and will happen again if the crossing isn't modified. It is fundementally not designed for pedestrian safety, it is designed to speed up the traffic. The "pelican" crossing would show clearly to pedestrians that "it is now safe to cross" clearly visible on the opposite side of the road. Not down at waist height, understandably obscured by other pedestrians simmply standing at thh crossing beside you. Enough said from me on this subject I think. I wouldn't want to go getting it all out of proportion again ! ;)

[Mick Mac]

Highway Code

"Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing"

ok - so don't step out before the traffic stops. But the traffic doesn't have to stop until you step out.....

My policy is to step out when traffic is a reasonable distance away. In fact its almost the same as crossing a road.

[Worker]

Yep. It annoys me (a non-car owner) when I see my fellow pedestrians just step out brazenly onto the crossing and expect cars to come to a screeching halt. You've got to give them time, and ideally as someone else pointed out establish eye contact.

[Sue]

Worker Wrote:

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

and ideally as someone else pointed out establish eye contact.

xxxxxx

Unfortunately some people see establishing eye contact as a form of aggression :( "Who are you looking at?" etc etc

Who may possibly also be the sort of people likely to not stop at a crossing for pedestrians (though I've no evidence whatsoever to back that up).

[Robbie1]

sorry had to come back on it just breifly... ;) there will always be the divide on the sides of the drivers and the pedestrians but I am a firm believer in the fact that there is goodwill on both sides and a collective desire for everyone to get to their destinations quickly and safely...my feeling is back to the earlier point..that a pelican crossing is a safer form of crossing for that patch of road...the drivers will know where they are and what they need to do and the pedestrians also..happy and safe travelling eveyone ! ;)