?Chris Bray, of Chichester Close, Teignmouth, writes:

Further to the information in your paper of November 17, that town councillors are to ask for a review of the safety of the crossing outside the Waitrose store? ?I would like, as the previous county councillor who, responding to public pressure, pushed through the crossing’s construction, to make a few points, which I have also made in a letter to the town council.

Previously to the crossing’s construction, despite there being an underpass, a large number of people were making their way across the road, in a very risky manner, from Shute Hill, without any form of pedestrian protection.

I took the issue to the local HATOC, who agreed that a crossing was needed and there was then a Safety Assessment by DCC safety engineers. I would have very much preferred that there be a mid-road island on the zebra crossing, but was told that this was impossible due to the narrowness of the road. I ?then proposed that the highway divider, which starts only a few metres beyond the crossing, should be reduced in length, so as not to give the appearance of an island where there wasn’t one.

The safety engineers agreed to the crossing as constructed, but I believe that, following the two ?recent ?accidents, a further serious review needs to be done, considering the merits of the following possible courses of action:

1. As suggested by Cllr Eden, change the crossing to a pelican crossing, ie one with traffic lights.

2. Reconsider the possibility of making an island in the middle of the crossing.

3. Consider the merits, ?suggested by road engineers at the time, of having an island, but no pedestrian crossing, (ie similar to that at the crossing near the museum). The logic of this is that the pedestrian takes the whole responsibility for crossing the road safely. My concern at the time was that this works very well at both ends of the road, but in the middle, ie outside Waitrose, cars would be travelling at a much higher speed.

4. Reconsider my original proposal to reduce the length of the highway divider, so as to make it clear that there is no pedestrian island.

5. Consider Cllr Cox’s idea of a raised ?speed ?bump on the crossing.

6. Consider Cllr Phipps’ idea of illuminated warning signs triggered by approaching vehicles.

7. Lastly, safety engineers have, in my opinion, to consider the risk/benefit of removing the crossing AND putting substantial barriers either side of the road, to stop people making hazardous crossings without the benefit of a zebra or pelican crossing and so forcing them to use the underpass.