A Crossing at Perry Vale? (by underpass)



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.


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…

On 29 November 2014 at 21:30:00 a collision occured at Perry Vale junction with Waldram Place in Lewisham involving a car and pedestrian(s). A child pedestrian was slightly injured.

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

On 11 December 2009 at 15:50:00 a collision occured at Perry Vale 50 metres north of Hindsley’s Place in Lewisham involving a car and pedestrian(s). An adult pedestrian was slightly injured.

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.