Forum: Mismatch between pedestrian safety concerns raised and response given

I refer to the letter “Pedestrians need more protection at Bencoolen junction” (March 24) and the Land Transport Authority’s reply “Bencoolen junction designed based on pedestrian safety standards” (April 6).

Two aspects of LTA’s response are difficult to reconcile. First, LTA stated that following any traffic incident, it works with the Traffic Police to review the location and assess if additional safety measures are needed. However, the writer had already highlighted concerns about this junction in 2023. If so, the issue was not unforeseeable.

This raises a broader question: Should safety improvements be seriously considered only after an incident occurs, even when specific risks have been flagged earlier?

Second, there appears to be a mismatch between the concerns raised and the response given.

The March letter pointed to a specific design issue – that pedestrians waiting to cross may be positioned in the path of traffic due to the reduction in the number of lanes after the junction. This is a question about the placement of waiting pedestrians and potential risk.

In contrast, LTA’s reply focused on features such as traffic light arrows and pedestrian countdown timers. These measures relate to crossing control, not to the safety of where pedestrians wait before crossing.

The concern was about whether pedestrians are placed in harm’s way by the layout itself, while the response addressed how crossings are regulated.

A more direct response would have been to engage with whether the waiting area itself could be made safer, especially since the concern had been raised previously.

Mohamad Nurhafiz Mohd Noor