The following story should have appeared in the BFP this week, had not some pages from the Stowmarket edition accidentally substituted the pages on which this piece about our speeding campaign appeared:http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news?articleid=3098320
16 comments:
I thought it said 'spending plans' and clicked on to it excitedly, only to discover that it's the same old same old.
What is this "Same old same old", David? Don't you agree that speeding is wrong? How would you tackle it? Shared space? Speed humps?
Paul - a bit of real politics for a change. Good!
You were photographed in Westgate Street. Who is standing there now? Who will be standing there tomorrow? And the next day? Not you - or Richard Rout. The answer is: Nobody. Another irritating gimmick.
Speed Humps don't work in Cannon Street and won't work in Hardwick Lane - or anywhere else. Shared Space is a real possibility in certain circumstances. But there are several other options more suitable to Westgate Street.
Given its width, a continuous pedestrian refuge with access gaps is essential. From memory, the pavements between Guildhall Street and Crown Street are quite wide, except just near Friars Lane, so build-outs wouldn't help.
I suggest treatment to the road surface as the first area of study.
As for 'speeding is wrong' I have never driven a car at more than 20 mph. How about you?
As a driver of 40 years who has been caught speeding once or twice, I can assure you David that fear of speed traps works. Although there is a sad dearth of them in the town, the frequency of them on the A14 bridges keeps me legal.
By the way, if you looked more carefully at the photo, I was pointing the camera down Guildhall St. Westgate doesn't have a 20 mph limit.
Anthony Platt, whose house I was almost outsidde, approved. So did many other local people who spotted us. Sometimes it takes the right sort of gimmick to work.
Paul - my point about speed traps is that are not continuous - treating road sufraces is.
It's nice to know that you have Anthony's approval on something and that other local people like the initiative, but does it save lives?
Last night's Churchgate Area Association (c200 members) committee meeting enthusiastically backed our bid to become a community speedwatch trial area.
And where is the SID or a speed sign for southgate street. I think else where you "promised the local residents" action, only to back track and suggest some poor council offical was to blame for its non appearance.
There was a static flashing sign idea from Bury Boy, and Florrie's Mum, with a position, wiring, power. Plus a indication that a static 24 hour speed sign did work in the thetford area.( all published on your blog) no need to search the free press
These signs are real not a gimmick. A gimmick would be to encourage BB to get his Dulux paint out and induldge in road marking.
This is a touch unfair anon. No wonder you choose to remain so.
When I tried to chase up SID with the Engineer, who had promised it, he had just started a two week holiday. Was that my fault? I then found out anyone could order it via SCC's websit, so I did - and I published the link so others could. Florrie's Mum was most grateful after Bury Boy had chastised me for only giving the address. (Putting links on comments is not easy - you have to understand HTML - which I don't.
I was with the Engineer at a meeting last night (while you were probably relaxing, anon) and the first thing I asked him (after enquiring about his holiday) was what happened to SID. As I don't want to be accused of the blame game I'll say no more here and take it on the chin myself.
We have waited years for a 20 mph limit which has still not arrived. Is it so bad that we have to wait a little longer for SID?
And I never said the signs are a gimmick. You are muddling me up with David Nettleton - which rather brings to mind a phrase including the words insult and injury.
I wonder what BB and FM think of your comment???
Paul - it was your post that is the gimmick because it gives an impression of action rather than inaction. In addition, I don't recall making any comment at all about SID. Enlighten me.
I'm sorry you should be so dismissive of my efforts on behalf of my electors, David.
As to the comments about SID, look back at the previous comments.
I did request SID as you suggested, and clicked for feedback to my e-mail address but have heard nothing from them-not even an acknowledgment. I don't really care about all the politics and arguing, I just want something to be done about the problem. perhaps this is a naive point of view.
FM - I've heard nothing from SID either, but I don't think that means our request has been ignored. I agree with you about just wanting something done. The Engineer says we have to wait until SID's in the area again.
Paul - it isn't the 'effort' I'm criticizing but the 'effect'. There is a difference.
I can't find any previous adverse comment about SID.
Look more carefully David. You mention "gimmick" and another links this comment to SID.
Paul - I suppose that's about as near to an admission of error as I am likely to get from you. Even that will probably be denied. Life's grim on the blogface!
It's a lot grimmer if you're the blog author/editor.
Post a Comment