Lewes Forum thread

I know this is my bete noir, but it is important.

I've just driven past Waitrose. The traffic coming across the bridge all screeched to a halt as a very elderly couple marched across to the bus station laden with bags. They'd raised their sticks in the air so much as to say "Go on: I dare you. Run me over!" It worked on this occasion but you really can't rely on it. The prescribed route for them is to walk up to the traffic lights at the bottom of Little East Street, or to the lights at the bottom of school hill. The thing is that if your bus is waiting/it's raining/you're slow on your feet you don't want to walk four times the distance.

There are loads of places in Lewes where there is nowhere safe to cross. At the top of my list would be Waitrose/bus station, outside the railway station and at the top of St Anne's Hill. I don't understand why we only have one solitary zebra crossing and only a couple of pelicans, and also why where there are traffic lights there are no pedestrian phases - Station St and the High St, for instance, or the bottleneck. It can't be that expensive to do...

There are pedestrian lights at the top of Station Street. In the bottleneck, if you cross by the Westgate chapel there is a narrow window between traffic flows.
As for the bus station, there are two push-button crossings nearby, so why cross opposite? You can also cross at the junction of St.Anne's cresent and Western Road with the traffic lights. In the absence of red/green man signals road traffic turning into a side road has to give way to pedestrians who are ALREADY crossing.

So am I supposed to walk up to the High Street to cross to the shop over the road from the station then, Jim?

And actually the lights at the Station St/High St junction don't have green men anywhere except on the School Hill side - people crossing anywhere else have no guidance or indeed safe crossing.

I know there are crossings near Waitrose, but the truth is that many don't want or are not easily able to walk to them. It is by no means the first time that the traffic has been halted by elderly people who are not willing to walk four times further and miss their bus into the bargain. The existing crossings are actually not adequate, particularly if you're infirm. And actually I don't blame them at all.

At the bottleneck, how is anyone supposed to know when this "narrow window" occurs, particularly if they're not local? And what if they're not quite as quick on their feet as they used to be? What is the problem with putting in a proper pedestrian phase so that everyone knows?

I'm a driver. I'm also a pedestrian. I think this town has got the balance between the right of the driver to travel unimpeded with the right of the pedestrian to cross the road safely.

SQ as you stated the old couple held up traffic flow ,imagine how another set of lights will gridlock the causeway and round the one-way system!!!

Not necessarily: it just needs a bit of thought. It is beyond dispute that the existing crossing places are not where many people want them to be, and there have been nasty accidents outside Waitrose in the past, often involving elderly pedestrians.

I'm also not necessarily advocating placing another crossing in addition to the other two: I'm merely using it as an example of how biased traffic control is in favour of the motor vehicle.

I think we have our priorities wrong in this town, to be honest. It would cause very little inconvenience to the road user to have some proper controlled crossing places in places where they'd actually be used, and it would make the roads safer for everyone. Do we have to wait for an elderly person or child to be killed for action to be taken?

Sadly SQ the answer to your question is 'yes' we do have to wait for a fatality (often several) before councils will spend money on crossings. Perhaps the answer would be, when Waitrose get their finger out and build on the Wenban Smith site, that they fund a crossing point as part of their mitigation strategy (I presume they will have to mitigate for increased traffic to their enlarged store)

Interesting that most people seem to think traffic - usually half a ton of metal with one person in it - should always have priority. Sod it, I say, and three cheers for the old folk with the sticks.

So SQ, what if I come out of the Post Office and want to go to the off licence to spend my pension. Or perhaps between Steamer Trading and the solicitors opposite (I may be suing the person who knocked me down of my way to the off licence last week!) Can I demand crossings in these places as well?
On a more serious note, pensioners have as much responsibility as anyone else to cross the road in a safe place, and they are certainly not excused from using a bit of common sense. Waitrose is not the only shop that pensioners use, but even if it were, either crossing is really no distance at all. If there was a crossing directly outside the door, but the bus station was 50 yards further down the road, then nobody would think twice about walking that distance. So what is the difference?

Okay... At the moment there are two safe crossing places eight metres apart from each other at the bottom of school hill. Instead of having the first one (Boots-Cancer shop) where it is surely redundant, how about repositioning it so that now runs between the bus station and the Waitrose? Or even the Vollie and the shop opposite? Stop the traffic 15 metres earlier: problem solved. I don't really have an opinion about whether they *should* cross there, but the fact is that they do, and someone will be badly hurt or killed and I don't want to be that driver either.

Happy Shopper, you know I'm not asking for anything silly. I'm asking for a slightly fairer apportionment of road space so that pedestrians can move around more easily. I suspect that in many cases it would improve the experience of pedestrians in our town if they could get safely from one side of the street to the other, and that has to be good for business. (I don't know whether anyone's noticed, but even car drivers have to get out of their vehicles to get into shops...)

The town centre is a tough one. How do you make a 1000 year old street plan work for pedestrians and cars alike? I would say make it 20mph for starters. Won't stop accidents, but will reduced likelihood and severity of any injuries.
Outside the railway station is a different matter. I don't even like driving past there. The taxi drivers need to be reined in a bit. Parking on both sides of the road, sudden u turns, standing in the road talking to their mates through the driver's window. Add to that what seems to be an almost permanent delivery van outside the convenience store with nobody loading or unloading and it all becomes a bit of a nightmare for drivers as well as pedestrians.
Oh and a tip to pedestrians. If you haven't got a walking stick to wave in the air, try walking straight out in front of the traffic whilst glaring at the drivers as if they've done something wrong. That works quite well. If you can do this while pushing a pram it's even more effective.

This has been a problem for decades. Given that the cars queue back as far as there from the Boots/Cancer shop anyway I don't see why there shouldn't be a crossing put in, if you synchronise it with the existing crossing then car-flow shouldn't be effected.
Good luck.

Hurrah! Thank you, Harry and Dunk! I shall write to Ruth O'Keefe and ask her about it.

That crossing top of Station Street is a dangerous one!Many a time I witness cars turning right from Station Street as a short cut,green light for pedestrians or not! It was an issue years ago when Safeways came to have a crossing to bus station. As bus station not fully in use, as it was before,perhaps the powers that be knew what was coming! Hence no crossing!!

The lights by Boots have a dual function though - they stop traffic heading towards the station to allow cars to turn left from Friars Walk. I don't see that you could do away with either set.
Another pedestrian crossing at Waitrose would be fine by me. I don't think it would hold people up significantly.

I'd love to see a 20mph zone, but it would need to be enforced.
Yesterday I was cycling down Friars Walk / Lansdown Place. Now this is a 20mph zone, and I was doing exactly 19mph - I am a quick cyclist and I have a speedo on my bike.
A guy in a large BMW revved behind me the whole way down and then overtook me dangerously close, before almost colliding with a queue of traffic at the junction with Station Street, by the Lansdown. It would have been amusing if it hadn't been so idiotic and dangerous.

SQ - How can you say that the crossing between Boots and the charity shop is redundant? That is ridiculous. There are far more people using that crossing than there ever are coming out of Waitrose and crossing to the bus station. Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper and more sensible to just put a sign up or writing on the road directing people along the road to the existing crossings. Really don't see why you are making such a song and dance about it. There are perfectly adequate crossing facilities in place which have worked fine for 30+ years.

Happy Shopper, there are two crossings at that junction, one between the precinct and the Nat West and one between Boots and the charity shop. They're maybe 15 feet apart, so yes I'd say it's redundant. And if you've stopped the traffic slightly earlier, by the Vollie for instance, there won't be a problem crossing the road there anyway will there? Please just think for a moment before calling me ridiculous.

Secondly "There are perfectly adequate crossing facilities in place which have worked fine for 30+ years.". Actually, there aren't. If they were "perfectly adequate" people wouldn't be crossing regularly (and getting run over regularly) between Waitrose and the bus station. It's not a question of directing people to the existing crossings: they know perfectly well they're there, but they choose not to use them. It's my contention that rather than trying to make people do something they plainly don't want to do, we should instead make small changes to accommodate them.

Secondly, don't you think that in 30+ years the traffic densities might have changed just a bit? And that in light of that it might be an idea to review the safe crossings provided in Lewes town centre? I really truly don't understand why people here seem to think that it's fine for anyone wishing to cross the road to take their lives in their hands to do so. It's not just the Waitrose section: it's all over town.

I hope when it's you who runs a child over you'll be able to say "oh well it's all in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing" and still sleep at night.

Think about it SQ. If you took away the Charity shop / Boots crossing, then what would pedestrians have to do? They could of course walk along to your crossing outside Waitrose and cross there, but of course you don't think people are capable of that sort of thing and you have simply moved the same proble along the road a bit. No, they would cross over the bottom of School Hill where there would be no traffic control to stop an erratic stream of cars coming round a blind corner from Waitrose direction and with no visible indication of when the next stream of cars might appear. Marvellous. On top of this you would have the traffic from the other direction joing in and ending up in complete chaos. Seems to me therefore that you would be creating a dangerous environment for the pedestrian rather than curing one. It is true the other crossing is only 15 feet away, but that 15 feet is the width of another equally busy road! So, yes, I have thought about it as you suggested, and on reflection I stick by my belief that your suggestion is ridiculous.
Furthermore, I am not aware of people being "run over regularly" outside Waitrose. Can you substantiate that statement?, and would there be any less people being run over at the bottom of School Hill if your plan was carried out?
You say yourself, people know perfectly well that there are safe crossing places, yet when they can't be bothered to use them, the blame is somehow tranferred to the motorist! There is only so much cotton wool you can wrap people up in, but I suppose in your ideal world we woulddo away with all sharp, hot or heavy things in case someone hurt themselves on them as well.
I am not saying that there is not a need for the question road crossings to be addressed in general, I just think your idea about Waitrose and the bus station, and its likely consequences, have not been thought through properly.

And another thing, I am not saying this "in the interest of keeping the traffic flowing", I am saying it from the point of view of common sense and the safety of pedestrians.

Not so: if you stop the traffic flow nearer to Waitrose there will be no traffic flowing through the rest of the junction, will there? So it would be perfectly safe to cross - in fact, you could leave a green/red man light at the crossing, and do the same for the bottom of School Hill. Then everyone, including pedestrians, will know when it is safe to cross the road at all pressure points. It's not hard to imagine how to make it safer and move one of the crossings and no, it's not ridiculous.

I have attached a map from 2011 which allows you to view accidents. I don't suppose it's totally accurate and I also suspect that some of the dots are oddly placed but it's quite clear that the road outside the Vollie/Waitrose/bus shelter has suffered several accidents. Also, frankly, if you drive through the area at all regularly you must be aware of frequent near misses - I certainly am.

The same goes for the area near the Law Courts and in the bottleneck. Amazingly the area around the station seems to have avoided seriously injuring someone: the only conclusion one can reach is that it's so obviously dangerous that everyone, whether pedestrian or driver, must proceed with extreme care.

Again SQ, you open your mouth (or more correctly start to type) without thinking about what you are saying. How can you say there will be no traffic flowing if the lights were nearer to Waitrose? There would be exactly the same amount of traffic flowing, unless they somehow get caught up in an eternal circuit around Waitrose car park and back on to the road!
The difference is that people crossing School Hill will not know when the lights outside Waitrose are going green, and therefore will not know when traffic will start to fly around the corner. It is therefore still ridiculous.
According to the map you link to in order to prove your point, it would appear that the section of road in question is no more danfgerous than the High Street, Market Street, East Street, North Street, Landsdown Place or even Cliffe High Street which is pedestrianised!

And again, Happy Shopper, I direct the same accusation at you. I am suggesting stopping the traffic between the Vollie and the shops opposite. Therefore there would be no traffic flowing beyond that - capisce? What you create is a larger space where no traffic flows, so that it's as safe to cross at the Vollie as it is at Boots. I am not suggesting putting in an extra set of lights, I'm suggesting making the current one more sensitive to what pedestrians quite clearly already do. Are you seriously telling me that you've never seen someone launch themselves into the traffic outside Waitrose in a bid to get to the bus station? And assuming that you either have or can imagine such a thing, do you seriously think it's safe?

I have already suggested putting lights up at the crossings at the bottom of School Hill and at Boots, so that everyone can see that there will be no traffic flowing. These lights would show the same information as that at the Vollie.

I agree there are plenty of hot spots in town, and I also agree that there should be a crossing from Market Street to the police station. Do you really think that the remarkable lack of safe crossings Lewes currently provides is sufficient? Really? And they're all perfectly placed are they?

I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not proposing a final plan either. I am trying to suggest that the status quo is very inadequate and that - among others - the Waitrose/bus station area needs addressing. Most of the response (normal for this forum) is "don't be ridiculous, nothing needs to change, it's been like this since the middle ages". Well I disagree.

I agree it would be a sensible place for a crossing, but I would keep the light controlled crossings as they are, and make the one between Waitrose and the bus station a zebra. That way, there'd be minimal hold up - traffic that had stopped could start again immediately the road was clear, instead of waiting for a green light. There might be a problem having a zebra crossing so close to a light-controlled junction (in terms of tailbacks) if Eastgate Street were two-way, but since it's not, there's no issue. What is the negativity about zebra crossings in Lewes? I'd put one in on the Offham Road somewhere near King Henry's Road too. And at the station. In fact, I could think of a good dozen places where they's be useful.

"In fact, I could think of a good dozen places where they's be useful." So can I, Snapdragon, and I don't understand the negativity either.

After the meeting yesterday about filming, I had a chat with the two hard working councillors who turned up. I understand that the question of pedestrian access to the bus station has been an issue for a long time and that the intention is to address it together with the Waitrose redevelopment plans, which is very welcome news (at least to me!). Secondly plans are in hand for the area around the railway station - the whole area is due an overhaul because the bridge is in poor repair, and when that's done a crossing will be installed. And lastly Ruth O'Keefe is tirelessly pursuing the County Council to get more crossings installed or existing ones revised, and I shall be writing to her in support of her various campaigns!

SQ you are a genius and your talent is wasted on local issues. You appear have the answer to everything (Railways, rehabilitation of criminals, highway design, the BBC to name a few). Can I suggest you now focus your attention on the middle east.

Why thank you so much for the accolade, Isaac. At least I turn up to meetings and raise my concerns rather than just whingeing on an internet forum. Oh, and think about stuff and develop an informed opinion.

I'll leave the Middle East if you don't mind. Plenty to get on with right here.

Oh dear, you really don't get it do you SQ. You say, "I am suggesting stopping the traffic between the Vollie and the shops opposite. Therefore there would be no traffic flowing beyond that - capisce?"

No, of course there would not be any traffic flowing whilst the lights are red, but traffic lights also turn green, so what do you suppose happens to all the cars then? As I said, there would be EXACTLY THE SAME amount of traffic flowing round the corner into School Hill as there is now, the only difference being that the lights would be 20 yards further down the road. Capisce?

If it helps I will explain this more simply for you.

Existing setup - 10 cars stop at lights by Boots. Lights go green. 10 cars turn up School Hill

Your idea - 10 cars stop at lights by Vollie. Lights go green. 10 cars drive 20 yards and turn up School Hill

Can you spot the similarity in the number of cars turning up School Hill? Yes, there are still 10. They have not magically disappeared just because the lights are in a different place. I concede that some cars will go straight on into Friars Walk, but they do that in both scenarios and the traffic lights have no influence on this. Furthermore, if anyone can't be bothered to walk 20 yards to a safe crossing, do you really think they are going to wait for the lights to change? Of course not, they would still take their chances with the traffic.

You go on to say "Do you really think that the remarkable lack of safe crossings Lewes currently provides is sufficient? Really? And they're all perfectly placed are they?".

Well, no, because I never actually said any of that. You have made it up. It is very easy to make an argument with someone if you put words into their mouth. I have at no point said that nothing needs to change. In fact I agreed with you that the question of road crossings could be addressed. I agree that the Bottleneck could be looked at, and certainly the Railway Station, and other places too, I simply disagree with your Waitrose idea.

Have a nice weekend.

I do understand all that, which is why I suggested putting red/green men lights at those points - as I said about two posts back, and reiterated later.

Of course people will wait for the lights to change if the alternative is to get mown down by speeding traffic, particularly if the crossing is responsive as they are at the Phoenix/Little East st junction. (The ones at the School Hill junction take little or no account of pedestrians - you just have to wait until it's your turn.) Most of the transgressors that I've noticed have been elderly, and that suggests to me that they are really disadvantaged, for instance by carrying heavy bags. Clearly at the moment they'd rather dice with death than walk four times further, and I raised this because we need to address that rather than just say "it's ridiculous and they must change their behaviour and conform".

Anyway, the layout of the junction and access to the bus station will be properly reviewed when the Waitrose expansion goes ahead so (as I said earlier) this is all academic anyway. There is a problem and I'm glad it will be addressed.

Why dont we just turn ALL the roads into ONE BIG PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, for all the people that cant be bothered to walk 50 m to a safe crossing area.... As you come off the downs at the Gallops, YOU COULD walk to the prison and Cross or to the Hospital and cross.... OR YOU COULD just make ANOTHER crossing place at the gallops, (Im sure the Cafe opposite would be VERY happy about this).
Simple thing is your just a Busy Body with no forthought, Think you're doing good... but you dont think things though... Even your comment ' how about repositioning it so that now runs between the bus station and the Waitrose? Or even the Vollie' Do you think people who wont walk 35m from Waitrose to Boots to cross safely would walk across Eastgate Wharf to cross a road?
HOW ABOUT PEOPLE STOP BEING LAZY AND JUST CROSS THE ROADS WHERE THEY ARE SUPOSED TO?

Thank you for your calm, articulate and considered post, Double Top.

If you read this thread rather than going off on one, you'll see that I was attempting to raise the question of safe crossings in town, and gave a few examples. I slightly regret being sucked into a detailed discussion of how the Waitrose/bus station area might be addressed because in fact I was more interested in general attitudes to safe crossings, and I don't have the answers. I just know that there are many areas in this town where the priorities accorded to motor vehicles are out of balance with the rights of pedestrians. I have no idea why this upsets you so much, and I really do hope that you or someone you care about isn't mown down somewhere in Lewes to illustrate the point.

I don't think I'm a busy-body (but then I wouldn't, I suppose). I am however prepared to get up off my backside and ask questions and write letters. I regard that both as the mark of a good citizen and indeed as my right as a resident here.

The traffic priorities in Eastgate Street/East Street etc are so dismal that even ESCC recognises it. The plan is to reorganise these roads completely once the Phoenix development gets off the ground (3 years?) with East St closed and so on as traffic coming into Lewes over the bridge will use a new road in what is now the industrial estate. There does seem to be a sorry lack of progress from John Lewis (Waitrose site) and Rees Elliot (bus station) - may be they are all waiting for the other to go first. ESCC have just got funding (National Park I think) for a scheme to address the problems outside the rail station.

If I remember right, dears, a few years ago there used to be a bus stop outside the Halifax, at the bottom of School Hill. Admittedly there was not much room on the pavement for queueing, but if there was still a stop in that area, those of us stick-waving wrinklies who want to catch the bus going towards Brighton would be able to walk to the crossing after Boots, cross the road safely, and possibly still be in time to catch the bus which we might have just missed while trying to hobble over to the bus station. Or am I in cloud cuckoo land? (That was a rhetorical question; no answer required).

Am I missing something here? I get the impression that all potential bus passengers come out of Waitrose.
What I do know is that many cross the road without looking in the direction of the traffic. The same happens at the railway station.