Agenda item

Diane Burch asked the Executive Member for Highways and Transport the following question:

Minutes:

 

Tony Johnson reported in the local Wokingham Paper (dated July 19th), that the Council Leader said; “The residents sent us a clear message on 3rd May -  If our residents feel that they are not being listened to, then we need to redouble our efforts to show that we have taken on board what they have to say”.

 

Bearing this in mind; why does it appear that they not listening to the parents and children at least at the Keephatch and Murray Road crossings – who realise not only how dangerous these alternative crossings will be at their particular locations but, according to the survey undertaken by the independent Road Safety Experts in April of last year, the conclusion was (on the Murray Road crossing) that: “Under the justification criteria outlined in Section 6, this location does not require a pedestrian facility.” 

 

Might I also point out that according to these figures, between the hour of 5pm and 6pm only 10 pedestrians crossed the road at the crossing.  Announcing that “other road users can safely cross the road using the automated crossings" doesn't apply to this site so to the untrained eye – it does look like needless and unwanted expense.

 

Bearing all this in mind, would the Council please consider delaying the installation of automated crossings (at least at these two sites) until a further (and perhaps more detailed) survey can be completed, instead of (what appears to be) trying to rush through these unwanted and expensive alternatives?

 

Answer

Formal crossings such as zebra and puffin controls are safe forms of crossing facilities and the designs for the proposed crossings have been through an independent road safety audit to confirm this.

 

The assessment process you refer to uses the Department for Transport’s guidance to establish if a pedestrian crossing is required.  This guidance assumes no existing crossing is provided and considers pedestrian demand and traffic over the entire day.  As you have highlighted because the maximum demand is during two relatively short periods of the day and the assessment considers the demand throughout the day, the survey results when analysed showed that no crossing was necessary. 

 

However recognising that the demand is focused over two short periods of the day, we used the Road Safety GB guidance for establishing if a crossing patroller would be justified.  This assessment would also identify whether a formal crossing could be considered rather than providing a patroller. 

 

The assessment for both Murray Road and Keephatch identified a patroller would be justified.  Where the assessment identified one would be justified we have proposed to install a formal crossing as an alternative. 

 

Delaying the delivery of the crossings and undertaking further surveys is not considered necessary as it will not change the outcome of the assessment. 

 

However, as a result of the concerns you and the public have raised the designs of both crossings are being reconsidered with a view to providing traffic signal controlled crossings instead.

 

Supplementary Question

We heard of the death a few years ago of a school crossing patroller up north.  The details were discussed at one of our meetings and we learnt that the accident was probably caused by the driver being unable to see the school crossing patroller in the road due to low sun and probably the glare of a wet road.  Are there any additional safety measures that they would be willing to take at the Murray Road crossing because during the winter months the low winter sun and glare off wet roads are a real hazard in the months of December and January?

 

I have had a few drivers confess that they genuinely cannot see me on the crossing and, of course, I am always in high-viz clothing.  There is a real concern on my part that if they cannot see me in high-viz wear what chance does any pedestrian, child or adult, have in normal clothing?

 

Supplementary Answer

When I was with you the other day, as I said to a question earlier, I was very impressed with how motorists came up to the crossing and were relatively slow.  They were not driving at 60mph or even 30 or 40mph and the parked cars to some extent also do provide for drivers slowing down because of the parked cars beside.  However I do think perhaps there needs to be examination of some of the parking aspects.  I think you and I saw two cars arguing as to who had the right of way and I noticed that perhaps a couple of the cars in front of that car had been parked there for quite a while so I don’t know what the parking restrictions are.

 

So I will look into things a bit more at that site because I do take your point.  I think the issue of low sun perhaps we need to put covers over some of the lights when they are installed so that they can be seen and they are not blinded by the sun.  So I take your point and thank you for that and we will take that into account.