Couldnt agree with CAW more.

I do however, REALLY hate it when camp ott flag wavers skip around fozzy hill screetching and letting their snappy little dogs nip at my ankles!!!

lol not sure what dog walkers and camp flag wavers have in common, nor what part that plays in this discussion, but each to their own eh. Out of control dogs, and poor owners eh, I cant stand them either

CAW, I indeed agree 100% that there is indeed a group of pedestrians who have already been more than catered for. For these "special" people there is no hope. Cross without lookers, always my right of way, and so on. Pedestrian vs car never ends with the pedestrian winning.

However in this case, my concern is the commuters getting off the Sutton bound service, and using the footpath from the steps, past the subway.

Im also glad to hear you play an active role in certain community issues, it is indeed what this forum is for, and it needs more spoken voices like your own, rather than mutters grumbles of others.

Well, no. You said "when it comes to roads, EVERYTHING is in favour or anyone but the motorist". Forest Hill is a case in point where that is untrue: the domination of London Road, the lack of crossings across Dartmouth road, the lack of acceptable subway, the removal of the central reservation in the 'Forest Hill Central', the way the pedestrian crossing outside WHSmiths is calibrated...

Pedestrians don't get a good deal. When the whole thing was built and what can be done about it is beside the point.

I dont think Forest Hill is anti-motorist. There are a couple of questionable road alterations in place, like the slalom causing speed cushions, and other ineffective traffic calming solutions. However its got a long way to go before it becomes Sydenham or Catford with the introduction of way too many crossings etc.

Dartmouth Road could indeed do with a crossing, that will probably happen when they finally decide what to do with the Baths.

London Road I would say pedestrians are suitably catered for.

I agree, I think that there is a good balance, which is why i do not understand why people are moaning about the pedestrian credentials of Forest Hill. As I said, I walk and drive and have been quite happy with both situations, there are much worse places to do both!

Indeed I walk, cycle, use public transport and drive through FH, and have to agree there are far worse places to try and do any of them.

There will always be moments when something could be a little better in some way, but across the many days of each year, I think a balance has been found (almost) where other towns could learn from.

If anything, I think some of the traffic calming has made the roads and pavements MORE dangerous for pedestrians. So it has been made slightly anti pedestrian by the exact things put in place to make it MORE pedestrianised.

"when it comes to roads, EVERYTHING is in favour of anyone but the motorist".

But now there's "a good balance"? Interesting development in the last half an hour.

lol I knew you would pick up on that... I was ranting earlier about general motoring, i.e. the government is against motorists, councils, pedestrians and so on.

I was latter talking about Forest Hill specifically, where I believe as a strict ratio of pedestrian and motorist there is an acceptable balance. It does not change the fact that nationally the odds are stacked against drivers. I have just wasted two paragraphs justifying your pedantic point!! Lol

Lol. Clarity is always a good idea. Lol.

I have been assured that no pavements are being narrowed, or removed altogether so thats something.

Aaaah now nationally I totally agree with you CAW.
For a nation that relys so much on the roads, the users of the said roads are ripped to shreds at every corner.

The growth and transport requirements of the nation have completely outstripped the available resources, with driving yourself still being the favoured option for many. However this is now seen as unacceptable for some reason. This decades excuse, "its not green" The one before that "oil is running out fast"
Once we move over to hydrogen power, I am guessing next decades excuse will be "motoring causes water shortages"

Motoring in the UK and London could be somewhat improved if someone were to have the balls to grab the bull by the horns and say, lets get London moving. Boris has vowed to, but will be required to be seen to be fair, green, clean, cheap, sharing, generous, and thoughtful...... oh and sensible, before any ideas will get through of course.

Perryman, thanks. I see the full plan PDF is here http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...scape2.pdf

I have noted from the markings painted on the now closed road, that the road narrowing is minimal, enough to do away with the central refuge, which should never of course be used as a crossing as such. So losing this is technically not losing a crossing point. But narrowing the road should make the time a pedestrian spends off the footpath shorted, thus safer (in theory)

Other than that, there are few physical changes to the usable footpath for the roadway, so I dont think there is too much to worry about. The same can be said for the planting of the trees too. Whilst I agree the footpath on the subway side is rather narrow already, and could indeed do with a little widening. I shall mail Mick Hepworth and see if he has any more info on this plan.

Oh look, a crybaby motorist, complaining when something less than everything is in favour of his precious car, and being 'law-abiding' for as long as it doesn't present him with the slightest inconvenience. War on the motorist my eye.

lol phew, for once its not me in the firing line

"I have noted from the markings painted on the now closed road, that the road narrowing is minimal, enough to do away with the central refuge, which should never of course be used as a crossing as such. So losing this is technically not losing a crossing point. But narrowing the road should make the time a pedestrian spends off the footpath shorted, thus safer (in theory)"

er no, no, no, no, no and no (in practice).

This is a busy section of Perry Vale: traffic, cycles and people.
Forcing these non compatible groups into a smaller area means even less margin for error:
Carelessness will more likely result in the death penalty.

The council have sold a significant amount of carriage way here when they should have been buying. The pavement is far too narrow at the underpass and pedestrians often spill onto the road either side of the barriers at busy times.

Wider roads are safer for all, but presumably the council saw the chance to make some money.

They should make this diversion permanent.

hang on, which part of my quote did you actually correct?
My point is, the distance from one side to the other side of the road is reduced, not the actual footpath. Pedestrians are not losing any footpath from what the plans show.

A narrower road is not necessarily a more dangerous road, but hopefully a slow flowing road, taking into account some idiots will never slow down.

Im not sure what makes you feel a wider road is safer. Wider passage, more speed can be carried, more temptation for over taking, mor temptation for people to park at the sides to collect people from the station, and more time per pedestrian potentially spent in the road and higher chance of being struck by a passing car.

With regards to people spilling into the road.... the pavement being narrow is a factor, I agree, but if there were a sheer drop off the kerb, and not a piece of tarmac impatient pedestrians could lay claim to whenever they could no be bothered to comply and stay on the pavement, things would be rather different. I dont think we would see many people deviating from the pavement.

Narrowing the distance of a crossing has long been considered a safe practise, Sydenham's crossings are a good example of this.

The comment about the council selling off land, do I understand from this that the properties being built will indeed reside upon what was previously a footpath? Again, I have not seen the actual before and after plans so am not in a position to comment on that.

Wow, over-taxed indginant angry moralising nimbyists have made it to Forest Hill.

We've made it people!!! We have disappeared up our proverbial Upper Dulwich Bottom!!

I do not believe it.

Walking back from statio down PV road is closed. There are large red signs by Waldenshaw Rd , Dacres Rd , Church Vale and where the barriers are at Hindsley Place.
Despite this numerous cars ignore all these signs until they reach the barrier , then unsure what to do the go down HP ( not again seeing it is a cul de sac ) before turning back down PV.
Is a sight test part of the driving tesy anymore. It was when I passed but that was many years ago.

in defense of drivers in general, it is human nature to wonder if it is really closed actually that goes for the animal kingdom.

getting back to the point - until about 5 or so years ago government policy had favored the motorcar , when it comes to road layout, this is now changing in a very dramatic way and infact the outer boroughs like lewisham have been slow to see this. the days of the combustion engine are numbered and infact these things only exist due to the resistance of oil companies and there connection and pressure on car manufacturers. what i'm saying is that this is far bigger than just perry vale and lewisham. strategies in kensington and chelsea have been observed by our local boroughs for some years, the idea that to remove rails and remove clutter off footpaths and to create a more car pedestrian equal space is working, both have a greater tendency to be more observant to what is around them improving safety by removing security furniture. looking at the plan i dont think it goes far enough a typical lewisham move.

the problem with the whole of forest hill is caused by badly implemented pedestrian use and over focus on what the car needs. just for your information i am lucky to have legs and so i walk, cycle and drive a car, what i mean is that i understand all aspects of road use.

I don't believe this rubbish about shared space. Coming back from the shops today I had to step into the road to pass a car parked totally blocking the pavement.