Lost - Eight lumps of tarmac!

Thu 1 Feb 2007, 14:34

I agree with meg that the general attitude of giving priority to motorists over pedestrians and cyclists is the root of the problem in Charlbury. Whenever there's a choice of interests, it is always the motorist in Charlbury who prevails.

Pedestrians in and around Charlbury often have no choice but to walk in the road because of the lack of pavements. Cycle lanes would go a great ways to making cycling safer and encourage more exercise, less traffic congestion and lower fossil fuel consumption, which would benefit everyone, not just the minority interest.

A school crossing on the Slade and a proper pedestrian crossing near the Scout Hut are hardly radical proposals, although I suppose they might make motorists slow down once and a while.

Is it really too subtle a concept to take in that many of us are motorists some of the time, (and hopefully only by necessity), but that we're all pedestrians all of the time?

How anyone can see an equal contest between a child trying to cross a road and two tons of speeding steel is beyond me, surely we haven't sacrificed the last of our sense of perspective for the sake of our cars?

Wed 31 Jan 2007, 10:15

Well, haven't read all the debate but I do hope this doesn't encourage drivers to go any faster in other areas such as The Slade/Poole's Lane. Personally, I think there should be a 20mph speed limit imposed in the town/around the school.

I'm heartily sick of how the rights of motorists are often flagged up in the media as being in need of protection when the needs of the many (mainly female/mainly child) pedestrians are not deemed worthy of debate. Several places in Charlbury require the pedestrian to go into the road - Poole's Lane for example where there's no pavement. Some drivers are courteous, esp if children are walking in the road on the way to school, but others speed past looking annoyed that anyone is impeding their progress by daring to be on foot.
I hope they can understand that
a) the pedestrian has no alternative but to be in the road where there's no pavement
b) road users other than drivers have the right to use the road safely
c) pedestrians/cyclists are much more vulnerable than drivers think - - a child hit at 30mph will probably die, one hit at 20mph has a good chance of survival. What's not to understand about this shocking statistic? Why do some drivers insist on their right to race through a built-up area (and yes, to a little child walking along a narrow pavement, a car driving by at 25-30 mph does seem like "racing")

Tue 30 Jan 2007, 18:17

Obviously the Scandinavians have no IKEA,
But those daylights are completely useless as a lot of drivers leave them on especially at dusk or dawn, which can lead to accidents, like side lights. If there is vehicle behind them, your eyes are drawn to the brighter lights thus making the car with side/day lights invisible.

I think you'll now find that Saab and Volvo now offer this as an option.

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 13:16

I've often wondered why Volvo owners (and it is always Volvo owners) drive around with their lights on in broad daylight, even when visibility is extremely good. Malcolm's post has enlightened me - it's those pesky Scandinavians who are to blame! Can I point out that we have much more daylight here than in Scandinavia and so such practice should be unnecessary unless it is a very overcast, gloomy day? I agree with Richard - if motorists habitually drive around with their lights on it is likely to be very bad news for cyclists.

Malcolm: I had gleaned the impression from previous posts on this forum that you are an ardent environmentalist. If this is so (and forgive me if I am wrong) how can you justify driving around in the daytime with your headlights on, thus burning excess fossil fuel and directly contributing to global warming?

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 13:11

Hmmm, yes Richard, that IS interesting and disturbing research. BUT what is even more disturbing is a subtext or secondary "discourse" that is actually more important than the substantive or main "discourse" of the research (but yes, I am thinking about it).

That is: how the consciousness of road use/users…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 12:48

Forgot to mention in my last letter, the wording in brackets is Malcolms .

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 10:50

Malcolm, I was just reading your claim to fame, always the motorist at fault,never the cyclist or pedestrian, cyclist who ride up oneway streets against the traffic, ride with on lights & pedestrians walking in the road snd kids who have no idea what the Highway code is!
(I've taken to driving with main beams on all the time as it definitely seems to wake up the dozy gits with their noses pressed to the road surface immediately in front of their vehicles as they try and control them around the varying radius corners,)

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 08:54

Malcolm.

You don't half go on. don't you?
You sound like an intelligent man, can't you condense you comment to a few short paragraphs?

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 08:54

Malcolm, please read this and reconsider.

Mon 29 Jan 2007, 00:40

Geoff, either you're being nittish or I nitwittedly glitched syntax & didn't properly write what I meant! Perhaps I confused fullbeam and mainbeam words? NO, I'm not a moron driving around on high/full/undipped main lights all the time, methinks people are being deliberately silly hereabouts in such mis-interpretation, perchance???

I…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 28 Jan 2007, 21:57

I live at Nine Ares & agree with rachael that some sort of crossing should be put near Scout hut.Cars are now speeding down the road & it's not safe for children to cross there. I support charlbury becoming a 20mph zone.or put the bumps back.

Sat 27 Jan 2007, 21:10

In support of Geoff's reply and Malcolm's comment about 'Not Dipping Headlights to on coming traffic at night'. I think the phrase "I've never had an accident but have caused hundreds" comes to mind.

Fri 26 Jan 2007, 09:27

I never understood the 'Lolly Pop Lady' vs School Crossing choice; surely the latter is a one off cost of painting the road with a yellow crossing. Is the lady really being paid such a high wage the school can't afford a one off painted crossing as well?

If so why isn't there sufficient funding allocated for both? I can't think of a more relevant or urgent health and safety issue for our children.

If funding is really the only issue, then I know at least a dozen parents that would be willing to fund-raise specifically to implement a school crossing, if it would yield results. The local police could also be involved in training year 6 'patrol kids' to assist at the school crossing, thus reinforcing the Stop, Look and Listen road instruction.

As far as parent motorists parking at the top of The Slade slowing down the traffic, isn't this creating the very problem Derek is complaining about? I thought it was in everyone's interests to promote alternatives to driving to and from school to alleviate congestion and promote healthy exercise.

My understanding of the traffic laws is that the priority of a school crossing is only in effect directly before, during and directly after normal school hours. So it would pose no significant obstruction to normal traffic flow on weekends or terms breaks.

Thu 25 Jan 2007, 20:02

It is no use putting restrictions at the junction (be it chicane, humps, r./bout as a number of HGV inc buses need to turn and would cause chaos, but about 50 100 yards prior a chicane with Give way to out bound traffic as in Upper Heyford by the old air base. and you could even put flowers on them, how about Envirounabouts!

Thu 25 Jan 2007, 15:40

Malcolm says he does not dip his headlamps,and has the nerve to call other drivers Dozy Gits, what is he trying to do but cause an accident, may be at the cross roads that he seems to have trouble crossing!!!
(see 50mph for Woodstock Rd for Malcolms story!)

Thu 25 Jan 2007, 14:31

I use that crossroads at night, with a child. Personally I never had a problem because I find cars have lights for two reasons.....
Firstly to allow them to see where they were going and secondly to allow you to see when they are coming by seeing the glow of the lights before the car even gets into view.

There are quite enough street lights in Charlbury as it is, or am I the only astronomer around here?

Thu 25 Jan 2007, 12:37

Kate
But the parent are not very good at:
1. Indicating
2. Looking before opening there doors.
3. Looking before pulling away from the kerb, while waving at the children that have just departed the car
4. Understanding that by 'narrowing' the road it does not stop the inpatient driver from ploughing through the gap.
5. Using the parking on the other side of the road
6. Getting off there BS and walking the children to school.

And as for the Lollipop Lady, surely like Igor says a proper crossing that is there 24hrs a day and not 40mins a day is far far better it would allow the motorist to have full and clear sight of the road ahead and give clear priority and time for the pedestrian be they adult or child to cross safely.

Thu 25 Jan 2007, 11:50

the crossing issue is frequently debated - but the most crucial point is that if the school gets a crossing it loses its entitlement to the lollipop lady, and it's felt that her watchful eyes morning and evening are more valuable. The parental parking does have the advantage of narrowing the top section of the Slade down to single file at peak times, which definitely slows the traffic, as does the manoevring in and out, and again, more is gained by this than lost, especially as the parents parking are very alert to the fact there are children around.

Thu 25 Jan 2007, 09:20

I believe school crossings come with their own parking restrictions on both ends, which would prevent parents (or anyone) from adding to the congestion. Although I have to admit to never hearing of pedestrian 'blood being spilt' by a parked car.

IMHO, the issue is about the level of priority allocated to pedestrians and specifically school children as compared to motorists.

After the 'lolly pop lady' has done her 20 minute stint at the end of the day, schoolchildren involved in afterschool activities are often trapped on the opposite side of the road by an endless parade of (often) speeding rush hour motorists.

I know this because more than once, I've had to step up, stop traffic and walk schoolchildren across myself, not to mention waiting and waiting for the urgent parade to pass by.

Small wonder parents insist on parking to pick up their children.

A safe school crossing obligating motorists to stop and yield to pedestrians would remedy the situation.

I simply do not understand the safety or the logic in giving motorists priority over pedestrians; after all, everyone is a pedestrian in fact if not in practice.

Wed 24 Jan 2007, 09:46

Igor says - I've never seen a primary school next to a busy road that didn't have a school crossing.

Well I have never seen such shortsighted parents that park on said busy road thus increasing the risk of a potential accident.
I'm all for having a safe crossing for the school and indeed at the crossroads but lets not try and increase the chance of 'blood' being spilt by parking in such an ill-conceived manner.

As for registration's OU54XLG can someone also remind them that Indicators are to be used when turning at junctions including the one into Ditchley Road.

Wed 24 Jan 2007, 01:54

Don't bother giving way to pedestrians, just run them over.
That'll teach them not to be so stupid and lazy.

Real quick and real final.

Pedestrians should by law have the right of way simply because they are more vulnerable and are more likely to be seriously hurt by impact, nothing 'holy' about that, just common sense.

Ofcourse there are reckless, unthinking pedestrians as well as reckless and unthinking motorists, but the pure physics of the equation make the latter much more lethal which is why modifying the behaviour of reckless motorists is the more direct solution to the problem.

Anyone check the comparative statistics on pedestrian/motorist fatalities lately?

I agree that pedestrian crossings are essential, especially a school crossing. I've never seen a primary school next to a busy road that didn't have a school crossing before moving to Charlbury.

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 18:26

20mph limits are meant to be enforced by traffic calming and narrow streets, anyway, not by the police (see PDF here).

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 17:50

Perhaps one easy (cheap) proposal would be to have the entire centre of Charlbury as a 20mph zone - of course the police will say they can't enforce it but I don't see that matters much - they don't enforce the 30mph one anyway!

However, a 20mph limit will slow most drivers down a bit - and being hit by a car at 25mph gives you siginificantly more chances than at 35mph. So that "bit" is important and could save a life.

Most of the roads in Charlbury are too narrow for anyone to safely go at 30mph anyway.

I've already raised this with the TC but got the brush off - they seemed to think the police's inability to enforce it made it not worth bothering to support - however if all on this forum agree and write to them then it might happen.

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 14:50

"Why not practice prevention? Drive a little slower (like under the speed limit), give way to pedestrians at all intersections (especially children), stop (not slow down), at Stop signs and give cyclists a wide berth."

Whilst I agree with what Igor says (above) I have to take issue with his "give way to pedestrians". I firmly believe that if more children were taught (and more adults observed) the Green Cross Code then everyone would be safer. I have lost count of the number of times that 'the holy pedestrians' have walked out infront of my car and have nearly caused an accident because they are too lazy or stupid to look where they are going (and yes I do observe the speed limit in Charlbury!). Is it really that difficult to 'Stop, Look and Listen'?? Sorry to be harsh, but it is not just 'the drivers of Charlbury' that are to blame. There needs to be some re-education on both sides. Igor, please also bear in mind that when crossing roads, vehicles have the right of way (except at pelican crossings), not people on foot/prams/pushchairs/wheelchairs etc. This simple fact seems to be lost on a lot of people throughout the country these days.

Once again sorry to rant, but someone has to stop this being a very onesided discussion.

Thanks.

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 14:17

About a year ago I seconded Malcolm's comments about the dangers of the Enstone crossroads, but was rather firmly put in my place by a posting by a member of the Town Council who said that it would be necessary to write with my concerns to the Town Clerk. The matter could then be discussed by the Town Council.

In fact I did not write. This was for 2 reasons. Firstly, the only other person to express any concerns was Malcolm (who raises so many issues that it is sometimes impossible to sort out those that are serious from those that are not). Secondly, I have no idea what a good solution would be.

Traffic Lights & a roundabout are not wanted; improved lighting might help; but really the positioning of bus-stops & the lack of any kind of pedestrian crossing is what needs to be addressed. But where would the latter be positioned? Probably further up the Enstone Rd would help; but that would not prevent speeding traffic coming up from the Station or straight over on the Slade. Sometimes it can take ten minutes or more to cross given the queues of traffic!

I do understand that this was raised at a recent meeting of the community with the police (which I did not attend). The police apparently said that there had been no accidents at the crossroads; but then somebody said that there had been an accident that very day!

If it's really clear that it's not just me that has a problem with this crossroads (especially during the dark winter evenings), then I feel I should write that letter after all. But it would be helpful to know who else shares my concerns.

So far I have counted Neil, Igor & Malcolm--&, maybe, that is a pretty high proportion of people who use this website & who also cross at this junction on a regular basis!

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 12:13

I'll second Neil and Malcolm's comments.

The behaviour of some motorists at the Enstone Crossroads and the speed of most traffic on The Slade are just tragedies waiting to happen.

Any steps to remind motorists that there's a significant difference between being wrapped in two tons of protective steel and being a pedestrian or a cyclist would be welcome. I've witnessed enough drivers who act as if it were an equal competition; definitely 'pedestrian beware'.

I'm sure that this forum will be full of heartfelt laments when the (inevitable) tragedy does occur.

Why not practice prevention? Drive a little slower (like under the speed limit), give way to pedestrians at all intersections (especially children), stop (not slow down), at Stop signs and give cyclists a wide berth.

Just a suggestion.

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 12:12

Would it be wrong for me to post the registrations of the charlbury residents that speed up the this road?

Tue 23 Jan 2007, 10:27

I think Malcolm's point is a serious one, if he didn't phrase it in his usual style.
I got a bit of a shock yesterday crossing opposite the Scout Hut at a van bearing down on me at speed; and so now that the bumps are gone the licence to speed is back again.
The Enstone crossroads are a real disgrace, only drivers have priority over the whole complex junction. I am afraid that it will take blood for that one to be sorted out.
So, Malcolm has really made 3 points, the third being, as is mainly demonstrated in this thread, that the drivers mentality is the only one which has any priority in Charlbury, and particularly at the Enstone crossroads.
It will take more than a speed bump to sort that out, and it is just so blinking dangerous for any pedestrian trying to get over it.

Mon 22 Jan 2007, 10:06

Like your idea Graham, after all if its good enough for Central Park in New York, it should be good enough for us! Not sure about the whistle though...

Sun 21 Jan 2007, 21:54

I just worried, about rge speed of traffic and the danger road it going to be crossing over from the scout hut to nine acress. it need to have something there. to slow down cars.

Sun 21 Jan 2007, 17:14

How about a "Park & Ride Scheme", to meet all Eco friendly ideas you could use Pony & traps, lite by candles and a swannie whistle to make you aware of thier presence

Sun 21 Jan 2007, 15:16

I am certainly glad to see the bumps go. If speed at the Enstone road Xroads is really such an issue, why not have one speed bump just before it. Where I would like to see a speed bump is just before the Stop sign in Browns Lane by the Bull. Nobody seems to realise that legally you have to stop at a stop sign - sounds basic I know, but many drivers seem to think that because they are entering a junction with two one way streets they can just sail through without a thought for any pedestrian trying to cross the road!

Sat 20 Jan 2007, 17:22

language like that Malcolm should never be used on here plus can you afford to go to court with Mr Clarkson

Sat 20 Jan 2007, 14:04

It looks like Malcolm Blackmore, whoever he may be,appears to have lost the plot! I don't know how long he has lived in Charlbury, but obviously not long enough, to realise that you should not refer to fellow Charlbury residents in the terms he has used.

As for the ex-bumps of Nineacres, great to see them go. Kirtlington had those severe kind of bumps for a matter of months, before they were removed. They must have been a health and safety hazard for anyone with a bad back!

Sat 20 Jan 2007, 12:20

What has Clarkson got to do with this?

Sat 20 Jan 2007, 08:10

Rumour is they are being replaced with the platform type of speedbump. Perhaps someone in the know has more details for you.

Sat 20 Jan 2007, 01:39

And I'm NOT PLEASED. Cars are now rushing up to this dangerous crossroads, which is NOT GOOD when trying to cross, in the dark on a badly - indeed grossly negligently - lighted area, with a young child or a group of pre 5 year old kids!!

The Clarkson --------s win again, the Imperial Progress of the motor--------s must not be impeded.

Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:43

Just had some Pikies do some Tarmac on my front drive, very cheap I tell you!

Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:14

If there is any spare tarmac, there are quite a few roads around Charlbury that need resurfacing!

Fri 19 Jan 2007, 13:07

Don' t tell me....after filling the whole they still had a little spare. SO the cross roads is now a round-a-bout!!!!!

Fri 19 Jan 2007, 09:56

I heard that they need to take them up because there was a shortage of tarmac in West Oxfordshire due to the filling of the hole at the crossroads.

Thu 18 Jan 2007, 19:23

Would be interested to know how much all of this cost the council.
Nice to know they have money to spare for such projects.

And how much more will they spend till they get it right!!!

Thu 18 Jan 2007, 18:45

Try looking in "I Stole" thread!!!!!

Thu 18 Jan 2007, 18:02

Last seen in the Nine Acres area, but disappeared in last few days.
Probably turn up on the 'ads' section of charlbury.info soon!
Funniest thing this evening was following a car up Nine Acres and watching as he/she did the usual trick of aiming for the central gap between the first set of humps, only to find there was nothing to avoid!
Must admit it is a bit disconcerting the first time you approach them in the dark, as you naturally expect to feel the bump at any moment!
More seriously, are they planning to replace the humps with any other form of traffic calming?