All apologies for a post so long it seems I have to split it in two. My reply to the council.
------------------------
thank you for your quick and full reply. There are a number of things that I would wish to point out in respect of the answers it contains.

The Council recently carried out works to improve road safety at this location. These works included a realignment of the carriageway, the introduction of a speed indicator device (SID) the construction of speed tables, islands and kerb build outs. We also introduced parking restrictions. Sight lines around the bend in the road have been improved, as has pedestrian safety, by this recent widening of the footway and remodelling of the carriageway. Pedestrian improvements have been made along the length of road by the subway and these include a wider pavement, narrower carriageway, better crossing at the car park entrance and a flat topped speed reducing table by the subway where people want to cross. Prior to this work pedestrians crossed here unaided.

All of the works that you describe above took place several years ago. Certainly before all of the incidents that I have described to you. As such I am suggesting that there is an ongoing issue here which these works have not successfully addressed. In particular please be very clear that the widened footway you mention is on the opposite side of the road to all three impacts.

Enforcement of the speed limit is a matter for the Police. I would suggest that perhaps residents approach the Police to see if they could carry out some speed or other driving enforcement.

I agree and I will contact the local SNT. Traffic calming measures are however the councils remit even if you must then seek funding for physical schemes from TfL.

In the meantime officers will look into whether there is a personal injury accident problem at this location. Unfortunately damage only accidents are not used in data for traffic management schemes. This is because there is no reliable means of obtaining the data as often accidents are not reported to Police or insurers and there is therefore no means of assessing possible causes. If the Police confirm that there have been personal injury accidents our engineers will look further at the scheme to determine whether there are any further physical measures that could be considered. If so funding for a scheme would need to be sought from Transport for London, who fund almost almost of the traffic management measure in the borough. A reduction in personal injury accidents is one of the criteria for finding applications.

I cannot comment on whether the drivers of the two vehicles that have struck City Walk within the last three months were injured in the accidents. I do know a pedestrian waiting at the bus stop was. I have seen this "there isn't a reason to act unless/until someone gets hurt" rationale cited before. I am sure the councils risk managers have approved it. I would simply remind you of two things.

1. The bistro there has escaped a vehicle entering it's bar/restaurant area via the patio doors (in front of which there are tables on the footpath in good weather) by less than ten feet twice in under three months.

2. This latest accident occurred at @ 2.30pm. One hour later that pavement would have been busy with parents and children returning from nearby schools.

If the councils risk managers want to wait until an accident causing injuries and fatalities at a level similar to the Glasgow bin lorry event then I'm sure the algorithms will say it was a worthwhile risk. I doubt that the families affected will see it that way.