Town Council traffic topic

Richard Fairhurst
(site admin)
👍 34

Sun 21 Nov, 17:00 (last edited on Sun 21 Nov, 17:03)

Ok, that’ll do.

If you have an opinion then please email it to the Town Council. Or post it somewhere else, maybe the “Charlbury Tractors Owners’ Club” or the “We Are Screwing Up The Planet For Subsequent Generations But Hey Who Cares I Really Need To Drive 200 Yards To The Co-op” group on Facebook or something. I don’t really care, just not here.

You don’t go into a pub and start loudly and repeatedly badmouthing the landlord’s football team. Similarly you don’t post half-baked prejudices about cyclists here, because cycling for transport, sustainability, and more liveable towns is my ‘team’. Sorry, those of you who are on Team Clarkson, that’s just the way it goes.

Yes, I am taking advantage of my position as the site owner; that’s my prerogative as the person who pays the bills. I don’t mind spending my free time working on the site, I just don’t want to wake up every morning and wonder why I bother. You are free to be equally partial on any site you might run. Please feel free to go onto Facebook and moan about my extreme capriciousness.


Jackie Hague
👍 11

Sun 21 Nov, 16:46

Highly irresponsible to propose cyclists be allowed to cycle the wrong way along the narrow one-way streets in town.  Those cyclists who already ignore the signs and travel the wrong way are breaking the law and the town council proposes rewarding such behaviour.  If cyclists can use Browns Lane and Market Street in this manner how are you going to stop them doing so on Sheep Street and Fishers Lane?  Unbelievable. 

Susie Finch
(site admin)
👍 12

Sun 21 Nov, 14:54

The only time I can remember a thread being this long is when the trains were being discussed!  I too object to cyclists going along Browns Lane and Market Street the wrong way.  Why should they?  Do they not have to obey the Highway Code ?  It’s like in Oxford when many cyclists go through red lights, don’t wear helmets and ride on the pavements.  These are narrow streets in Charlbury and an accident waiting to happen if it were to be permitted.  Please don’t forget that pedestrians also use these roads and could also be in danger.

Frances Mortimer
👍 15

Sun 21 Nov, 13:28

A brief word in support of cycle contraflows: the aim of these in combination with other measures (such as lower speed limits), is to shift the atmosphere in the town centre towards one where the streets are primarily for people walking and cycling, although we allow people to bring their cars through slowly and very carefully. I think that journeys on foot and by bike must already be the majority, so all of us stand to benefit from making this shift. 

Tim at Cotswold Frames
👍 7

Sat 20 Nov, 10:06 (last edited on Sat 20 Nov, 10:07)

If like many of us and you have sent a letter or email to object on the cycling part of the town council proposals or any of the other proposals for that matter don't forget that you if you wish you can attend the meeting, but here's the thing if I remember correctly that if you do attend you are not permitted to say anything at the meeting  unless you have contacted the town council clerk in advance to ask to be allowed to have your say.

I hope someone will correct me on this if I have this wrong but I believe this is the case.

But regardless whether you want to have a say at the meeting or if you are unable to attend then Please make sure you have sent in your objections ASAP to one of the links below as from the sounds of it just by liking someone's post or putting your comment here on forum will not help in any decision making by the CTC so get your letters / Emails sent in advance as only then will they have to read out at the meeting and minuted and that way our concerns will have to addressed.

Adrian Hunter
👍 13

Fri 19 Nov, 19:11

As both a cyclist and motorist (and of course pedestrian) I think that the road rules have to apply to all road users - it is inviting disaster to permit cyclists to go the wrong way, and those who do deserve the odd telling-off; I think the guiding principle needs to be consideration for others - it is this which has motivated the introduction of the 20mph limits, but there are places like Market Street and Park Street where even this speed is just too much. Where there is the likelihood of children or dogs - or basically anyone - who might inadvertently step off the pavement, it is just common courtesy to err on the side of caution.

stephen cavell
👍 8

Fri 19 Nov, 15:46

Tim, as I exited your shop some minutes ago I took the liberty of shouting rather loudly and rudely at a lycra clad cyclist bursting  the wrong way up Market Street just in front of me. My pleasantries were endorsed by a gentleman with walking stick. I write this in support of your earlier posts on this thread.

Tim at Cotswold Frames
👍 3

Fri 19 Nov, 12:24 (last edited on Fri 19 Nov, 13:15)

tried to send via the link we were given but kept being returned undeliverable i have since been onto the town council website and hopefully sent it via their contact page

hopefully this will work 

I have also went to put a hard copy in the cornerhouse but where do we put your post  ?

Come on town council get your act together if your offering the Corner house as a delivery address then get a secure drop box for confidential letters there please !

Have just retried this link fingers crossed no rebound as yet 

Christine Battersby
👍 7

Thu 18 Nov, 15:34 (last edited on Thu 18 Nov, 15:35)

Alice makes various points about the reduction of speed on The Slade and adjacent roads, and stresses the environmental advantages of lowering car speeds.

Whilst I in no way dissent from her statement that the most dangerous places in town are Banbury Hill, Sturt Road, The Slade, Woodstock Road and Nineacres, and would certainly agree that we need to try and address the issues of safety, the environmental impact of reducing speed to 20 m.p.h. is far less clear cut.

I have a car which advises me when to change gear in order to drive using the least fuel, and also tells me how many m.p.g. I am doing at any one time. I have no reason to believe that the car tricks me -- even if its touted best of 68 m.p.g. is, in practice, never realised. 

What is clear is that it is a slow and calm driving style that reduces the use of fuel, and also that one should remain in the highest gear possible, consistent with control of the car. This is because acceleration needs to be kept to a minimum. Perhaps that is obvious, but it is also what the flashing arrows and figures also always tell me. 

To drive at below 20 mph on a steep dip like that of The Slade involves braking and then, of course, acceleration and lower gears in order to get up the hill, given the loss of momentum of the car. 

The calculation might be different on some of the other Charlbury roads listed as dangerous, but it would be a mistake to think that 20 m.p.h. is always better in terms of environmental impact.

I am, of course, not arguing for unrestricted speed limits on The Slade -- just pointing out that 30 m.p.h. might be environmentally more advantageous than 20 m.p.h. on that particular road.

I can see the argument for moving the 20 m.p.h. limit several metres so that it includes the school crossing; but making the whole of The Slade/Sturt Rd 20 m.p.h. is far more problematic. And this is not only because of safety in ice and snow (which I mentioned in my earlier post), but also because of environmental concerns.

Harriet Baldwin
👍 8

Thu 18 Nov, 12:17

Tim is correct, when I was on the council there were were a lot of people who didn't look online for things. There were also a lot of people who felt that their views were completely ignored by the council because the council has an agenda which is to push through changes for environmental reasons without taking into account the views of residents. Consequently they didn't bother attending council meetings or commenting because it was a waste of their time since the result was from their POV a forgone conclusion and a win for the council. How you deal with that attitude I don't know, but I doubt it's changed.

Alice Brander
👍 8

Thu 18 Nov, 11:51

As a supporter of Speedwatch I have observed that traffic slows for the duration of the monitoring session and accelerates with glee the minute you start to pack up. I’m sorry to say that law breakers don’t learn from being asked politely.

There is now years of evidence showing that the most dangerous places in town are Banbury Hill, Sturt Road, The Slade, Woodstock Road and Nineacres. This is indisputable. 

 Danger and ill health to the residents of these roads comes from:   1. Speed;  2. Air quality – 75% of which road transport particulate emissions come from tyre-and break-wear, not exhaust;  3. Noise.

We have a climate emergency and a health emergency which need to be addressed through public funding.   Public funding will get the most benefit from being directed at these roads.

Sadly, the plan proposes addressing this as a part of a budget plan ‘finally and in the longer term’. I have regularly been assured that the 20mph speed limit in the town centre was a pre-cursor to a more detailed plan for the through route roads and so now is the time to address the real problems.

I don’t disagree with the items proposed to be done but I disagree with the priority and the order of importance. As the representative of Highways England working with Speedwatch has said regarding these roads. “I feel that CSW should be insistent that any scheme include measures to limit speeds on The Slade, Sturt Road & Nine Acres. Changes to these roads would benefit the largest number of people by delivering the greatest reduction in speeding, we have years of data that indicate that these are the key problem areas so it makes absolute sense to target them first. If annual budget limits are a problem do the work in a phased approach: add more and more chicanes, raised tables, narrowing, etc. over a number of years starting with the worst areas first.”

I completely agree with him and I would urge our Town Councillors to be more ambitious in their targets to protect the climate and the health of town residents.

Tim at Cotswold Frames
👍 8

Thu 18 Nov, 11:22 (last edited on Thu 18 Nov, 13:45)

Thanks for the link James, it would have been a great help to put a link on the original traffic proposal post in the "latest news" section in the first place, but as always better late than never I suppose, also it may be worth adding on the original post now as it still not been added 2 days later plus it looks more professional (just saying).

But I do have a question regarding these proposals as in where else can Charlbury residents find out about these sort of proposals that the council would like " Joe Public " views on ? as not everyone in the town has access to the internet and some don’t want access.

 Especially for proposals that the council are mulling over now which will affect everyone should they be passed, as the post says you propose to submit as part of the TRO, subject to listening to views on whether these are changes that Charlbury supports.

And how do you know that you have an accurate representation of the Charlbury electorate to even decide on submitting them just as part of the TRO ?

As many residents may not have even heard of these proposals being discussed, I for one wouldn’t of heard of it if I hadn’t of been on the Charlbury Info site.

I personally have no problem with putting in physical traffic calming methods such as bollards etc along the Slade etc and to adding and removing double yellow lines as stated but as to " Pander " to a few cyclist in allowing them to legally run riot through the town centre, down one way streets just to save them a few minutes from getting from A to B beggars belief, it won’t be long before a driver coming down Browns lane to the Bull junction takes out the said Cyclist coming up Market St trust me I can see near misses every now and then from my shop window.

Also I presume that should this ludicrous idea gets bulldozed through for the “few” then we will have a load more ugly signage dotted around the town albeit on metal post and or painted on the roads ( if you can call them roads judging by the appalling state of them).

I hope that the council members do take into account the comments on the Charlbury info site and that they look at the number of likes given to each comment as that should give you a fair idea of what people think ( at present my first comment on the cyclist contraflow idea is streets ahead).

But I do urge everyone who “liked” my view/comment on the cyclist contraflow that you please email the town council via the link they have finely given and tell them you think it’s a bloody stupid idea and that you like many others disagree with their proposal.

Steve Jones

Wed 17 Nov, 23:56 (last edited on Thu 18 Nov, 00:00)

It makes virtually no difference from the station. Where it does make a difference for somebody who comes via Thames Street from that end of town or, of course, from the Spelsbury direction in general (after they'd managed a fairly stiff climb up Pound Hill).

The difference in that case is it's 280 metres further and another 7 metres of ascent (as the cyclist has to drop down 7 metres to Church Lane). Whether that is a hardship or not to an ordinary cyclist is a matter of debate.

Gary Harrison
👍 2

Wed 17 Nov, 23:27

This is just my personal opinion but if you start from the station and end at the Bull you have climbed the same amount whichever way you go?

James Styring
👍 8

Wed 17 Nov, 22:27

The case Richard Fairhurst makes for contraflow for cycling in Market St actually makes perfect sense, and it is interesting to see both he and Steve Jones talking about safer pavements. Pedestrians do tend to get forgotten when councils propose improvements to layouts in schemes like this, but in the end, nearly all of us are pedestrians. 

Tim Widdows – re walking along the one way street with a bike, it's worth bearing in mind that the width of a bike and its pusher are more than twice the width of a ridden bike and they'd get in the way of oncoming pedestrians and cars even more than if the person were simply riding the bike.  

Tim, and anyone else wishing to share their views with the council, can email the new town clerk, Lisa Wilkinson, on charlburytownclerk [@] The council has a new postal address too I (handy for you, Tim!): 

Charlbury Town Council
c/o Charlbury Corner HouseMarket StreetCharlbury, OX7 3QW

And Jim Holah is right – speeding cars are a constant threat to us all. I think the contraflows would be are a minor improvement, but it's the big battles on the Slade and elsewhere that we need to make sure we win.  

Steve Jones
👍 2

Wed 17 Nov, 21:48 (last edited on Wed 17 Nov, 21:55)

Having cycled via the Churchyard, then I can't say I found it a hardship either and I'm far from a superfit lycra-clad rider with a carbon fibre bike.

As it is, to get some numbers into this, I put the two routes from the end of Thames Street to the Rose and Crown into my mapping software and via Market Street, it's 190 metres with 3.2 metres of total ascent. Going via the Churchyard, it's 470 metres with 10.5 metres of ascent. So a difference of 280 metres with 7.3 metres extra ascent.

Coming up from the station the differences are insignificant (as you'd expect).

Personally, If I had ridden a tandem with a 5 year old over whatever hills I'd had to drag us over to get to the bottom of Thames Street, then I think the trade-off between a 25 feet of extra climbing and about 2 minutes cycling is a good one compared to the possibility of meeting a Sainsbury's delivery van coming the other way on Market Street (other supermarket delivery services are available).

Richard Fairhurst
(site admin)
👍 3

Wed 17 Nov, 21:11

I was disagreeing that it was “no hardship”. An extra climb is not significant if you’re a speedy guy on a carbon-fibre bike; it is if you’re pulling a five-year old along on a tandem.

Steve Jones

Wed 17 Nov, 21:06 (last edited on Wed 17 Nov, 21:10)

   are you denying that you wrote :-

"Third, maybe a detour via the churchyard is “no hardship” if you’re lucky enough to be a super-fit Lycra-clad whippet riding for pleasure on a carbon-fibre bike."

I wrote :-

"pure hyperbole to claim that cycling via the Churchyard requires somebody to be a lycra-clad superfit cyclist on a carbon fibre bike."

I stand by this. You were exaggerating for effect.

I should add that on Sunday I was passed by a man and what I assume where his two young sons, all on bikes through the churchyard (like me, they had just come from the station). None wore lycra, and none were on carbon racing bikes.

Richard Fairhurst
(site admin)
👍 4

Wed 17 Nov, 21:03

If you could refrain from putting words in my mouth, Steve, that would be smashing. I didn’t say “requires”. I said “we would very much like not to add another climb to the ride”. Thank you very much.

Steve Jones
👍 4

Wed 17 Nov, 20:47

Richard, pure hyperbole to claim that cycling via the Churchyard requires somebody to be a lycra-clad superfit cyclist on a carbon fibre bike. Yes, there's a moderate climb up Church Street and a slight rise along Church Lane but it's hardly a major test. Frankly, if somebody is put off that, then they aren't going to be much suited to cycling in town as the place is full of much steeper climbs.

Nobody is going to turn Charlbury into some sort of version of a town in the Netherlands, most of which are famously flat. It's a small place, and much more suited to walking than cycling; hardly anywhere is more than 15 minutes walk from Spendlove. Most cyclists that come through the town are there for leisure or fitness reasons, and due to the nature of the area, that's unlikely to change much.

I'd rather see effort towards pedestrians, and especially those who are not so fit through advancing years. Much of the town is particularly unsuited to wheelchairs or mobility scooters. The routes up from the town centre to Ticknell Piece and the Green are generally awful, with that dangerous junction on the Enstone Road or the extremely poorly surfaced Crawborough being the only options (and I realise the latter is a private road which massively complicates things). 

As for people riding on the pavement on Market Street because they aren't allowed "the wrong way" on the road, then I think that very unlikely. A far more likely reason is that if somebody is cycling the wrong way up Market Street, then they are very likely to come across a vehicle coming the opposite way and they will have to dismount as the road is simply not wide enough for much of its length to allow a cyclist and vehicle to pass one another (and especially with some of the vans and commercial vehicles that come down the road). Allowing cyclists to rise contra-traffic isn't going to change that factor one bit. In fact it would well increase with many more cyclists following that route rather than via the Churchyard.

Harriet Baldwin
👍 8

Wed 17 Nov, 18:52 (last edited on Wed 17 Nov, 18:53)

Sadly Richard people with dementia don't, because they think the traffic can see them and will be aware they're likely to step out. As I said, charlbury used to claim to be dementia friendly, and with Rushy bank going ahead, it's going to need to be more aware not less. 

Richard Fairhurst
(site admin)
👍 10

Wed 17 Nov, 17:54 (last edited on Wed 17 Nov, 17:59)

As a resident of Market Street, I would like to see two-way cycling permitted for three reasons.

First, it will help slow the car traffic on the street. There has been a long-standing issue with dangerous speeds on this street and the Town Council has several years of correspondence, particularly from residents at the western (Dyers Hill) end. People drive more slowly on narrow streets if they know they may encounter oncoming traffic – there is research to this end and anecdotally I’ve certainly found it to be true.

Second, people from both in and out of Charlbury do and will cycle the ‘wrong way’ up Market Street. In reality you aren’t going to prevent that short of a regular Thames Valley Police patrol, and much though I love TVP, that’s unlikely given that police sightings in central Charlbury are about as frequent as walruses on jetskis. They have bigger fish to fry (the police, that is, not the walruses).

The problem is that some people think that cycling on the pavement is a lesser crime than cycling the wrong way on the road. So they do ride on the pavement along Market Street. I would invite you to consider how that works on a sub-4ft pavement when your front door opens onto the pavement and you have a five-year old (or, a few years back, a kid in a buggy). It is terrifying. I have on occasion run after offenders to remonstrate, and even at one point put up DIY signs, but to no effect.

For the safety of my family, I would far rather cyclists were on the road rather than the pavement.

Third, maybe a detour via the churchyard is “no hardship” if you’re lucky enough to be a super-fit Lycra-clad whippet riding for pleasure on a carbon-fibre bike. I regularly cycle with said five-year old to and from school in Chadlington on a tandem, and we would very much like not to add another climb to the ride. Sustainable, healthy travel shouldn’t just be the preserve of “keen cyclists”, it should be accessible to all. 

(Incidentally, I recall similar predictions of doom, including by some posters to this thread, when cycling was first permitted through the churchyard a few years back. The very fact that there is an alternative route at all is because St Mary’s took a balanced, forward-thinking view.)

As for how it works practically, it’s the same as Park Street, or Fawler, or a thousand other places with narrow sections of road. You stop and wait your turn. As a pedestrian I look both ways before crossing a one-way street, as surely everyone does – there are wrong-way motorists on Market Street most days, as well as those on Brown’s Lane emerging from the Bull car park, and I wouldn’t want to take my chances!

Gareth Epps

Wed 17 Nov, 17:51

My understanding is that speed cameras as with other forms of enforcement come under the jurisdiction of Thames Valley Police.  I would welcome any ideas as to how we may be able to facilitate the operation of speed enforcement cameras in the town to surmount that particular institutional obstacle!

Especially examples from elsewhere.

Alex Michaels

Wed 17 Nov, 17:15

I agree with what Sam has put - doing a quick google search has immediately come up with 2 devices/suppliers (Truvelo & Jenoptik) which appear to be mountable on existing lighting columns. For the 'main' roads, where speeding is worst, cameras offer a better solution than putting up 20mph signs.

Tim at Cotswold Frames
👍 2

Wed 17 Nov, 17:11

To be fair Gareth at the start of the thread you did put.. 

"Following on from the news item, a topic for discussion. Thoughts please!"

So we are all presuming this is where you you wanted us to put our comments.

Is there a link that you can put on here for us to direct our " thoughts " directly to the council without us all having to google how to do it please just incase we are unable to attend the meeting in person, as it's obvious there are a lot members of the community that would like their views to be taken into consideration that is if it's not too late.

Gareth Epps
👍 1

Wed 17 Nov, 16:53 (last edited on Wed 17 Nov, 17:48)

For clarity (and I would guide those who didn’t make it that far to the final paragraph of the news item) - people wanting to make specific representations to the Town Council should do so directly.  Plenty of town councillors will be following this, but as with anything on the forum, we won't assume that anything said here is necessarily representative of broader public opinion.

To pick up on a point Rosemary made, the issue around Grammar School Hill is specifically one of our proposals.

Jos Foulston
👍 7

Wed 17 Nov, 16:18

Regarding the idea to have cycle access via a contra-flow arrangement along Market Street and Browns Lane, I must say, as one of the many keen cyclists in Charlbury, this is non-sensical. We should not be encouraging 'my kind' to cycle against the traffic for starters and I just can't see how this works practically, especially up Browns Lane, when I may want to cycle up to CoOp and have to take evasive action on to the pavement when a car or bus even comes down the other way.

As SJ comments, we can cycle (slowly and respectfully) through the churchyard, which I do on almost a daily basis. It's really no hardship. 

PS Yes, I have been to Holland. Cracking place.

Michael Grant
👍 1

Wed 17 Nov, 14:54

Is there an email where i can my concerns about these traffic calming measures, or do we raise them on here.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Christine Battersby
👍 12

Wed 17 Nov, 11:54

 I am against a proposed 20 mph speed limit on The Slade -- although I suspect I'm in a minority on this. The dip on the road is steep, and think 20 mph would be potentially dangerous in snow and also when icy. Not everyone drives huge Chelsea tractors or other 4-wheeled drive cars. What we don't need is people diverting through the town to avoid a potentially dangerous road.

I am open to the possibility of building some kind of speed gate to try and slow traffic down, although it's not obvious where such gates could be sited. This would be easier on the Banbury Rd/Woodstock Road than on The Slade. I'm less keen on trying to build out into the roadway in The Slade/Sturt Road itself, except perhaps near Londis somewhere. Although I would like the Enstone Rd crossroads made safer, I don't see building out into The Slade near the crossroads as a practicable way of doing this. 

Simon's suggestion of calming measures for the Ditchley Rd is also impractical. It's already 20 mph, and parked cars make it single-lane traffic in practice in quite a few places at the lower end of the road. This is a road much used by tractors and large agricultural vehicles. They need to have good access. 

I like many of the other suggestions about parking -- but certainly not reducing the car parking near the Co-op, and I am also against bikes going against the 1-way system. I was almost knocked over by somebody doing just that by The Bull only a few weeks ago.

Sam Small
👍 5

Tue 16 Nov, 22:58

The Banbury Hill/The Slade problem could easily be solved by fitting modern digital speed cameras - far cheaper & quicker than doing a load of physical road layout changes. 

Rosemary Bennett
👍 8

Tue 16 Nov, 21:45


Market Street and Browns Lane. Contraflow for cyclists. Just, no. Mad idea. Hard enough to hear a cyclist speeding past you in Brown's Lane just where the pavement runs out and you are forced to step into the road. To be able to hear traffic is a safety valve, but speeding cyclists can barely he heard, let alone avoided, in such  circumstances as these. Some people can’t hear. I was nearly knocked down by one, and I'm careful, and I can hear.

Market Street is now so busy  with traffic of every kind, it makes it almost impossible for all pedestrians - parents with children, the elderly and the infirm, to name just a few - to be able to get from one end to the other, safely and with confidence. Just trying to imagine a group of cyclists powering their way upstream of all this beggars belief. 


The very dangerous place that needs addressing right now, because of the the lack of double yellow lines,  is Grammar School Hill. It’s a totally blind bend. 😳

Malcolm Blackmore
👍 9

Tue 16 Nov, 20:47

Again - ever been to Holland? Trust me, the roads along the grachts (grachten??) are VERY NARROW. Barely enough to get past. Yet all the time - note that, ALL the time - a bustle of cyclists and pedestrians and motor vehicles pass by with nary a conflict. It's OUR assumptions and priorities that are illogical, wrong, and part of a collective species suicide pact of convenience (for some) over all consideration.

Harriet's point has more weight but again the issue is one of perception. Getting used to it. Being considerate and sensible .

Yes, it was quite freaky at first driving into a town and immediately coming across a woonerf (huh?! Where's da road gone?! And there's kids and bikes and scooters coming in from all sides!) Or into a large area of town with narrow canal-side roads, parked vehicles all along one side, a cold gray gracht on t'other (guard rails - ha! - guards are for wimps) and hordes of bikes coming towards you (often in morning or evening with a couple of kids balanced on the back rack).

One does hear a lot of bicycle bells tinkling away. Again a change of perception. It is "polite" to give a short ting in warning. And not assume the pedestrian in front of you isn't deaf. Had that. Here bell-ringing, it's seen as rude. In France on fast roads its polite and sensible to toot the horn a good way from the cyclist(s) one is coming up on fast, to let them know you're there. Here...

These... all non-issues with the right outlook.

It's our  way of thinking that isn't right and in this tiny little trivial example of a sensible, convenient, sustainable, low-resource use way of town living, mixing vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and all, some "attitudinal adjustment" is in order, toot de sweet, along with a lot of other attitudinal adjustments for a longer term survival on our little starship and its straining life support system. That is what is in order.

Jim Holah
👍 8

Tue 16 Nov, 20:45

Sweating the small stuff again.....I can't think of the last time I was intimidated by a cyclist (although I accept Harriets point that cyclists are quiet & need to be careful of others) as opposed to HGV's careering through town, constant delivery vehicles, speeding noisy vehicles & motorcycles.  Let's focus on the big wins & the potential for an improved environment.

Harriet Baldwin
👍 4

Tue 16 Nov, 20:14

And again, I'll make the point about dementia. Charlbury is after all supposedly dementia friendly.... While they won't be driving, they will be walking and they won't expect cyclists to be coming the wrong way towards them. 

Steve Jones
👍 10

Tue 16 Nov, 20:11

The point about the Netherlands is not exactly relevant to whether a one way street is wide enough for a cyclist and a motor vehicle travelling in the opposite direction to pass one another. There is precisely zero possibility of that on Brown's Lane or Market Street unless all the parked cars are removed.

The Netherlands has done a lot of engineering work to make cycle lanes, but even they won't have found a way to allow a cycle to pass an S3 bus travelling in the opposite direction on Brown's Lane.

The UK government guidance document on contra-flow cycling on one way systems is clearly written in the context of there being space for a cycle lane (which can be used for bi-directional traffic). See section 6.4.

Malcolm Blackmore
👍 3

Tue 16 Nov, 20:01

Have people ever been to the Netherlands? 

There it is the very general rule that "FIETSERS <excepted>" signs were everywhere on almost every one-way street unless obviously suicidal to be anything but manifestly having to be one-way. 

The "problem" of meeting fiets coming the "wrong way" simply DOES NOT EXIST. When you drive there it's the expected norm. 

Plus I believe Dutch law puts the onus on the MOTOR-VEHICLE driver to explain how they managed to hit a cyclist or pedestrian, not the perverted English law "assumption" that it is the responsibility of the "victim" to explain how they didn't manage to avoid the loaded weapon .. err 2 tonnes of moving moving metal ... wielded by the safely-armoured assailant ^^^^^^^^^ hapless driver assumed innocent until etc. 

This reversal to a much more logical balance of responsibility and the outcome of abrupt alignment of temporal-spatial coordinates has a wondrous effect upon the conduct of those wielding the weapon ^^^^^^ motorised mobile mass of metal. 

If we don't want our near descendants holding off massed m/billions of environmental refugees at gunpoint from the sea walls of our rapidly shrinking-from-above-the-rising-waves of the drowned archipelagos of the remaining hilltops ... Perhaps we should just get used to the idea of cyclists coming the "wrong way" along streets (particularly when the routes are clearly such an obvious short connection between destinations and showing an acute lack of awareness of comparative in/convenience. 

We know that energy consuming machinery is such a major implement of our collective mass species/biocidal efforts that "right" clearly resides on one side. As I said, there, The Law takes sides. And rightly so.

[Someone who speaks Nederlands could remind us of the word on those signs which I have forgotten now, it being many decades since was regularly cycling/entraining all around the Randstadt towns and elsewhere in W Europe when an Environment and Employment/Trade Unions campaigner/lobbyist took me all over, often with my trusty English Touring bike - said looking quite out of place amidst all the laid-back Gazelles along the gracht. And I did quite a bit of vehicle driving, East - before and after The Wall - and West Europe. So saw it from both sides.]

Steve Jones
👍 11

Tue 16 Nov, 19:52

I would echo Tim's point on this. Market Street and is far to narrow to allow safe cycling in the opposite direction to vehicles. In the case of Market Street, there is also an alternative route through the Churchyard.

Where cyclists are permitted to travel against one-way traffic flow, I've only seen it done where there is room for a cycle and a vehicle to pass safely and usually with a marked lane. There is absolutely no possibility of that on Browns Lane, Market Street, Fishers Lane or Browns Lane as far as I can see, and it's inviting an accident.

This feels like a gesture, full of potential safety issues which would, in practice, make very little difference to the practicality of cycling round town.

Tim at Cotswold Frames
👍 17

Tue 16 Nov, 18:23

If I have read this correctly that you are proposing to allowing cyclist to have free rein cycling either way up a one way street is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard, who gets right of way ? what happens if an accident happens and then you will have the ones that say oh I thought this applied to all the one way streets, some cyclist think they are a law unto themselves at the best of times, whilst I applaud they want to be more environmentally friendly they already have 2 options to choose from get off their bike and walk down the one way street or take the longer route round like every other person either in a car or on a horse.

Simon Hogg
👍 4

Tue 16 Nov, 17:24

I think the outlined initiatives are needed and it is also good not to lose sight of the environmental impact of cars. If traffic calming measures are being thought about for The Slade, can Ditchley Road also be included for consideration, speeds are often 40MPH+ up and down the road. This will also be controversial, but what about reducing the number of spaces behind the Co-op, to discourage casual car use and encourage walking or cycling.

Jim Holah
👍 8

Tue 16 Nov, 13:25

It's heartening to hear that the new TC is taking a proactive approach to these issues, many of which are very sensible, subject to details being worked through with residents.  I particularly welcome the acknowledgement that traffic calming is required at key points, along with reduced limits on Spelsbury Rd and a wider 20mph across the town.  Keep up the momentum please.

Hans Eriksson
👍 4

Tue 16 Nov, 12:40

Brilliant, keep up the good work!

Gareth Epps
👍 2

Tue 16 Nov, 12:04

Following on from the news item, a topic for discussion.  Thoughts please!

This thread has been locked. You cannot add any further replies.

Charlbury Website © 2012-2021. Contributions are the opinion of their authors. Heading photo by David R Murphy. Code/design by Richard Fairhurst. Contact us. Follow us on Twitter. Like us on Facebook.