A Crossing at Perry Vale? (by underpass)



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 (granted a little out of date, looking for a newer one now)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 :+1:


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.