Overpaid and over here

[Martin Cassini]

The more I observe traffic controls, the more I think they exist to occupy and solve problems created by traffic engineers. They certainly don’t add to the sum of human happiness. We have within us the ability to negotiate safe, efficient movement, but traffic systems prevent us from using it. Cycling home last night, I saw congestion tailing back from Lambeth North to the roundabout at Westminster Bridge. After overtaking the jam, I saw the problem – see photos (sorry about the quality). Redundant cones and signs were parked on the road, blocking a lane and creating a bottleneck. So I got off my bike and lifted them out of the way. There were thumbs up from the drivers so ludicrously disadvantaged. One driver even got out of his car to help. Sure, the largely unnecessary traffic lights were causing some congestion, but at least the traffic was now free to use two lanes. PS: this morning I was at Lambeth North again. The signs had been stacked away. A street-cleaner was in the road when a horn sounded – I looked up to see a Vauxhall Zafira blasting through the green light at what we reckoned must have been 50mph. Speed doesn’t kill. Inappropriate speed does. What do you get at priority, signal-controlled junctions? Inappropriate speed. What do you get at no-priority junctions, or junctions where lights are out of action? Slow speeds and sociable, efficient filtering. What’s wrong with traffic engineers and policymakers? They are overpaid, overblown and over here.

[David Neylan]

The Chideock Puffin crossing though extremely minor in the scheme of things is another tiny nail in the coffin of personal freedom and real democracy.

The problem as I found out last night at the Western Area Transport Action Group meeting is that there is a very elaborate structure in place to generate policy, from central government all the way down to local council level. There are many consultations (three in our case) where the public are invited to put their views and these are woven into a Local Area Plan detailing policies that are supposed to deliver us what we want.

A local council officer gave us a very good presentation; which said all the right things on the environment, accessibility, inclusivity and so on.
Clauses such as;

Keep signs, lines and street furniture to the minimum needed for safety and remove intrusive roadside clutter.

Encourage and test innovative approaches and make full use of the flexibility in national regulations, standards and codes of practice.

This design aims to slow traffic by creating the sense of this being a shared space, so that drivers expect to see pedestrians and do not assume they have right of way.

So why then is picturesque Chideock getting a Puffin crossing without any consultation especially when it flies in the face of the Local Area Plan contravening it on nearly every point?

Answer given;
'The trunk road is controlled by the Highways Agency and the council would probably not get away with that type of scheme.'
Although they just installed one in Bridport!

The point being that all this policy planning really means nothing on the ground where signal-controlled crossings are the only tool in the box.

The Puffin crossing study in London only looked at safety and broadly said there was no statistical evidence that they were safer than Pelicans but hinted that they may be less safe than no crossing - hardly a ringing endorsement but not a show stopper either.

No comment on efficiency, cost or anything else leaving traffic planners to work away in their professional bubbles untroubled by the users.

[Martin Cassini]

For clarification, the yellow sign is announcing the road closure of Baylis Rd on the left, but Baylis Rd had its own prominent signs blocking the entrance and announcing the closure. Why couldn't the morons, sorry, engineers or operatives, erect the sign on the pavement, which is wide and already cluttered enough with other pesky signs?