Forum topic: "Quieter Neighbourhoods" consultation to start soon

David Hughes,

Let me make it absolutely plain to you that I am not extreme about anything. Nor am I in principle against what the Council is trying to do. I’m simply concerned that their plans if not properly thought through will create more problems than they solve

If anyone is extreme, it is you, with your unceasing diabtribes against motorists collectively. A group that makes up around 75% of the adult population, despite apparently being a driver and car owner yourself. By all means, blame individual bad drivers for their actions, but not all of us collectively.

I could criticise certain bike riders who do not wear a helmet or make themselves sufficiently visible on the road. Shall I? Or is a matter of personal choice.

With regard to children, I am a family man. I know my child’s safety needs. I’ll also have you know that I am one of the few parents in the FLDRA area, to ever do the school run by bike. But on most days we take the W9 bus. I do not need a lecture from you.

My street IS STILL alive with neighbourly activity - called community, people do chat, my son learned to ride his bike on the pavement outside our house and in Broomfield Park when he was two. That was only three years ago.

Since the arrival of cars, more than a CENTURY AGO our wealth and wellbeing (including air quality) has improved exponentially.

David, you seem to live in an arcadian fantasy world and just don’t like progress. I’m sure you know that in the 19th Century, perhaps the era that you hark back to, most children didn’t receive much education, they worked in mills and down mines, in conditions that would horrify all of us today. Few adults were concerned about child abuse. In fact, you could say that with a beating being the norm for misbehaving, most children were in constant fear of it. Not only that, but the horse and cart was far more dangerous to a child then , than a car is today.

For the record, I am actively involved in a road safety charity and have been in a practical way for the past 12 years. I do things, rather than just talk about them. When I drive, I try to up hold the highest standards. I wish others to do likewise and most drivers’ behaviour is generally reasonable and the wilfully bad ones are a smallish minority. However, I do not wish to be part of a collective punishment for the poor behaviour of others.

But I suspect that what really differentiates you from me, is that you think the State or other collective bodies should be all controlling. I believe in the supremacy of the individual and with it, liberty and responsibility.

Best wishes,

Paul

Won't this just make the property of people who live on the Lake Roads even more desirable than they already are. While people who live on Green Lanes, Bourne Hill, etc. can expect even more high speed driving, noise, pollution than there already is?

Andrew Nix

Andrew Nix is spot on when he speculates that house prices will tend to rise should Quieter Neighbourhood status come to the the Lakes and Meadway Estates. Which in its way is a ringing endorsement of the council's plans; people like living on streets which are more people friendly.

And this issue gives us important guidance about how residents in the area should respond to the plans because within the estates there are wide differences between the various streets. Live on Harlech Road and you might worry about the safety of your kids but little else, live on Norman Road and you can probably discount traffic altogether (though I don't know it well), live on Conway Road and speed can be dangerous and intrusive, but traffic is light most of the time. Live on Old Park Road and you are faced with high speeds, even very high speeds and serious rat-running.

And my point, a point emphasized in the Residents' Association's flyer about the meeting, is that if you do live in a quiet place like Norman Road you are also responding to the plans on behalf of the people who live on Old Park Road - we really must decide as a community, not just in terms of our own situation.

And of course if you drive its very important to remember that the experience of being in a car at 30mph is very different to the experience of being in the street as a car at 30 passes. Calm streets are very important to community life, to cyclists, to parents.

It’s worth picking up Paul Mandel’s statement that the majority of drivers’ behaviour is generally reasonable and the wilfully bad a smallish minority. Perhaps, or perhaps not, if based on one’s personal subjective assessment, but as I outlined in a recent presentation to Fox Lane Residents Association, using covert Council data typically between one quarter and one third of vehicles on Residents’ Associations (non-boundary) streets typically break the 30mph speed limit.

If the Highway Code is strictly applied in its areas of SHOULD, rather than the legal (30mph) MUST , ie parts which essentially say drive slower where there are likely risk factors such as pedestrians, parked cars, children, bends in the road, cyclists.. (eg sections 104, 120, 124, 130, 181, 182, 183) and assume a representative indicative limit of 25mph follows to reflect such guidelines – incidentally being in line with the recently agreed pan-New York City speed limit – then the same covert data shows the MAJORITY of drivers on the Lakes and Meadway Estates are acting inappropriately for our local conditions. Indeed in the case of Meadway (east), 70% of all passing traffic exceed this lower speed. It transpires it’s only a minority acting reasonably, exactly the opposite to the claim.

Andrew Nix points out that the boundary A-Roads have their own existing issues of high speed driving, with associated noise and pollution. They should not be forgotten in any solution, emphasising the appropriateness of a whole area view, a point which was previously made in the Newsletter from the Chairman of the Association.

Some streets in the Fox Lane area are pretty quiet, others not. Fox Lane itself, for instance. Cars go much too fast, the road is hilly and bendy, so sightlines are poor. I walk up here a lot en route from PG to Southgate and it's a very pleasant, nice vigorous uphill walk - apart from the noise from cars speeding past and the difficulty of crossing the road without the fear that a car will come speeding round the corner. There are some lovely houses along here, but I don't think i'd like to live in one of them.

Another road with a traffic problem is Old Park Road. Too many big cars going too fast.

Better not to risk people being injured or killed just so that drivers don't get "frustrated". Well, I'm frustrated at having to wait ages before i can cross the road because of all the cars. We all have to make compromises in order to get along with others. In this case it's the drivers who are in charge of several tons of metal.

The whole of the FLDRA area is residential, it's full of vulnerable human beings. Cars should definitely not be driving through it at 30mph. Just look at this diagram and ponder:



Couldn't agree more - careful and thoughtful design is essential.

Amberley Road is small residential road turning off Bourne Hill. Amberley is used as a popular cut through and gets incredibly busy during peek times ; it's not unusual for the entire length of the road to become a traffic jam of noisy spluttering cars.

This morning I watched 3 large coaches wiz pass my windows on Amberley Road. Why should commercial vehicles be allowed to cut through quiet residential roads?

There are two retirement homes located on Amberley Road and the use of the road as a cut through has made the road dangerous, especially for elderly residents.

Basil Clarke said:

“The whole of the FLDRA area is residential, it's full of vulnerable human beings. Cars should definitely not be driving through it at 30mph.”

It is quiet residential and for most of the time the human beings are in their homes. There is not little pedestrian activity compared to a high street.

But, as I have preciously said, 20 mph can be far too fast in many some places. Drivers should drive to the conditions. There is no need to reduce the existing 30 mph limit. Yesterday, after taking my son to school, I WALKED down Hoppers Road, 20 mph speed limit, humps every so many yards – and it was NO pleasure. Commercial vehicles. bang bang bang over the humps. Three young drivers raced one another, screeching tyres, accelerating to well in excess of 60 mph. Out of control, hard braking too late when turning off. Only their cars’ safety systems preventing major skidding.

You will not stop that kind of idiocy, with so called traffic calming and reduced speed limits. Only the police can stop that.

What you will do, is take otherwise law abiding people out of the law, by being over zealous. A bit like prohibition in the USA.

Back to my walks, and experience tells me Woodland Way and Broad Walk, (both 30 mph limits) are far more pleasant. The idiots still cruise there, but their antics are marginally less troublesome.

Amberley Road, has always carried more traffic, as does it's continuation, The Mall. It's the shortest route from New Southgate/ Southgate Green to Winchmore Hill and avoids congestion around Southgate Circus.

I don't know what the solution is without creating more problems elsewhere. May be the Council has a good one. We'll find out tonight

Most of the time, parked cars and the bend, prevent traffic travelling that fast , but I know it can be troublesome.

There is no history (2005 -2013) of any serious crashes in Amberley Road. Only 2 minor ones on the junctions at either end.