I think Mick has spent a lot of time on site to be honest, so is probably already a frequest crosser of the old crossing.

I think the point of the the matter is, making the road straight between Finches and Hindsley Place, gives a 30-40 metre stretch of narrow straight road, which if used in the mid section will provide a safer place to cross than the current constant curve of the road.

If people then choose to cross at Hindsley Place, they clearly have no road sense. Im sure we will still see diagonal crossers, darters, and j-walkers, but personally I think the straightening of the road is the right move.

As for the central refuge, its not actually a crossing as such, just look at the one on Waldram Park Road, at the end of Church Rise, would you feel safe crossing on that? Look how many times its been hit and flattened. And thats on a straight road.

As for the mis quoting, just chopping to the point of

What the full quote says is

Thus no, no one is asking people to walk all the way down PV and back up again, the reference is there is an earlier crossing point for people coming from further down.

lol @ the not have a leg, very good

On a serious note though, surely the widening of the pavement is a plus, meaning people will not spill into the road, the narrowing of the roadway is also positive too surely, making crossing quicker, and hopefully putting a stop to people parking there waiting for people. As a package my personal opinion is, everything that is offered up is better than whats currently there. People manage to cross the lower section of PV all the time, by the shops. This offers 2 similar things. A tight corner for vehicles entering the road, and a straight section to cross on.

Maybe its just time for the Green X Code man to pay a visit to the site and teach commuters how to cross the road

A lot of the pedestrians approaching from the east walk up Church Vale and the adjoining path and are heading towards the underpass. So the natural crossing point is somewhere between the car park entrance and the underpass. The introduction of the island made crossing a lot safer and easier, and losing it is a retrograde step, though I do acknowledge the other improvements should help.

There is to be a raised area for crossing north of the underpass. I wonder why we can't have one south of it as well?

I think the raised crossing point will just be the raised island/hump as is there now. Im sure the whole point is to discourage crossing at the junction of Hindsley Place, so the likelyhood of them making a crossing ramp there is unlikely.

Being a frequent driver and occasional commuter, I would dare to stick my neck out and say that the island that is currently there is nowhere near big enough to make commuter crossing "safer", given the small percentage of commuters who would actually use, let alone physically be able to cross at that point at any one time.

I think the long term goal is to make a safe crossing "area" rather than crossing "point". Hence the long stretch of straight road.

I again think it will also be safer for non commuter pedestrian traffic. Off peak.

People are going to cross the road somewhere between Hindsley Road and the underpass. Putting in a raised area at the safest point would at least encourage people to cross there rather than othr more dangerous places.

In all honesty with the road being straight between those points, common sense should dictate where is the safest place to cross.

Those who prepare to commute without at least that much common sense, would not really be helped by spending a few grand on some bricks to raise the road to pavement level so they dont fall over the kerb.

A crossing area will be raised, as the post above says. I guess if people want to know the designated area, thats the one. If they still want to hurl themselves in front of cars, there is little that can be done about their stupidity.

And if a car driver is to fail to stop for a pedestrian, neither a raised area or a zebra crossing is going to stop that happening either.

It is all right for you snazy, you look a rather intelligent looking dog and I'm sure you'll have no trouble crossing.

Sorry my quote was over truncated for your liking, but I did go on to concede that this crossing disaster area will indeed be able to be avoided by those who come from further south, by crossing earlier.
But why would anyone create this situation in the first place?

My point remains that those who walk from the underpass to the bus stop, or the busy footpath short-cut onto Church rise have lost any formal crossing point (tactile paving and lowered kerbs, let alone island) .

So council tax payers, are you happy that the council will potentially find themselves picking up any civil claim if someone gets run over here? Removing crossings looks pretty negligent to me.

To my eye the safest place to cross will be at the Church rise apex where it looks like you will be able to see the furthest either direction.

A ramp facility/tactile paving needs to be provided at this point as a minimum to match the crossing facility further north.
Make it so Mr. Hepworth.

Do you mean Church Vale?

How about a bridge from platformv 2 to the other side of the road?

Which is locked from 8pm onwards!

I'm no expert, but I am struggling to see how a straighter, faster and narrower (but with just as many, if not more, cars) road - with a traffic island removed - can be better for pedestrians??

Its all very well being able to see further in both directions - but that's not much help when there is a constant stream of (mostly speeding) vehicles in both directions!

It may seem simplistic, but isnt it obvious that there should be a proper pedestrian crossing near the entrance to a busy station?

Dont talk such common sense thenutfield!

Regardless, if the development across the road actually manages to get built and the units sold, you can bet people will cross by the station anyway. So when someone does get killed, there will be an island built at this point in the road. Sad isnt it?

Apologies
I think we all meant the Church Vale junction rather than Church rise.

Mistakes are easy to make - and my comments on this planned work is not to hound some no doubt over worked council official for his over-sight.
To be fair, Mick Hepworth put the crossing there in the first place - it was absolute murder crossing along here some 3 years ago.

He also was responsible for the mini-roundabout further up at the junction with Mayow rd which was an accident black spot before, and introduced the table crossing near the Dacres rd junction - that really slows the traffic (including 4X4s) at a dangerous bend.

So he has had quite a few successes on his Perry Vale record.
Hopefully he will be responsive to the feedback he has had on this project.

Another response from Mick, to be shared with you all.
Once again all I can say is I am 100% behind this way of thinking. We dont live in a world of ideals, but a world of compromise. What is layed out certainly seems like a good compromise to me.

So Mick says...

What I would say is once the road layout is imprinted on the current road, in spray form, maybe the logic behind the changes will make more sense.
A straight, narrow road is far safer and easier to cross than a wider continual bending one. Fact. I cant see what the true arguement against this is.

An island is not a particularly safe place to cross, as the island at the end of Church Rise is proof of.
A 7m wide carriageway is what, 8-9 paces to cross. If people can actually be patient enough to wait for it to be clear, or stationary traffic, and not wish to dart half way across, there will be no need to take refuge in an island.

I should just add, im pleased to see some of Mick's work and passion for Perry Vale is appreciated. And too support the mentioned previous changes.
Hopefully his record will continue to be praised and hailed a success after he is finished on this project also.

Sorry - I do not see any compromise here at all.

OK, a pelican crossing is ruled out due a to lack of accidents/deaths.
OK, We cannot keep the island crossing, as the junction is being moved forward to help the Hindley's place traffic see past the new flats.

But I see no explanation why there cannot be a raised crossing point at the safest point south of the underpass.
The raised crossing point north of the underpass, while not finalised, is not designed to serve people travelling south from the underpass, as MH's text explains. The north ramp is well positioned and already is designed to serve two separate pedestrians flows.

A narrow rd in itself will not encourage traffic to slow to a safe speed - you do not have to look far to see examples of this - Honor oak Rd. Traffic will happily near brush by pedestrians by day, and speed by night.

And indeed this is exactly the reason I suspect he is reluctant to provide an ordinary crossing point- it would not be as safe as the existing island crossing by some distance.

This particular area by the station has a high density of people using it - it is more than reasonable that is provided with sufficient raised crossings. I'm sure zebra crossings and 20 mph zones are far more popular with drivers than tables/ramps as they can just ignore them.

And yes, as I pointed out, MH has been responsible for some good changes on Perry Vale which need to be acknowledged. But he has some blots as well.

Snazy, I share your hope that MH gets this one right.

I dont think its really accurate to compare Honor Oak Road and Perry Vale, certainly not that section. What section of HR Road would you draw a fair comparison to? Parking on HR, none on PV, bend on HR, bend being removed from HR. Width of the road somewhat different etc.

With regards to traffic "brushing" past pedestrians. Is this to assume the pedestrians are in or almost in the road? If so, why?

As for ignoring speed limits, tables etc. Each driver will vary, just like some people will seek a safe place to cross, others will assume it is safe, or demand their requests are met, and the road adjusted to suit their needs.

I dont think the current place for the table is at all unsuitable. We will have to see where MH chooses to put this, but im sure with sensible comments and recommendations, the ONE table budgeted for can be placed suitably.

Im still not sure where this false sense of security about traffic islands being a safe place to cross comes from.
A car striking the island will lose no speed whatsoever before striking the person on it. If it hit a light pole, the pole will more than likely also strike the pedestrian too. Unless it a pedestrian island with impact fencing around it.

A table which allows a large number of people to pass over it, is practical, sensible and minimal. And also indicates the "recommended" place to cross.
Any form of crossing which commands traffic control would have quite a severe impact on the traffic flow, as has already been pointed out. Its easy to look at one tiny piece of road and make it perfect, but I believe MH also has to consider an impact assessment, which is somewhat more complex.

I think the compromise has been overlooked in the steaming fury that seems to surround the project to be honest. Straightening the road is for safety. If the bus stop was removed so the table could be placed further down the road, there would be uproar. 99% of decisions made by someone for others is usually deemed "wrong" in some way.
However as we agree, given MH's previous successes, maybe we should wait and see how this turns out. Mick is one of the most down to earth guys I have met in a role like this. So im sure if its immediatly clear its not working, he will sort it out.

Further comments from Mr Hepworth

Snazy - you really hate pedestrians dont you?

re Honour Oak Rd: I was thinking of the straight narrow stretch by Tyson Rd. It has a ramp further up so is a good comparison.
Pavement width is some 3 foot here, so pedestrians cling to the wall as traffic uses the full width of the road at unsafe speeds.
Conclusion: traffic will not self regulate on narrow roads.

re unreasonable demands: There is a safe crossing point. It is being removed. Getting to the route cause of why has been a long journey but I think we are there thanks to MH's latest input. No money.

re North ramp:
The only doubt on the ramp's location imo is caused by uncertainty whether the platform 2 exit is to close.
You would like to think MH will get a straight answer from tfl.
Again I think it is well positioned as things stand.

re: general car car car (yawn): This particular area is a very busy pedestrian route as pointed out repeatedly. It needs a crossing. MH agrees with this.

re: islands: It is interesting that the old plastic keep left boxes are being replaced by flat metal signs with a plastic snap point at the base. Presumably because they are repeatedly hit.
They used to raise the height of the curb for repeatedly hit islands, but presumably drivers persisted and killed themselves. Which is harsh when the islands are mostly unoccupied.
~10 reckless lives lost vs ~1 innocent pedestrian life per 20yrs say?
That is a hard choice, but Snazy, you have hardened my position.
Build those curbs up.

re recommended crossing. MH has not recommended one! His choice was ruled out, so we are in limbo. I guess when the flats are occupied, then their residents association can put pressure on the council as well to reinstate the crossing. And (surely?) we all hope no-one is hurt in the mean time.

Previously lost crossing islands on Perry Vale can wait - this one is very important, and I am glad that SE23.com has given me the opportunity to raise awareness. Thanks to Mick for his input - he neednt have answered any question after all. And thanks to Snazy for helping extract the details, showing a keen interest and a different viewpoint.

Now we know it was not a planning decision but a funding problem, petitioning the local councillor seems the next logical step.
If that councillor is you Snazy, then so be it. Expect my email shortly and we can go over it all again.

Me, councillor, hell no lol.

I dont hate pedestrians as such, spending a lot of my time as one, I would have to have very low self esteem to do so. I do however have a dislike for people, inc pedestrians, who believe everything should be catered for around them. And whatever they do, they are in the right.

Thats not a pop at you by the way, just a generalisation about such types.
People flooding off the trains at night have a very "you will stop for me" godlike attitude towards traffic. And with these people in mind, I dont see why tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money, or ever a developers money should be spent on catering for them with either closing a road forever for them, or building idiot proof crossings.

If some of these people had any awareness, accident rates would be lower.

Question, what causes the accident. The pedestrain walking out infront of the car suddenly, or the driver being unable to stop up to and over 2 tons of mechanical car in 3ft dead?
Driver has responsibility, pedestrian accountability. But the car will usually be blamed none the less.
We spend years teaching children to cross the road, then reach adulthood and just flood across like a flock of sheep! Mindless.

Aaaah that stretch of HR Road. Having lived on Tyson road for 4-5 years I know it well. However would still not call it a comparison as such, as there is no train station which suddenly increases pedestrian flow x100. Also one of the paths is further from the roadway, and in addtion to that I dont think from memory the footpath is 2 metres. But road width vs speed however I can see your point.

Differences are though PV will have 2 sharp bends in it, which cars have to reduce speed for before entering the straight section. Which would reduce the speed they can carry through the crossing area.

But that said, you have given me an idea.... traffic calming chicanes.
I wonder if these would be possible. Placing them just before the corners, utilising the island nearest The Foresters. Does that make sense. Then the speed into the straight would be reduced, but the flow of the traffic not.

Re the North Ramp, I can see your point on that one, however we all know what TfL are like. And getting an answer from them before the action has been taken is like expecting honesty from a government.

The call for a crossing is a valid one, however with the lack of money and space for one, the cheaper option is unobstructed vision, and this is the hard part... A little commom sense from the people crossing the road. Drivers do also need to be a little more cautious, but as I have said earlier, maybe chicanes would help this approach speed. And the straight road will help pedestrians see further to make sure the road is clear.

Haha how the heck did I harden your position on islands. I have seen a number of cars hit these higher islands over the years, and I have to say, unless its a very low speed, the car will still sadly travel quite a long way over the island, still causing injury. You do of course have to factor in these can also be struck whilst avoiding a pedestrian running out into the road, so for a driver to be killed avoiding a pedestrian, is also unacceptable.

There will never be a perfect harmony between road users and pedestrians. However while the motorist is constantly reminded, summonsed and convicted of wrong doing, UK law sadly fails to identify any pedestrian wrong doing. So I would go right back to a comment made by CAW I think re the odds being stacked against the motorist, and things going in favour of the pedestrian. While not strictly 100% the case, constant demands that the ROADS should be made safer for pedestrians, just strengthens that case.

Right I have to be getting on, but thank you for expressing your viewpoint on the subject. Im sure somewhere in between our views, and those of many others, there is a compromise that suits us all.

Snazy,

You are right about traffic islands. They do not provide total protection. I saw one car completely straddle two high islands. anyone sheltering between them would have been killed. But I think thay are the best way to cross a road. You should normally only need to look one way ata time. Howeber, I have also seen impatient drivers overtake other cars by going the wrong side.

I am puzzled why cost is coming into this problem. The developers have been allowed to build on public land. I think this has caused the removal of the traffic island. Surely MH should have obtained a section 106 agreement for them to fund the replacement raised crossing point before the planning permission was given. Snazy, I know you are not a bloodhound, but can you put this to MH for his comment, please?