Colin Hodgson, as our local councillor, could you do something to prevent a disaster?
(Deter parking like this and open up the route via Church Fields)
Why isn't our parking enforcement officer clamping down on this kind of thing?
(email sent to Colin)
If parking here is alright, why have we got double yellow lines?
This narrow stretch of road is one of the busiest in Ulverston.
It's used by many as a way of dodging the one way system.
Why do the people living in Church Walk, Town St, Ainsworth St, Beech Bank and Green Bank and those using the popular Church Walk School , put up with this?
Have they not considered what could happen if this particular intersection gets blocked?
That no ambulance or fire engine could reach them?
17 comments:
ffs have you nowt better to do with your time apart from moaning about someone parking somewhere.The guys doing a job to fix the phone lines around that area,where else do you want him to park.Along that road there's nowhere do you want him to park on the car park then carry the ladders up to where he's working,you really need to get a life and not the sad one you seem to lead.I bet these local councilors dread seeing an email in there inbox from you,there's other more important problems in town for them to deal with without you moaning about someone doing there job
Is that all you can find wrong with the traffic system, Geoff? The guy is obviously working and needs his tools. He can shift his van any time. Cars should be able to get past. Worse is when huge furniture vans are parked but deliveries have to be made. Cars can (and do) get through the narrow paths from Soutergate to the garages on Back Lane. The road to Hart Street can still be used if hold-ups occur. At present, the bollards allow for extra parking (school and church). And I'm not sure if through traffic is a good idea at that corner anyway — passing by the Infant School, stopping to pick up children etc.
Funeral cars seem to manage. Not a good idea to get extra traffic at the opening - Soutergate/Church Fields. It is almost a crossroads there with Old Hall Road. A busy place already. It is safer for children walking to school if the bollards stay in place. Or so I believe.
The fact that this is someone's job makes it even more indefensible.
Surely there are safe practices laid down by a company like BT. The time taken to do the job is a matter for the company and needs to be set so that safety is put first.
In this example there are no ladders and I would have thought a case or holdall could be used that covers 90% of the eventualities in a repair. Thus the van could be parked tidily thirty yards away.
Those that walk with young children (a common occurrence) past this intersection need all the safety that is possible.
Far more vehicles can be coming from all directions than is safe in this narrow space (as it's used as a rat run).
The second point is that if this particular intersection every has a vehicle break down then emergency vehicles cannot reach the streets beyond that include a school and what can be a full church.
I agree with there being bollards however they need designing so that they can be removed in emergency leaving room for emergency vehicles.
I agree that the need is a remote possibility ; but wouldn't removable bollards and access be worth providing as a precaution?
BTW I'm sure councillors aren't the least bothered by my emails - they've had them before and have adopted a way of dealing with them.
I'm sure they also enjoy your comments disagreeing with me!
Don't you think that people who constantly complain lose credibility? And that the more important issues are likely to be overlooked? 'Him again - just bin it'
Same with getting local support.
What is more important than the safety in our town:
When a large firm should be maintaining high standards at a busy intersection
Where a break down can cause serious access problems for some three hundred people in their homes, a school full and a church partly full all for an expenditure of a relatively small amount of money on replacible bollards and slightly widened access.
Where rubbish is left unnecessarily on our main street during busy shopping hours. (When commercial waste could be picked up before 9am ?)
If Ulverstonians want to choose low standards for their town (which I'm sure is not true); I'm not one of them.
Most don't even consider the question.
Most don't believe their opinion would make a difference.
I came to Ulverston not once but three times because I thought it was the best place in Britain to live.
I still believe that and will continue to strive to raise its standards and aim at it being the best place to live certainly in Cumbria if not in the north of England.
I wish to see our standards go up , not down.
Those that agree say "aye".
x . x . x . x . x
I guess we could do a poll!
.
It's reassuring to find that the real people that use Church Walk agree with me.
"Double lines are there for a purpose" ; "keep it up, Geoff", they don't live here".
I have checked the access from Church Fields to Beech Bank and all that is required is to replace one bollard with one that can be easily removed.
The existing access is about two metres and may not be enough for fire engines but many ambulances are narrow enough to get through.
Thus for the expenditure of below five hundred pounds an alternative route could be provided for ambulances to the Church Walk area.
Why hasn't this been done? The matter has been raised before. What is the view of our Councillors?
And more important - what is your view?
It won't happen without several letters being written.
Worth while?
I have checked the access from Church Fields to Beech Bank and all that is required is to replace one bollard with one that can be easily removed.
The existing access is about two metres and may not be enough for fire engines but many ambulances are narrow enough to get through.
Thus for the expenditure of below five hundred pounds an alternative route could be provided for ambulances to the Church Walk area.
Why hasn't this been done? The matter has been raised before. What is the view of our Councillors?
And more important - what is your view?
It won't happen without several letters being written.
Worth while?
I refer to Gladys's answer. With regard to the bollards, have you consulted the Fire Brigade? I believe they have safety officers to advise on these matters.
It seems the lockable bollard that existed near the hospice didn't last.
As regards the photo of pink bags. Presumably they are put where they can easily be picked up. No excuse for rubbish, which applies everywhere else it is dropped. This applies especially in alleys, near take-aways, where people sit and generally gather.
You, as well as everyone else, want to see a picturesque town (as per Crown Square) but you don't care that cardboard boxes, flapping plastic, and general untidiness blots New Market Street. (Evidently you think this to be good standards)
Flowers, fruit, chairs and tables are okay as long as they don't encroach on space needed for prams and wheelchairs.
In Market Street, I have seen too many mothers having to take buggies and children onto the road, and invalid scooters likewise. There should be space for a couple to walk with ease, especially if one is aiding someone who is disabled. Walking on the roads and in the alleys within in the town centre is a hazard in itself. Pavements are rough too, but we manage. If the residents want that sort of look about the place we have no choice.
From what I have been told there is no compensation for anyone who trips over (no matter how badly injured).
If you have an argument with BT maybe you should get in touch with them. It could be that the service man had permission to park as long as he didn't leave his vehicle? Perhaps it was his workshop too?
Just a bloke like you. I care but in different ways.
Whilst I understand the issues here, I'm not sure it is the only route - cars can also access Church Walk via the (admittedly narrow) alley half way up on Soutergate. Opening up Church Fields would in my view be a negative move, as it is very common for children to play outside in the street there and the fact that there is no through traffic prevents unneccesary danger to them.
You're completely right.
The lower of these two openings is too narrow but the upper one is maybe fine.
Sorry to have made all this fuss.
Looks like I got this issue completely wrong.
I shall completely review this posting when I've checked the facts.
Many thanks for pointing this out.
Wow i'm shocked seeing what i'm reading,Geoff Dellow admits he's wrong.Surely this will be headline news on the evening mail site today
Wow, indeed!
Still there is a massive problem with traffic on church walk though
I very appreciative of Colin Hodgson's quick response.
Even though he does not agree that restricting this area is a problem with the BT van, he has activated James Airey, the County Councillor for this area over his concern about the amount of traffic in this narrow area.
He writes:
"Geoff
Having looked at the photo I do not see any major problem.
The workman has parked as far off the road as possible leaving room for other vehicles to pass, he is carrying out a legitimate task and is available to move his van if necessary. Ulverston has a number of places where there is restricted access due to the fact that a lot of the thoroughfares were designed to accommodate horse and cart traffic.
There is far more concern regarding the rat run down Lower Back Lane putting the pupils of Church Walk Infants school at risk. This is being addressed by James Airey with a view to putting some form of traffic calming in place.
Colin Hodgson "
.
In this area we have free traffic calming measures potholes and lifting sets SLDC have found a way to cut costs!
And if they are called speed humps they dont work !
They slow you down
Post a Comment