Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Had any one received a consultation letter, prior to the new traffic lights being installed at the junction of Forest Hill Road with Colyton Road. As I think this has be badly thought out. Even before the schools have gone back the traffic is already starting to tail back it is also casuing a hazard to pedestrians as well as motorists joining Forest Hill Road either side of the junction. I understand it has been installed to enable to Water Board works to be carried out. I wonder if there was another alternative.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/1338-traffic-lights-forest-hill-road/
Share on other sites

Yes I was down that way the other day and saw to my horror that they are replacing yet another zebra crossing with a set of lights - zebra crossings are all about co-operation, controlled crossings are about competitiion, ie the pedestrian versus the motorist.

Mrs Y - you beat me to it.


I was intending to post on this subject. The lights have already created larger tailbacks on Forest Hill Road than before. Whiel, occasionally, getting out of Colyton Road could be difficult - it did work when drivers co-operated (cf CitezenED's point).


Somehwre in London I believe tere is an experiement where all traffic signs, road markings, rails and bollards have been emoved. Impact - everyone has to proceed at a pace that allows them to assess the situation without any presumption of right of way - with the result of improving safety and traffic flow.


Who do we petition for their removal?

Morning all,


I understand that works need to be done to the water main, but I wonder if Southwark Council could have looked into an alernative to installing traffic lights at this junction. It will be interesting to see what happens over the nexts few weeks when we all return to work and the children return to school after the Summer break. We need assurances from Southwark that the junction will be restored to its original layout. Given the lack of communication in its construction I assume Southwark intend to leave it there permanently hoping no one will complain. Hopefully one of the local councillors will pick this up as a local issue. We shall see.




Mrs Y

Am I right in saying this is a small junction in suburban London and not the Elephant and Castle?


Maybe someone has some stats which show it to be a dangerous junction, but I use it pretty regularly and haven't seen any evidence of that. In fact, I'd bet it's statistically more dangerous to go into the shops on Forest Hill Road than it is to cross it.

Now it's one of THOSE junctions where the car driver at the front of the queue gets beeped at by the people 12 cars back because nothing seems to be happening in front but nothing's moving. And if you're a pedestrian, it's one of those crossings where the red man stays lit FOREVER even though there are no cars going past.


Total overkill.

I have just sent the following e-mail to Southwark Council - they can be contacted at:


[email protected]


"Sir / Madam,


Traffic lights have recently been installed at the junction of Colyton Road and Forest Hill Road in East Dulwich.


The lights have been operative for less than a week but have already had a negative impact on traffic flows along Forest Hill Road and Peckham Rye. Traffic now backs up regularly as far as the Forest Hill Tavern to the south and almost to East Dulwich Road / Peckham Rye junction to the north. This never happened before and is creating delays for all users but, most importantly, public transport is slowed dramatically and cyclists are obliged to cycle on the dangerous offside of vehicles if they are to pass the stationary queuing traffic. The minor extra convenience for cars turning onto Forest Hill Road / Peckham Rye from Colyton Road / Dunstans Road cannot, surely, outweigh these facts.


To the best of my knowledge there was no consultation about installing these lights; there appears to be no overriding need for lights at that junction so the rationale for their installation is not clear.


I would be grateful for more information on the decision to install traffic lights at this junction."


Suggest we all bombard Southwark Council with similar letters / e-mails and see if we can reverse, or at least learn more about, this ridiculous decision.

The new traffic lights have made the junction worse for both the driver and the pedestrian. I used the crossing fairly regularly and, it being a zebra crussing with an island at the centre, rarely had to wait long before crossing all or half the road. Now, as the road traffic has three separate phases (not just two), you can wait ages for the green light.


SimonM

Some fine comments here. The no-road markings/traffic lights/signage experiment hails from the Netherlands, of course, where they've had great success with similar schemes. Everyone: motorist, pedestrian, cyclist, stays on the move, albeit with a bit of consideration for one another. There is no more of the cork-from-a-champagne-bottle dashes from traffic lights brought on by unecessary red signals, as noted by *bob*. Get emailing!

I'd be happy to drop them a line too.. but is there anyone out there at all who can speak up for the new system?


It's bizarre.. usually it's the residents who have to twist the arm of their local council to get crossings etc put-in. But here it seems they've decided to blow the cash without anyone asking (or wanting, it seems). Unless anyone knows otherwise..?

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also this article

> I just found is on that subject.

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne

> ws/2006/11/04/ntraffic04.xml


That's interesting, but two things to note. Firstly

"But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk." - Does anyone think this government woudl let us take responsibility for ourselves? - I'd love to but it is difficult.


Secondy, law in Holland states that if a car collides with a cyclist, then irrespective of who actually caused the accident, the car driver is automatically deemed to be at fault. Maybe something this country should consider....

"Secondy, law in Holland states that if a car collides with a cyclist, then irrespective of who actually caused the accident, the car driver is automatically deemed to be at fault. Maybe something this country should consider...."


I assume you're joking. Cue an influx of hit-and-runs; fake, staged 'accidents' and red lights ignored.

What all the postings seem to have forgotten so far is just how blooming dangerous Forest Hill Road is. Let's not pretend the zebra crossing was exactly safe as cars/bikes/buses came accelerating out of the speed camera that is pointlessly placed one hundred or so metres prior to where the hazard is - where people need to cross from the doctors surgery to the pharmacy or from the bus stop to the shops or from their homes to the park, en famille.


I drive along the road frequently, walk along the road frequently and I have to cross the road frequently and I believe the lights have made this dangerous piece of road safer not more dangerous.


Now we have a situation where a families can cross safely knowing that a red light is stopping the traffic. Do we have to wait a bit for the lights to turn red? Maybe. Does that mean that the traffic has definitely stopped - yes. So therefore families and older people have been protected. Do people in cars have to wait a couple of minutes to progress up to the dismally phased lights up at ED crossroads or the nearly always congested stretch of road up by Honor Oak? Yes - well in the name of safety I think those are a couple of minutes worth waiting

A good posting Everyman, however the fumes caused by the cars queueing for ages may now kill off the family and older people who didn't have breathing problems before !!


I think the problem isn't necessarily the lights but the timing between greens... far too long and what is the point of sitting there spewing out CO2 when no one is either waiting to come out of the side road or cross the road... Lights like these make a lot of drivers want to behave like cyclists and jump them !!! (Not that I am suggesting anyone - even cyclists - does by the way)

Either it's dangerous, and has the injury/fatality count to prove it so, or it isn't, in which case it was fine like it was.


If you go round sticking-up three-way traffic light systems 'just in case' someone might get injured, you'll have to put one up on every 500 yards.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...