Home » Alan Collins »

When did that happen … and why?

By Alan W Collins on Thursday 24th April 2008 21:34 / 9 comments

Yes I know I said I wouldn’t post until I had finished my coursework, but two things are screaming at me at the moment.

Firstly, I have just read the report of last Thursday’s meeting of the Full Council. Apart from listing under Councillors present Councillor “Ward” (they did a similar thing last year, after the local elections, when Cllr Mrs Prodger had stood down) it hardly makes for exciting reading.

Except, that is, unless you are a resident of Goudhurst Road (I told you it was something screaming at me). For Liberal Councillor Andy Stamp had presented a petition “from 226 residents asking the Council to put a zebra crossing in Goudhurst Road”. 226 residents? I know for a fact I am not one of them, and there’s a good chance not one member of my family signed it.

So when did they collect signatures? And why do they think a zebra crossing would be worthwhile in Goudhurst Road? Could this, per chance, be related to last year’s submission of a petition calling for residents-only parking in Westerham Close, the home of Liberal Councillor Maureen Ruparel? After all, it is the only semi-main road she has to cross to get to Twydall Shops!

The question as to why still has to be asked. Surely even Liberals cannot want to waste local residents’ money. I mean, Goudhurst Road isn’t exactly difficult to cross even at its busiest! The question has to be asked, by myself, by my parents, by other residents: why? What is the point? Well, I think only the Liberals of Medway can answer that – and answer it they must to ensure that their already somewhat dubious credibility isn’t lost forever.

And the second thing? Well, you see there was a teacher’s strike today, and… Oh, never mind, I’ll post it later, once I have completed my Spanish coursework.

No Related Posts

9 Comments

Rob says:

Friday 25th April 2008 at 20:55

Yeah, they’ve put two along Beechings Way, and I’m not too sure about the use of them either.

As long as they don’t make it blind like the one along that road that leads from the school to Twydal shops (I don’t know what its called), it hsould be okay.

I see you point though, seems pointless, a use of street furniture for the hell of it. I’m surprised the council have any money let for roads with the enormous sign for Rainham parking (that doesn’t meet my high standards either).

If they do build it, I only hope that use of the the lampposts that have the Belisha Beacons already in them, where the “white” sections of the pole light up a night. They look very snazzy, and save two poles.

But yeah, odd choice.

Perhaps they should spend the road budget correcting the many (actually, all) incorrect signs that have been installed on the Chatham two-way system.
John Ward says:

Saturday 26th April 2008 at 15:25

One thing worth bearing in mind that petitions are often a political wheeze to get material to put in party newsletters, and the LibDems excel at this. Just a few months ago they put in a batch of petitions for four roads in the same area, but upon inspection by Highways Officers it turned out that none of them needed any attention, apart from a minor issue with part of one of them.

Petitions can be genuinely useful — mainly with very big issues (e.g. Capstone Valley, Rochester Airfield, Cliffe Airport) — but many are spurious, devised for the sole purpose of making the petition organiser look good in the public eye.

Oh, and just for the record: I can confirm that I was NOT present at that meeting of the Full Council(!)
Eddie says:

Saturday 26th April 2008 at 17:49

Long time reader, first time poster.

This is indeed yet another monumental waste of money for something that Twydall doesn’t really need. I regularly both drive along and walk across Goudhurst Road, and it’s the journey in the car that’s far more awkward. I’ve lost count of the amount of times you go round the corner and are confronted with a bus heading toward you and only one lane of road width available. Finding a way to clear a ton of the parked cars from the road would be a much better use of the money.

The new ones on Beechings seem pretty wasteful too. I can sympathise with the one located at Beechings Green, but the one further along is nothing more than a speed bump in disguise. A crossing is one thing, but raising it so far off the ground one can’t cross it at more than 10mph is quite another.

Most of the roads around here are in dire need of resurfacing as well as needing higher quality parking available, yet we waste our money on this.

I’m speaking as someone who calls himself a liberal too.
Rob says:

Sunday 27th April 2008 at 13:28

I agree with you there Eddie, parking is a problem and Alan’s solution on his other post could work.

I think people are too quick to blame speed or drivers for problems, when things like parking, poor road design, Gatso-obsessed councils and putting bus routes down small, tight roads are to blame.

Raised Zebra Crossings seem silly to me. Okay, they help people with prams and wheelchairs, but compared to the number of cars using this road, this must be minute. Also, why have they removed the bus layby along Beechings Way? Why not move it, rather than removing it. At least the bus can then stop off the road, rather than in the middle of the carriageway (and it’s not like there’s no space either).

I appreciate the coucil has a limited budget for these things, but honestly, they waste so much. All it would have taken is 5 minutes for someone that actually knows the regulations just to look at the majority of the council’s signs and go: “Mope, that’s wrong, that doesn’t comply with the rules that have been used since 1964″.

You might have realised this annoys me slightly.
Jeremy Fox DOT ADI (Car) says:

Tuesday 29th April 2008 at 19:00

Raised zebra crossings are to make drivers SLOW DOWN. Most drivers are reluctant (or unable), to control their speed sufficiently, to be safe, in the proximity of pedestrians, unless an obsticle is put in the way. Even then it’s 50/50 whether they will notice it.
Zebra crossings are incredibly dangerous places. I will let all of you try to work out why. A clue might be for you all to question your attitude to driving and to question just how safe and competent you are.
Their are no votes in road safety but unless EVERYONE changes their attitudes more and more people will be killed. Today 18 people have been injured or killed due to road traffic incidents (there is no such thing as an accident). The same was true yesterday and the same will be true tomorrow. Thats an awefull lot of waste.
As you can tell, I am annoyed by your attitude Rob. I know much more about it than you.
I don’t vote for anyone, I spoil my voting paper.
Rob says:

Tuesday 29th April 2008 at 22:39

Okay, Jeremy, firstly, the speed limit is 30mph, because of the spacing of the lampposts (its unlawful if they’re spaced too far out, as I’m sure you know). Can I drive over these raised zebra crossings at 30 without banging over them? No.

So – if the drivers need slowing down because it’s unsafe at 30 and the method of slowing them down takes them below the maximum limit, then why isn’t the speed limit lowered?

If it’s too unsafe for drivers to be travellling at 30, why isn’t the limit 20? (Although, I’m sure you are aware of the huge paperwork needed to make a 20 limit/zone (again, you must know they have different meanings in law and thus must be signed differently.))

I’m perfectly aware how dangerous Zebra crossings are, thank you. Are zebra crossings any more dangerous than “crossings” with pedestrian refuges? I don’t know that, to be honest.

Okay, so we need an attitude change, this I agree on. However, surely the way to do this is to change the attitudes? Or perhaps stop the cause of the speeding, rather than the result?

You mention the loss of life, and yes, too many people die, I agree with you there. But interestingly, when deciding on whether to increase the speed limit on American highways, they worked out how many hours it would save and whether this was the same number of hours as the people that would die (they used average age of the people and the number of hours they could work left in their life). If less hours would be lost due to people dying than due to being slower, then they were going to increase it. I can’t remember what happened though.

What’s also interesting Jeremy, is that two lines of my post were related to zebra crossings. The rest was to do with parking, attitudes to drivers (and you cannot tell me there is no poor design on the UK road system), removal of bus laybys, and incorrect signing (and if you would like to disagree with me if there are large amounts of incorrect signs then I would be interested to see it) and finally, a date (again, I’d like to see where I got that wrong). Yet you decided not to comment on this, whihc intrigues me.

Also, you may know more about it than me. But that sort of attitude doesn’t make good debate, especially as you know nothing about me whatsoever, no my interests.

I should also mention, I am still undecided on whom to vote for next time one comes around.
Rob says:

Tuesday 29th April 2008 at 22:54

Also Jeremy, on your lovely site, one of the “Quiz” questions (Question 5) is wrong.

The sign means “Area in which cameras are used to enforce traffic regulations”. It doesn’t have to be speed cameras, it could be red light cameras as well.

But you knew that already, I’m sure.
Eddie says:

Wednesday 30th April 2008 at 14:02

“Raised zebra crossings are to make drivers SLOW DOWN.”

In which case surely actual traffic calming measures would be more efficient, no? I’m not so much bothered by these, I just don’t really like the way a crossing is a speed bump in disguise.

“Most drivers are reluctant (or unable), to control their speed sufficiently, to be safe, in the proximity of pedestrians, unless an obsticle is put in the way.”

I assume we’re talking in more general terms now, because this certainly doesn’t cover the one on Beechings Way. The houses are set well back from the road, and there are rather large grass verges separating the traffic and the pedestrians. In many places, a 40mph exists on a road like Beechings, so a 30mph should be more than adequate for the safety obsessives.

“Even then it’s 50/50 whether they will notice it.”

Can’t speak for others, but my back certainly did, even at 10mph.

Now, using the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership, I managed to find some fun statistics regarding Beechings Way. The mobile camera site for the road extends to (I believe) the location of the crossing, so these facts do apply to that part of the road:

Number of serious accidents on road prior to camera installation – 3
Number of serious accidents since camera installation – 3

Average speed before camera installation – 30mph
Average speed since camera installation – 29mph

Both of which suggest to me that Beechings is already a reasonably safe road. Of course, any serious accident occuring is one too many, but given that the traffic was already sticking to the speed limit, I fail to see exactly what further measures are required. As Rob said above, if even travelling at 30mph is excessive for the road (which I don’t believe), then the limit itself should be lowered. Turning roads into obstacle courses isn’t the solution.
Rob says:

Wednesday 30th April 2008 at 15:59

I completly agree Eddie.

I’m glad you’ve got some stats too!!

As you said, if the road is unsafe (which it doesn’t appear to be) then there other ways of making it safer, not just bumps or chichanes and the such like.