Traffic on Peckham Rye / Forest Hill Road (fatal accident 26th Jan)

[the-e-dealer]

WE need to wait - but it seems that the works may well have been part of the cause.

[the-e-dealer]

James

It used to be procedure in Southwark that the Head of Traffic attended immediatly after a FateACC Day or Night. In this case it was left so long that the works had been removed.

[James Barber]

Hi the-e-dealer,

I've spoken to council officers.

The Standard Operating Procedure you've described is still followed and was followed on the day. The temporary works were orignally planend to be left in place to allow Thames Water work and resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single days.

After the Police had investigated and recorded the crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and barriers, etc to be removed.

It was felt that under the circumstances continuing with the temporary lights would have been inappropriate.

So at some point Thames Water will need to undertake works at this location and resurfacing will also be required after Thames Water.

[thebeard]

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> The temporary works were orignally planend to be left

> in place to allow Thames Water work and

> resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single

> days.

> After the Police had investigated and recorded the

> crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and

> barriers, etc to be removed.

> It was felt that under the circumstances

> continuing with the temporary lights would have

> been inappropriate.

> So at some point Thames Water will need to

> undertake works at this location and resurfacing

> will also be required after Thames Water.

So the intention was to leave the contra flow in place until such time as Thames Water had the time to get around to doing their couple of days worth of work ?

What UTTER Nonsense !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this why we see roadworks unatended for weeks on end whilst we all wait for thames water british gas or edf to BOTHER to turn up and do their work?

I am now even more disgusted in the mangement incompetence of the works which have and are being carried out on peckham rye.

WHAT DO THE SOUTHWARK TEAM DO ALLLLLLLL DAY ????????

[Mellors]

That is a bloody OUTRAGE, I agree!!! Unbelievable.

[Timster]

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> Hi the-e-dealer,

> I've spoken to council officers.

> The Standard Operating Procedure you've described

> is still followed and was followed on the day. The

> temporary works were orignally planend to be left

> in place to allow Thames Water work and

> resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single

> days.

> After the Police had investigated and recorded the

> crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and

> barriers, etc to be removed.

> It was felt that under the circumstances

> continuing with the temporary lights would have

> been inappropriate.

> So at some point Thames Water will need to

> undertake works at this location and resurfacing

> will also be required after Thames Water.

This is really weak. For 'inappropriate' should we read 'dangerous'?

As was pointed out by numerous people before and after this tragic accident, the temporary traffic light system meant that schoolchildren had little choice but to take their chances on a dangerous junction. The idea that it would have remained in place longer than was necessary because this was somehow convenient for Thames Water or whatever contractor was involved is shocking.

We all understand roadworks have to take place and inevitably cause inconvenience and can make roads more dangerous but the council must have a responsibility to ensure their impact is minimised, particularly where issues of safety have been brought to their attention. I hope Mr Barber can raise this with the appropriate people to ensure it does not happen again.

[thebeard]

We all know the only departments which are 1/2 competent at Southwark council are

Council Tax (collection).

&

Parking Enforcement.

To the long long list of incompetent ones we can now add the southwark Highway dept safety team.

Who spend all day warm in their offices looking at plans to put shed?s and extensions in back gardens.

If there was a way Southwark could charge us for safe, clutter free, road work free, easy flowing, speed bump free, roads they would!

BUT as they can?t we have to put up with dangerous, slow, filthy roads.

SHAME on you SOUTHWARK !!!

[sophiesofa]

I thought Southwark had one of the least successful council tax collection records but maybe I'm wrong.

James, is it possible to find out if they will make it safer for pedestrians when Thames Water start doing their work?

[James Barber]

With respect to the collission site and temporary lights not having pedestrian phasing. Southwark Council officers have told me that at present no temporary traffic signals with integrated pedestrian phasing have been approved by Department of Transport for use. That this is an industry wide concern and discussions are taking place with the Department of Transport, London Council's (representing all councils in London) and Transport for London with an expectation that approval will be given. No time scales yet on this.

Clearly this means that when permanent lights are replaced with temporary lights existing pedestrian phasing is lost. To deter pedestrians from chancing this ridiculous situation barriers are placed but clearly some will try dodging traffic to cross a road.

This is clearly a national issue.

I've asked Southwark officers what timescales they understand for type approval of such phasing by the Dept of Transport.

I've asked GLA member Caroline Pidgeon if she can ask Transprot for London what they understand the timescale to be.

I've also asked simon Hughes whether he could ask a Parliamentary Members Questions to the Dept of Transport when they anticipate type approval.

WHen I hear something I'll feedback on my councillor thread.

In the mean time I've asked officers that generally for SOuthwark where pedestrian crossing near a school will be temporary out of operation that such works take place during school holidays. Clearly many utilities undertake emergency works but where not an emergecny this would a difference.

[thebeard]

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> With respect to the collission site and temporary

> lights not having pedestrian phasing.

From the above.

I can see NOTHING has been learnt!!!!!

?Type approved temporary pedestrian crossings?

Just another layer of complication where common sense should prevail.

The lessons to be learnt are

1 The roads works at such junctions should be carried out wherever possible at weekends and or holidays.

2 They should be carried out as quickly as possible.

3 They should NOT be left in place for days / weeks on end whilst the utility Co?s faf about deciding when to bother turning up to carry out the works.

4 If there is absolutely no other choice but to carry out the works during weekdays / school days, there should be a police presence at the contra flow during the school rush hours.

In this particular instance as I have said before there was a FAR FAR safer option which was to implement a one way system and so avoid the danger of the contra flow altogether as even with the lights left to run as usual there would have been much less disruption and danger to all road users.

The excuse that there is no suitable high cost technical solution ?which could fail!? is such a pathetic cop out.

Please keep Southwarks safety teams responsible and focused on the realities of real life and real life solutions. I for one will not be taken for a fool I hate to listen to such utter nonsense especially where human life is at risk.

You are correct where you state it?s a national issue, it is absolutely.

A Nation where layer upon layer of complication comes before common sense and a Nation where road works stand idle causing inconvenience and danger for all.

So please pretty please out of respect for the dead little girl and her family forget about some future technical costly solution, there are simpler more practical lower cost robust solutions, which can be implemented NOW.

If you focus on that reality of NOW you will be doing us all a favour!

[skidmarks]

Road users are responsible for their own safety and have a duty to take the road as they find it.

That is taken from the Road Traffic Act. I read it as if you do not feel safe or confident doing something then do not do it.

If it was written that the Government was responsible for road users safety we would be in to a nanny state territory with fines for not using subways and footbridges and alike.

Look at this photo I took the other day while standing on a very expensive pedestrian footbridge. Oh and that is the north circular at Golders Green Road, so pretty busy and fast urban motorway. Are the people crossing the road at grade and not using the bridge irresponsible?

(If anyone says there should be pedestrian crossing facilities as people do not like using footbridges and subways. This was proposed but the large Jewish population discounted that as pressing the wait button on the signals is classed as work there they would not do it on the Sabbath.)

[thebeard]

Your photo of truly stupid people!

In the USA (apparently the most right wing country in the world ie no nanny state allowed) this would be called Jay walking and against the law!

Fact remains the Government and Local Government in the UK has a duty of care, which means they should wherever possible they should look after the safety of the citizens.

As any idiot would realise that road users should be kept safe wherever possible especially Children going to School.

I guess you are just being obtuse?

[skidmarks]

Err no.

The Highway Authority should avoid trapping reasonable road users into danger, for example introducing hidden danger.

The road user is an intelligent being, able and expected to exercise their own judgement.

The Highway Authority should not act irrationally.

I would say those pedestrians were using their own judgement.

I am glad I live in a country where I can cross the road where I feel safe to do so without breaking the law!

[trinity]

skidmarks Wrote:

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

> I am glad I live in a country where I can cross

> the road where I feel safe to do so without

> breaking the law!

I would like to live in a country where children, the elderly and the less able are provided with safe and easy places to cross the road when roadworks disrupt the permanent crossings. Particularly when those roadworks continue for weeks and the crossing in question is used by so many people.

[thebeard]

skidmarks Wrote:

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

> Err no.

You're taking this thread in a stupid direction.

If you didn't realise.

It's about a little girl who died because a driver possibly frustrated by the road works didn't see her crossing and she didn't see him and she wasn't protected by a crossing or other help, due to road works which were not happening!

A very sad loss of a young life.

[Mark]

The beard, you're making a big assumption there:

"It's about a little girl who died because a driver possibly frustrated by the road works..."

You have no knowledge of the circumstances that caused her death apart from the fact that there were roadworks nearby (or do you?). Another young girl was killed there last year so perhaps it maybe better to focus people's attention on that crossing and not temporary roadworks. It's just a thought but you might be chasing the wrong enemy.

[thebeard]

I don't know for sure that's why I used the word "possibly". POSSIBLY!

In TV interviews on the day of the accident many who were interviewed said drivers had become frustrated at the delays due to the road works and there was some mention of the driver possibly jumping the temporary lights.

Only the Police will know.

Whatever your view.

The general view shown by statistics is that the highways are more dangerous on stretches where roadwork?s are taking place.

We all know People are killed every day on the roads. You?re just stating the obvious!

My comments on this thread are about what should have been done ie the temporary one-way system and what should be done in the future ie the introduction of HUMANS at such road works during the school rush hour to help kids cross in safety.

AND also

I hope to.

To keep the Politicians FOCUSED on NOW and Safety and NOT dream into the techno future and lollying us of with excuses!

[Timster]

I'm sorry but this is making me really angry. I don't care about the technicalities of temporary traffic lights being approved for pedestrian phasing. If you dig up a road at a busy and dangerous crossing that is regularly used by schoolchildren then you have a responsibility to make it safe whatever that involves and the council (or whatever the relevant public body is) has a responsibility to make sure you make it safe.

If that means someone has to pay traffic police to stop the traffic and allow pedestrians to cross the road then so be it. Or if you have to put up barriers to stop people crossing the road (which couldn't have happened because there is nowhere else to cross the road). Councils are quite happy to impose daft health and safety regulations in other areas, particularly schools, but they are happy for kids to take their lives in their hands on their way to school.