New ideas needed to improve safety

I told them so, when the crossing had been in use for six months that it was not safe.

The reason being that the indicator can not be seen until yourfeet are on the kerb of the crossing, and the lights can not be seen until your feet are on the kerb.

The decision-making process starts on approaching the crossing.

Without any information in the line of sight, people look at the traffic flow.

If it’s slowing down it is safe to cross. If there is a gap in the traffic, it is reasonable to cross halfway.

Clearly this is not included in the council’s risk assess- ment.

There used to be a green or red man indicator.

As usual, the department were in denial, in line with council policy, saying they are safer than the old ones.

With so much care they say, it meets national standards, there are barriers.

I am not anation. I am a living being. The safety of users is not adequate.

If a judge thinks it is not safe, what is that saying about a department we put our trust in?

Be guided by a man of wisdom.

This is not the only unsafe scheme that the council is in denial about.

Accepting the editor’ s comments about people being distracted by phones and music on earphones, which we see every day, they deserve to get injured.

Theeditor also said people cross when they see a gap in the traffic, which bears out my explanation and is supported by a reader’s letter commenting that people flout the traffic lights and cross when they want to.

It’s more a case of lack of visual information.

The lights cannot be seen until you are poised on the edge of the kerb of the crossing.

All the crossings suffer the the same design problem.

Maybe they should use a short barrier arm to indicate, like the old rail signals.

Speed bumps would stop drivers trying to beat the lights, particularly from the court house corner.

Martin Lightfoot Gladstone Street Peterborough