Evening all. Sorry to resurrect this old chestnut but the emergency crossing at Perry Vale by the underpass is serving as fairly strong evidence that it can in fact work, despite the council’s protestations to the contrary. Might it be worth taking this up again? While we’re at it it would be so wonderful to be able to cross Westbourne Drive without feeling like I’m crossing a Formula 1 racetrack.
I stopped at that this morning on my way to the Bell Green Sainsburys. As my light changed to green I set off only to be met by a red light jumper. You want a pedestrian crossing there, you are nuts!
Perhaps a permanent set of lights would be a bit different. At the moment it is one lane traffic - with a proper crossing under normal conditions with traffic flowing in both directions ( and I use the word flowing advisably!) it might be doable. While a crossing is preferable for pedestrians who have to cross regardless I am not sure that it helps the traffic flow round the area. At this time of year traffic is perhaps at the lowest level and still there are issues with cars trailing back round Waldram Place and South Circ.
personally I think a zebra crossing there would be better for getting pedestrians across the road, and the traffic flow wouldn’t be affected too much.
A conversation that has happened many times before both here and on other forums. The question is: where could you safely put a zebra crossing on a bend? If it’s tricky for pedestrians now because of sight lines, a zebra crossing isn’t going to be any better.
on the bend is the best place, surely? as a drive from Sydenham side you’d see the flashing lights from a long way off, and so prepare to be able to stop, from Waldram Rd side you’d see the Belisha Beacon flashing light on the station side of the road and you’d know that you’d have to be aware, and ready to stop, and you’d not be going too fast as you’ve only just started from the junctions.
Maybe we are thinking of a different spot. I can’t visualise clear enough sight lines anywhere along that stretch, and certainly not where the table currently is. I wonder what the rules are for installing zebra crossings. Anyone think of one that’s around a corner and not on a straight stretch?
Should the only deciding factor here be if a pedestrian crossing is indeed necessary? If so then it would be down to the council to determine the best solution. If sight lines are too short for approaching vehicles then perhaps a pedestrian crossing light is what is required.
People have asked for a crossing, the council always say no. I can’t remember now if it’s because they think it’s not necessary or impractical.
Gotta love Google. Found this site with a response from Perry Vale Councillor John Paschoud. What I can’t find is a date.
Response to petition - Forest hill Station - crossing
Thank you for your petition requesting formal crossing facilities in Perry Vale outside the station.
I am afraid the Council cannot introduce a pedestrian crossing at that location because the sight lines are not good enough. In other words pedestrians and vehicles approaching the crossing would not be able to see each other from a sufficient distance to allow vehicles to slow down and stop safely. However we recognise that this is the ‘desire line’ where people want to cross. That’s why the engineers put a in flat top table as an informal crossing protected by speed cushions on either side of it to slow traffic down. A stretch of guard railing has been installed to encourage pedestrians to cross at the edge of the table where sightlines are best.
Sight lines around the bend in the road have been improved, as has pedestrian safety, by the 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.
As I’m sure you appreciate, crossing on a bend can never be a safe option. What we have tried to do is to accommodate people’s natural movement, as far as practicable. If residents are still worried we may look at extending the guard railing to prevent crossing at this point.
I’m afraid that other than extending the guardrailing to prevent people crossing too close to the bend there is little more we can do to improve the situation. Any design to install a formal crossing at this point would not pass a safety audit, and indeed would be likely to make the crossing less rather than more safe. This is because pedestrians tend to perceive formal crossings as safer and therefore take less care when crossing.
I understand you concerns but hope I’ve explained why a crossing is not a viable solution.
And a 2010 report on the issue.
I walked through last night, and I’d forgotten quite how long the bend in the road is. it’s quite a way down Perry Vale before it’s straight enough to see far enough ahead for cars.
possibly the only solution would be a signalised pelican/puffin type crossing, and maybe some big mirrors on the retaining wall of FH station, so that pedestrians on the east side can see cars approaching from around the bend.
I don’t think that a wall mounted mirror will be sufficient for car drivers to see pedestrians or visually impaired pedestrians to see cars. In my uneducated traffic planning opinion, the line of sight problem would only be cured if the parking in front of Finches and the Banqueting Hall is switched to the other side of the road.
a very large mirror - advertising hoarding sized?
or they could create a new station exit a lot further south of where it currently is, and then have a crossing further south, nearer to the car park entrance.
I have said it before and will say it again. Regardless of a formal crossing or not. Most users of the station being commuters will just walk out when and where they want to in the road, with no regard for what is around them. I have seen it time and time again. Too busy watching their phone screens, or too impatient to wait, so out they go.
It would be interesting to see how many people would use such a crossing, and wait the 1 minute for it to cycle before crossing. Even if the initial usage was high, I guarentee than within 2 weeks it would drop off, as people decide their life is more more important than others, and trade their safety for the sake of 1 minute of their life.
Of course there is a need for the less able bodies (of which I have been) to get safely across the road. But the truth is there is no substitute for a clear and safe road to cross. Red lights, and stripy roads do NOT make it impossible for cars to pass, as witnessed by @Londondrz
I am not anti, but just realistic, that the impact on traffic flow plays a huge part, visibility of the signalling would also be an issue.
How about a bridge coming from platform 2, onto the opposite side of the road. I mean if we are going big, lets go for broke here.
I like the new system with the road closed off. Makes crossing the road a lot easier for pedestrians.
I think there are a few who may not like it though, that includes the pedestrians in the surrounding area that are now in danger due to diverted traffic.
Nice straight roads, easy to install zebra crossings on 20mph roads.
Not this again, it’s like Brexit posts. I shall call them zombie posts, they keep coming back from the dead. 
A long debated issue, which I have made my feelings known on countless times, but saw this on Twitter today, and wondered…
Do the images promote the need for a crossing, or demonstrate how dangerously some people cross the roads?
I realise its a Marmite subject
The latter, IMHO.
A “designated safe” pedestrian crossing would not necessarily be safe in practice.
There’s a pedestrian crossing on Honor Oak Park (high st) that has lulled me into a false sense of security on more than one occasion. I came very close to being hit by a car once, and was really shaken.
And that side of Honor Oak Park is a straight road with good visibility for drivers and pedestrians.
Perry Vale is a bend, with poor visibility. A pedestrian crossing might create a false sense of security for pedestrians.
I have long argued that having that table there along with a break in the railings suggests to pedestrians it is a good place to cross. Road designers said they put the table there to slow traffic because people cross there WHERE IT ISN’T SAFE. All they have achieved is encouraging more people to cross there.
While I appreciate peoples desire for the crossing, I don’t think this sort of image sells it. It is just an image of someone crossing with kids in a badly chosen spot. (IMO)
Crossings don’t make roads suddenly safe, it still requires two to tango. However I do appreciate that for some, getting across the road can be time consuming.
That said, you only have to watch peoples behaviour when coming out of the station to realise that most people are far too busy or distracted to wait for a safe time or place.
Very much agree with that, sends the wrong message.
If that image is evidence of how dangerously people cross the road, can someone explain to me what the alternative here is? Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no crossing on Perryvale anywhere near the station (there’s a floating island bit down beyond the Post office depot but that’s it). Perryvale is very busy especially during rush hour, Forest Hill has a huge number of residents who use the station, surely we should be encouraging and supporting safe use of public transport? Since the cars on Perryvale during rush hour tend to sit in queues anyway, how would it be inconveniencing them to have a signal/light-controlled crossing? It would also have the additional benefit of making crossing the road by Waters Fishmonger (which is incredibly difficult because the majority of motorists making the left turn off Perryvale into Waldram Pl do not indicate that they are turning as they should) considerably safer. I think it’s an absolute no-brainer.
As has been discussed a number of times before, it just isn’t as simple as whacking a crossing in there.
I agree there are no formal crossings located near the station, but there is a reason for that, and that is sight lines. They are required to make the crossing as safe as they can be, rather than implying it is a crossing so is automatically safe. If a zebra crossing cannot be seen by approaching motorists, it is pointless, and just encourages people into harms way.
If you watch how people behave at formal and informal crossing points, it varies quite widely. The informal one by the sorting office (Church Vale) causes people to check more than a formal crossing would, before committing to crossing. It is amazing how many people just turn and walk onto a zebra crossing due to the implied safety of it. Same with traffic lights.
There are no crossings on many roads, but people don’t all choose the same blind spot to cross on. This is an issue because both the subway and platform 2 merge at almost the same spot, which instantly becomes the best place to cross. Just stand by a crossing on any road, and watch how many people get tantalisingly close, before just crossing without using the crossing.
I am in complete agreement that the crossing point for Waldram Place is a complete nightmare at the best of times, I hate it for sure. But don’t think a crossing will encourage the numbers that people think it would. Those points in the road will remain “walk out and chance it” kinda road.
I have said it for years, but I WILL do a time lapse of part of the road outside the station around rush hour one evening. You only have to stand there for 10 mins and see 2-3 trains come in and off load to see how carefree some people are about their safety.
Of course we are left with the question of how people cross safely. Which I guess comes down to one simple thing. How many accidents have occurred there annually. A question I have no answer to. Safety and convenience rarely go hand in hand. Certainly not in this case.
I wonder whether the new (obv strictly-observed) 20mph limit makes a difference here.
Personally, I think that with cars travelling within the limit, a crossing outside the station should be possible and safe if everyone is obeying the limit. If the view remains that it isn’t safe since people might be exceeding the limit, why not erect a couple of speed cameras. I find it hard to believe that in the middle of a city, we think we can’t make a safe crossing for pedestrians.
Given the highlighted time of day for this being rush hour, I don’t think that speed is an issue. For the rest of the time, maybe.
A part time crossing could be of use maybe, but again it is all about the location, and if once deemed unsafe, I can’t see that changing.
I am just trying to think of crossings in similar locations to use as an example for the “yes to crossing” side of the argument.
Speed cameras can only be installed with a recorded accident history. Something of which I am keen to know the details of. Last one I recall there was the car hitting the bus stop.
It is one of those things where ideal as it would be to have a crossing there, it is unlikely to happen.
When leaving the station I always cross further up, where the sightlines are better, unless I’m going to the shop. I agree that the layout/furniture provides unintended encouragement to cross by the railings, and there’s also the fact that people instinctively just like to cross the road as early as they can, so most people leaving the station get over very quickly even if they’re walking a long way up Perry Vale.
There is now a proper zebra crossing by St George’s Primary School further up (previously there was just a refuge). But this is some way from the station almost at the Dacres Road junction, so not useful to most people.
I think it’s one of those problems that doesn’t have an easy solution, other than encouraging all road users to take care and be considerate.
Apologies in advance for the long reply, just doing some reading.
Hansard written responses from 19 Jun 2002 Column 426W (Great Britain, 2002b) indicates the cost
of installing the various crossing types. Pelican, Puffin, and Zebra crossing installations were quoted
as costing £24,000, £27,000, and £7,500 respectively. It should also be noted that the full costs,
including design, anti-skid, and traffic management tend to add substantially to these costs.
This is an important piece of information…
The current Google Maps image is also quite fitting.
Other exerts
Pedestrians need adequate gaps in traffic to
cross a road. In relatively low speed urban
environments (up to around 50km/h) a gap of
4‐6 seconds is adequate for most able‐bodied
adult pedestrians to cross a 7m wide two lane
road. Child and elderly pedestrians may have
more difficulty judging speed and safe gaps in
traffic and therefore will require longer gaps.
Visually impaired pedestrians, wheelchair
users and people with walking difficulties will
require longer gaps of around 10‐12 seconds.
The number of safe gaps decreases with the
increase in traffic volume and hence different
forms of crossing are appropriate for different
sites. The availability of safe gaps can be
determined by site survey and compared with
crossing demand.
It should be noted that crossings are an
amenity to aid access and make it easier to
cross a road. The provision of a controlled
crossing will not necessarily reduce collisions
and may even lead to an increase in collisions.
Where a controlled crossing is present some
pedestrians assume that the appearance of
the green man display, or the act of stepping
onto a zebra crossing, gives an assured safe
crossing opportunity and do not keep alert for
approaching vehicles. However some drivers
do not always stop when required to do so
and occasionally pedestrians are injured on
the crossing, or there are nose to tail shunt
accidents on the approaches as drivers brake
suddenly. The provision of good inter‐visibility
between pedestrian and driver.
For anyone truly interested and dedicated to getting to the bottom of this issue, I would recommend a good read of sources 2 and 3 below. Very detailed.
Sources :1 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/shared-zebra-crossing-study.pdf
2 http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/Standards_Related_Materials/15-NRA-Pedestrian-Crossing.pdf
3 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter5-junctionsandcrossings.pdf
Something needs to be done. It’s very poor crossing there. I’ve done it with a buggy and it felt hairy (perhaps my own poor judgment but I won’t be he first )
It can’t be that hard to sort out …
Yes i’v done it with a buggy too and it is quite tricky. Crossing the South Circular on the other side also takes forever, something I didn’t realise before we moved here. Love everything else about Forest Hill.
Hi,
I am tempted to write a petition to get a traffic light / pedestrian crossing on the south side entrance of Forest Hill station. If you are heading towards the South Circular or Catford, you need to cross perry vale road or cross Waldram Place (by the new greengrocer) and the traffic can be quite heavy at peak time.
If anyone feel this is relevant please let us know via this post and if you can advise on the best way to go about this, that would be great.
Thanks
lio
Hi Lionel, I will definitely support the petition if one goes ahead. The crossing opposite the station on Perry Vale and the crossing at the junction of Perry Vale and Waldram Place is very dangerous, cars dont usually give way, some cars driving like mad. There is no safe place to cross and definitely needs the traffic light with the button that pedestrians can push and safely cross. It will irritate the drivers but what else could be done?
Thanks for your support.
When petiotion is ready, we can spend evening or two at the forest hill station, south entrance collecting signatures. Usually there are a lot of people in the evening coming out of the station, summer time is not probably the best time for petitions, the end of September-October is better, plus houses opposite can also sign. I am sure we will have a lot of supporters. Let me know if you need help, i can spend some evenings to collect signatures.
Thanks so much for your support I am going to star the long process by emailing and reporting the problem to Lewisham council. First step is to email: traffic@lewisham.gov.uk
Safety Pedestrian Crossing to access Forest Hill Station - East side (Perry Vale Road)
I am writing to express my concern at the absence of pedestrian crossing near Forest Hill Station - south/East side entrance.
Due to the excess volume of traffic to and from the South circular, it is highly dangerous attempting, as a pedestrian to cross the road (Perry vale) or Waldram Place to access the station especially at peak time.
My concern is I have almost had a near accident due to cars converging on these places when attempting to cross the road… Is there a reason for not having a pedestrian crossing or traffic lights near the station which I would imagine draws most commuters living in Forest Hill and also the shops on Perry Vale.
I feel very strongly about this negligence and realise that my case is not seldom looking at our local blogs and websites.
Thanks for your help and support - have a good weekend
Another thing worth trying, if we find that cars are speeding in this area, @LewishamSTT may be able to organise the next Community Road Watch there.
Road Watch has a calming effect on traffic that lasts weeks (it spooks motorists to see speed limits being enforced by the police!)
Thanks Chris
It’s worth looking at the other threads linked above. If memory serves, there is information there on why Lewisham road engineers say a crossing there is not possible. You’ll need to make strong counter arguments to persuade them to review this.
Thanks Rachael,
I moved here only a year ago and Chris did send some other links that I am now reading…
Hi, I’ve come a bit late to this conversation but I would support this too. We really do need one there. Traffic is increasing all the time. Try Councillor Chris Best. She is on the SEE3 team and might be able to help. Good luck.
I believe that this was previously rejected due to the limited sight lines of drivers (from the side approaching the underpass from the south circular). From my understanding, a driver approaching from that direction at a point near a potential crossing, such as outside Finches bike shop, would be travelling at speed and not be able to see the crossing, which could cause an accident if a pedestrian was using the crossing. As such, it would be negligent for the council to encourage crossing at that point, so will not install a crossing.
Please someone correct me on the above as this is from memory from previous posts on this or the forum not to be named.
In my opinion, the cars legally parked on the Finches side of the street cause the visual obstruction for the drivers, so moving the legal parking from the Finches side of the road to the station/Forest Hill Cars side could solve this. This would however mean that loading for the shops and disabled access to the shops would then be from “wrong” side of the road, BUT there would be a signed crossing point that could be installed to facilitate access to the shops.
I’d love to hear why this would not work from someone with a greater knowledge of urban planning than me (as I have none).
Bear in mind that the previous denials were before the 20MPH speed limit that now applies there. There is no reasonable claim that cars wouldn’t be able to see a crossing IF they are adhering to the speed limit. I cross there every day and am amazed there isn’t a crossing say, directly outside the foot tunnel. Every time a train pulls in going towards Sydenham, dozens of people come out of the station entrance and half attempt to cross the road there.
I agree, having a pedestrian crossing opposite the tunnel does not pose any risks IF drivers stick to 20mph legal limit and if to put a warning sign 100 metres before which will say CAUTION, PEDESTRIAN CROSING AHEAD. SLOW DOWN.
I live in the City Walk development right opposite the station on this section of Perry Vale, and daily witness crap driving, crap parking, and frankly also crap attempts at risky road-crossing.
The parking issue reduces sight lines in itself, particularly when there’s an event at my old friends (they are definitely not my friends) JK Banquets. In my opinion this needs to be a red route, but I expect the likelihood of that ever happening is slim because of all the businesses that require parking. Buses and coaches and lorries add to the fun when stuff like the attached happens:
The parking problems on that stretch of Perry Vale really do need to be addressed. Even the legal parking can cause bottlenecks. I wonder if we can get the council to review it again. I personally feel that their traffic calming measures put in a few years ago, including widening the pavements and putting in that table, were misguided.
I’d also like to see Clarkes Coaches banned from using this route as a shortcut to their depot at Bell Green, mainly because their driving is often appalling and at times terrifying.
They’re frequent offenders down Cranston. Unfortuantely the weight limit only applies (tho is never enforced) to goods vehicles and not passenger vehicles as they took great delight in telling me when I complained once after two of their coaches trying to pass each other totally blocked the road.
Isn’t Perry Vale part of an alternate route for vehicles too high for the bridge? That’s a problem too.
Not that I’m aware of. The only really large vehicles I regularly see on Perry Vale (apart from the red bus service) are Clarkes Coaches. Their depot is before the bridge and easily accessible via Sydenham Road.
That’s the sign I was thinking of. Thanks Michael.
Sorry, I was thinking of the bridge at Bell Green.
Can we get that bloody sign fixed, by the way? It’s always going off and a couple of weeks ago I had to reassure a German coach driver that it really was 4.5m and not too small for his coach.
There have been a few petitions in the past, but not since the 20mph zone. I think it would be an excellent idea to create this now, especially with elections on the way.
In fact it seems like such a good idea - I’ve decided to start one today on behalf of the Forest Hill Society.
For the moment, can I get feedback on this petition before we start signing up support?
The petition would be presented to the Full Council after the council elections in May.
Be interesting to see if this changes anyones minds one the matter.
I was under the impression that previous calls for this were based on the road not having the appropriate line of sight to safely install such crossings. Unless of course you were to place the lights / stop lines, further back.
If the crossings on the other side of the track are anything to go by, I would think at very best it will be a mixed result of people willing to wait or walk to a crossing .
Out of interest @Michael, where on the road would you put the crossing?
Personally I would think anything further than 10-15ft from the exit of the station would discourage a lot of people from using it. Genuinely.
The analysis of this location for a crossing was based on a speed limit of 30mph, at 20mph it should be possible to place traffic lights in this location, in fact numerous sets of roadworks have proved that traffic lights can be placed in this location.
I agree that the best place for the crossing is somewhere between the underpass and the station entrance/exit.
Yup I agree re the crossings which have been there as a temp measure. Although that was a bit further down, and highlighted some peoples lack of interest in crossing “safely”.
Problem having a crossing anywhere near the station entrance, is it would also require zig-zags, which would encroach on the existing parking for the local businesses.
Having previously been unconvinced that a crossing would work in that location, I found the temporary lights worked well, both as a pedestrian and a driver.
I signed the petition. Thank you Michael. The crossing should be there from the beginning.
a crossing at this location (somewhere around the pedestrian underpass, and the station exit), doesn’t have to be of a standard highways design. There are alternatives - you can have a large width pedestrian crossing with the two sets of traffic stop lines set quite a way apart. This would normally be appropriate for areas of high pedestrian activity, but I don’t see why this couldn’t be considered here.
Just what i was thinking. There is no reason the crossing can’t be 10 or even 20 metres wide if necessary allowing sight lines to be long enough.
I’m definitely up for this, however, given that the reduced speed limit of 20mph ‘should’ ensure the safety of pedestrians on a zebra crossing anywhere along that little stretch, I’d be more inclined to have it nearer to the subway than to the station in order to keep the zig-zags from reducing parking and loading outside Finches, which is one of Forest Hill’s most important and long-standing businesses.
Indeed this is possible, and quite common, but where should the stop lines be? Due to the curve of the road, they would need to remain within line of sight of the crossing.
Curious to know where said crossing would be placed.
Not totally against having something there, just unsure of the suitability of such a crossing, and indeed how much it would be used at peak times.
Spot on John, that would be my main concern here too.
I suppose that would solve any issue with vehicle access for the lot behind Forest Hill Cars next to the station?
Interesting read here, the guidelines of consideration and planning for crossings. (granted a little out of date, looking for a newer one now)
Based on the guidelines of crossings, and allowing for the minimum zig-zag area, I have VERY roughly plotted out two locations in which a crossing could be placed. They take up a surprising amount of space.
The black area shows where the crossing could be placed after allowing for the right amount of approach road marking being put in place.
The bottom one looks like the safer option to me
To me too. I have always said if there was going to be a crossing, it would need to be there. Problem is, how much would it get used?
I honestly can’t see the majority of folk using it. However, in the name of having a crossing there, it would be a possibility, so long as all the other criteria were met.
I formally launched the petition yesterday and it already has 385 signatures.
If you feel that this road needs a pedestrian crossing, please sign the petition:
Thanks for that Michael, I just signed and there are 400 signatures.
487 now 
I signed and did the little donation thing but I don’t know if I’ve done it wrong because I can’t find my write-up on there.
We aren’t trying to raise money so i don’t know where your donation will go. You might want to check any email receipt you have from change.org
Over the past couple of days I have passed scenes of two pedestrian vs vehicle accidents, both within 50 metres of a crossing.
As much as I want people to be safe, I still cant help but wonder what percentage will use the crossing, especially given the locations it can be placed in.
Unfortunately if the accidents occurred at a point not designated as the crossing then it is reasonable to assume the pedestrians involved were ‘jay walking’ no amount of legislation can resolve the ‘kamikaze’ actions of individual’s taking a chance rather than walking an additional few metres. I am constantly bemused at individuals who believe if they dont look at you when crossing the road in front of the car it somehow negates any responsibility on their part.
My point exactly. Sadly of course there are no real laws against such things, so pedestrians remain angelic and road users the devil.
What I have said all along about this road and a crossing, for years now in fact is, there have been very few accidents at this point, none that I can even recall. Put a crossing in, and it becomes a “right of way” and even less care is taken.
I’m not against the crossing, but just worry about the implications.
We shall see.
Good luck with the petition all.
I was wondering the same thing. While crossing there is difficult, I can’t remember any actual accidents involving pedestrians crossing. A new crossing would make crossing more convenient, but may also have the negative effect of people crossing less safely near the crossing, thinking the position of the crossing denotes a good place for crossing.
However, there is another reason apart from safety for a crossing there, and that is to tie together better the two retail sides of road, making it more attractive to both shoppers and prospective businesses. Apart from the convenience, there is a physiological advantage to a crossing - it denotes an area of heavy footfall, which is a good thing, and invites more.
I understand the point, but do we need an accident to happen before starting prevention measures? What about if it is a fatal collision of a mother and a child happens there? Then we start putting crossings? So we need a sacrifice first to start doing smth about it?? Sorry, i dont like that sort of approach. IMHO.
If we don’t take into account accident stats, wouldn’t there be an argument for putting prevention measures at every possible crossing point of every road, equally? Given how expensive each individual crossing will be, and how finite the council resources are, it does make sense to use stats to guide us.
We could spend the budget on Perry Vale, and in doing so, neglect another area where mothers and children are more likely to be hurt in future.
Grenfell tower safety stats apparently were fine until the tragedy happened. I think we need to be careful with the stats. Particularly when the stats show that over 500 people want crossing there.
That wasn’t what I was saying. Only that it is necessary to be sure that a crossing would actually make things safer than they currently are and not less safe. Which would mean looking at ways people’s behaviour might change when the crossing went in. It might seem counterintuitive that people would behave less safely, but people are perverse!
There are hundreds of locations where pedestrians choose to cross, sometimes regardless of safety, each one of those would be prime for consideration for a crossing, because pedestrians choose to cross there, but that is not how it should work.
What should be done at an existing crossing where accidents DO occur?
Sadly sometimes pedestrians are responsible for their own actions, and very rarely accountable.
Precisely that.
There are some areas which are absolutely overloaded with pedestrian provisions, and still there are accidents, because pedestrians can’t be bothered taking care. I am all for pedestrian safety, but also an advocate for pedestrian responsibility too.
That isn’t really a comparable example is it?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but alas we can only have due diligence and a set of guidelines which enable us to make educated decisions, rather than guessing.
500 people may have signed the petition, but are they 500 people who use the road daily? What I am getting as it, survey the commuters who leave the station in mass each evening, and arrive in droves in the morning, and see if THEY would be willing to walk 20-30 metres up the road, cross, then walk back… Or indeed press a button and wait.
London Road crossing is a great example of people being impatient.
While we put all these measures in place, you have to consider human nature. Zig Zag lines outside schools, for decades now, abused and parked on, by the parents of the exact children they are put there to protect. If that doesn’t tell you something about how people behave, I don’t know what will.
Watching the way people blindly walk along roads and turn suddenly onto a crossing and walk out (zebra), I would say for some it would be less safe. IMO only a zebra would work at that location as it is quick to use, any other form which doesn’t encourage engagement between driver and pedestrian is more of a risk. Green light doesn’t mean safe to cross etc.
Very interesting map of recorded accidents on London’s roads. Spending a bit of time going through the map, it is stunning how many accidents occur “near” crossings.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/london-collision
A good example, Catford one way system, RAMMED with safe crossing points, yet in 2016… 10 accidents, all by crossings.
2015… 14 accidents by crossings.
This is turning into an interesting discussion about the ethics and efficiency of a road crossing and the unintended consequences that can follow from putting one in, but I suspect it’s veering off topic faster than a speeding motorist coming round the PV bend. Time for a split?
Found one…
In the same year 5 people were involved in accidents at crossings on London Road
2 more in 2011, but down past the cab office and Waldram Crescent, a place we all agree is not a good place to have to cross.
2009, not a good year for the crossings.
2009, another accident for Perry Vale, this time at the almost exact spot the crossing is wanted,
Slight collision
I stand corrected as to there being NO accidents at the spot.
I assume that if the petition gets any traction with whoever is responsible for a potential crossing (is it TfL or Lewisham?) would have to do a new study before implementing a crossing and hopefully take these issues into account. Consultation with potential users, as @anon30031319 suggests, would be a very good idea.
It would be Lewisham who would do it, as the red route ends around the junction of Waldram Crescent.
A consultation with the commuters would be fantastic, if you can get any of them to stand still for long enough , or even get their attention lol ( look up from your phone for a minute please)
One thing I would like to see is a temp crossing put in, with human observers counting interactions with the crossing, and how many fail/refuse to do so.
For the sake of some bollards, and a few road markings, the question could be answered within days, as to if one would be effective.
I have often been tempted to go there at rush hour and watch and count for myself.
Is this road really that busy and fast that there needs to be a crossing?
In the morning it’s bottlenecked and drivers let you cross anyway, in the evenings it’s far less busy and you just wait to cross.
On the comments about pedestrians crossing anywhere and accidents happening anyway… it’s true!
I almost hit a pedestrian as I turned the corner from Forest Hill Station going past the Weatherspoons because someone decided to walk out into the road without looking 5 meters from a pedestrian crossing when the traffic lights were green!
Indeed, all that is needed is a generous helping of common sense, a sprinkle of patience, and a slight hint of road awareness. The recipe for crossing any road safely.
Many people manage to cross thousands of miles of roads safely every day, both on and off crossings. Unfortunately there are a small few who are too stupid or important to do so safely.
That said, there is always an argument for the safe passage for the elderly and disabled, which I fully respect. However a crossing in the right place, not the convenient place is the solution in these cases. In this instance, the crossing will probably be too far away for the important people to use.
In the last few years there have been a few occasions where there were temporary traffic lights at this location. I’m not aware of any accidents during these times and crossing the road certainly felt safer and easier.
Safety is certainly an issue as you often see people crossing at this point, not always paying as much attention as they should, and sometimes having to run for it as an unexpected vehicle suddenly appears (not so much fun if you have children with you).
Will it encourage people to cross when it isn’t safe? I doubt that would be a problem that would be made worse than it is today, and if the timing of the crossing is reasonable. The problem at present is you have no idea if there will ever be a break in the traffic. When you look at pedestrian crossings most people do use them to cross, only a minority cross beyond them, and only a minority of these in unsafe ways.
Let’s wait and see what happens with the petition. If it shows a significant number of people want a crossing then all possibilities should be investigated. We usually reach this point in any discussion on a crossing there, with strong arguments on both sides but little data to back up either.
And in the times the temp crossings have not been there, the safety has remained pretty much the same. Good. They were only there for a short time, so hard to gauge. But that said, there was also a contraflow in place too, so traffic behaviour and pedestrian behaviour was vastly different too.
If you look at the accident rates on the crossings on London Road and Dartmouth junction, you can see there are regular accident there, every year.
Very true. I have rambled on for long enough lol. Let’s wait and see.
The petition has 607 supporters now.
My mother when she visited found it almost impossible to cross Perry Vale. Her mobility is curtailed so badly that on a couple of occasions we had to stop oncoming traffic as she took a bit longer to cross.
There is no pedestrian crossing on Perry Vale to get someone from station-side to Finches side. That is wrong.
679 supporters
686 now
One thing a crossing might also encourage is more sensible parking of delivery vans/lorries, which currently serve the corner shop by parking on the bendiest part of the bend, thus making crossing and driving more hazardous by cblocling visibility. A crossing could prompt more sensible parking perhaps?
That is actually one of the positives I thought… For a second. In reality without the ever popular “enforcement”, the chances are the zig zags will just get parked on, and line of sight at a “safe” point to cross be made worse.
Another thing I was thinking is, the idea of a push button and wait for more than 10 seconds for 90% of people there is almost pointless. They just wont wait the 60 seconds required, or a chance to cross will present itlse within that time, and the traffic will be stopped for an empty crossing.
That said, for the other 10% it would be a blessing. However for that reason, a zebra crossing would be far more appropriate, and let’s face it, cheaper too.
A zebra crossing may increase the accident rate. I don’t think we want to give pedestrians a false sense of security here - it’s a bend in the road and visibility for approaching cars is limited.
821 supporters 
Is there any point in debating this back and forth? All residents can do is ask for a crossing. After that, its type and placement IF one is offered will be down to Lewisham’s traffic engineers to decide.
Totally agree, I shall leave it there, I think I have made my point, now its over to them 
Maybe relocating the solar powered warning sign from Mayow Road where it is totally ineffective…as difficult to get to 20 on that stretch due to parking buses etc.
Zebra crossings are a licence to jump out in front of cars with righteousness so a button operation may test patience but we have to try it. Perhaps we can use Cambridge Analytica to engender pedestrian compliance?
Before we get too bogged down in whether a crossing will increase or decrease the accident rate I just want to take another moment to remind of other reasons to introduce a crossing.
A crossing of any type will increase accessibility between the station and the east side of Perry Vale. There are many users who cannot cross the road due to mobility issues and because there is no existing safe pedestrian crossing. For this to be outside of our community station is a travesty.
To my mind there must be a solution… Currently the situation is less than ideal.
Some initial quick fixes would be:
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
More long term how about a hybrid solution that takes into account the fact the main crossing point is on a bend… Here are some propositions:
(Screen grabs courtesy of Google Maps!)
That’s a brilliant proposal and solves many of the problems mentioned in this topic.
I assume all the traffic lights would be in-sync (that is, lights at one end would be red at the same time as at the other end)?
Great work, and nice diagram too!
Thanks Chris!
Yes — the idea is lights would be in sync… So pressing the cross button at either set would activate the stop lights. There would be a reasonable amount of buffer time before the “green man” appeared to give vehicular traffic time to clear the entire crossing area.
Hopefully the whole area would have a more sedate pace — which can only be a good thing for the businesses there. I’m sure the Perry Vale suffered because of the speed of the traffic… There were at least two accidents in which cars smashed into the wall by the Perry Vale. It certainly completely put me off from sitting out or lingering around there!
Looks great. Please add in a lift to get to platform 2 as well 
This is an excellent suggestion and one that seems to perfectly deal with the dilemma of where to put the crossing: by the tunnel or by the entrance to the station? Great work, @featherbelly.
a great idea - pretty much what I suggested earlier. a really wide pedestrian crossing.
I drove up there the other day, and was only doing 20, and I don’t think the site lines are that short. though I’m not a typical driver, I would say that I’m a lot safer than most people I see driving, so to say ‘I think I’d be ok, and stop in time, and see pedestrians’ doesn’t mean that everyone else would. but the 20mph limit certainly helps the cause, and drivers will be going slower so will have more time to see the lights change.
I don’t see the need for extended orange phase to allow cars to clear the second light if already past the first one, it’ll just encourage cars to drive through the first one on orange. I don’t see a problem with cars going past the first crossing and having to stop on the raised part at the second one.
someone should make an official representation to the council highways team with that map - you never know, they might take notice.
Yoo - hoo… Mi - chael…
Shush you. He’s got enough on his hands. Wait till next week.
I wasn’t aware that there would be any let up next week.
I think it is certainly worth presenting some ideas to the head of transport at the same time as the petition is presented, which will be after the election in May.
Other suggestions are welcome on how this road can be made safer for pedestrians. Whatever way it can be made to happen I hope people will continue to join the 872 people who have already signed the petition.
So the idea is there is only “one set” of lights which are set far apart — like each direction at a 4-way junction, but without a “crossing” (if that makes sense). There are additional lights at the pedestrian crossings but these do not face the traffic but are to guide/aid pedestrians at each marked crossing — particularly those who are visually impaired or with mobility issues. The central section is a traffic free zone when the lights are on the red (stop) phase.
Not sure of the viability of all this in terms of traffic crossing regulations… It seems achieve-able!
955 supporters.
there are different ways of doing it, of course, but I was thinking of something with 4 traffic light poles, two at either end, at either side of the road, with a large raised section, that would act as a wide crossing space, but whatever is suggested would need to be built to the agreed standards that the council highways section use, and also with the various highways acts in terms of signs, road markings etc.
Traffic Signs, Regulations, and General Directions 2016 (http://tsrgd.co.uk/)
999 signature. Who will be the thousandth person?
1000 supporters it is!
What happens now? Will Forest Hill Society present the petition to the local council?
Yes, but we will wait until the council is elected. Plenty of time for more signatures.
Whilst discussing the benefits of the crossing during an off-forum discussion with a Perry Vale resident brought up this suggestion.
Consider altering the flow of traffic at the Waldram Place and Perry Vale Junction by relocating the Give Way onto Perry Vale as per the sketch.
Alter parking provision to restrict parking on the Perry Vale Side to Load and Unload at off-peak times only.
This would improve traffic flows from Perry Vale onto the clockwise South Circular. Traffic intent upon joining the anti-clockwise South Circular could continue to travel to the end of Perry Vale. The reverse flow along Waldram Place would also improve.
Apologies for the quality of the sketch - and quite happy for this to be made a new post.
Hi Michael, hope all is well. I wanted to add my signature to the petition but unfortunately it’s closed. Is there still the possibility to add my name to the petition? Cheers M
