Town Council traffic topic (Debate)

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 23:51

This thread was locked by Richard Fairhurst.

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 23:51 (last edited on Tue 30 Nov 2021, 00:06)

Hey ho, what is going on here. I locked this thread, as I did the main one. I think I explained why. You’re 100% welcome to go debate it on Facebook or Reddit or Twitter or Nextdoor or whatever, but I honestly don’t want to spend my days maintaining a website for people to yell things about cyclists because you saw one go through a red light in Oxford or ride past you on a towpath without ringing their bell or whatever. Landlord’s football team, etc. etc. I’ve said all this. There are a million websites, you’re not forced to use the one I code, edit and pay for. Facebook is lovely and Mr Zuckerberg is happy for you to talk about whatever you want, entirely out of the goodness of his impoverished heart. Thank you.

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 19:39

I have checked 'contraflows' on Google. "two way traffic on one carriageway of a motorway" to allow maintenance work or clear an accident... No mention of using them to create accident conditions.

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 19:05

Will this be put to a public vote or will the decision be made by the town council?  It would seem to me that the majority of posts on here are firmly against the contra flows being introduced.  Surely these significant decisions shouldn’t be made by a pro cycling committee against the majority of the town folks wishes?

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 18:41 (last edited on Mon 29 Nov 2021, 21:17)

Data- and speeding through Market Street !!!! Can this data be made available  ? as due to the width and number of parked cars I find this difficult to believe . Having lived on Market street during periods when the bus mounted the pavement to follow its route, poor parking and resultant damage to wing mirrors.  This was a few years ago now, when cars were slower  and not as wide - but cyclist 🚴🏽‍♀️ have always gone the wrong way even before Lycra. 

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 18:01

So, how will the logistics of making Market Street two way for cyclists work in practice? If I was driving down Market Street (which i generally try to avoid at all costs) at a heady 10mph (the road is narrow, my car is wide and i dont want to knock off a wing mirror, or hit a pedestrian after all) and i confront a group of cyclists coming towards me, who gives way to who? If there are parked cars on my left, there is no room for me to pull over. Do I stop and reverse back to the Corner House, or do the cyclists dismount and step up on to the pavement to let me through?

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 13:55

Philip - I am quoting from Speedwatch data compiled over a long period.  There are reports of speeding on Market Street, but significant evidence of excessive speeds all along Enstone Road/Browns Lane.

Your unsubstantiated and inconsistent assertions are hardly raising the level of debate.  Perhaps you could enlighten us with some evidence.

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 10:34 (last edited on Thu 2 Dec 2021, 15:23)

This is descending into farce now!

 "The current road layout results in people regularly using their cars to see how fast they can go, ignoring the 20mph limit"

Really Gareth? Even if I wanted to see how fast my car could go, which I don't, Market Street would not be my chosen location. When I drive through there, with the risk of vehicle doors opening etc my typical speed is 15-18 mph.

Most of the other proposals make sense and overall will benefit ALL road users, not just motorists as you suggest. De-congesting the bottom of Nine Acre will reduce delays, hopefully reducing temptation for parcel vans etc to speed to make up for lost time, as well as making it safer for pedestrians to cross the road through better visibility.

If we are considering ALL road users, will horse riders be able to use the proposed Market Street contraflow?

If Charlbury is to benefit from well thought out road safety improvements, the level of debate needs to be raised. Not all motorists are incarnations of the devil, nor are all cyclists lycra louts and all of us are pedestrians some of the time. Think of the hard of hearing and / or partially sighted. Don't forget the potential trip hazards from all the cables to those new-fangled electric cars!

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 10:27

Also I'm really looking forward to this making the centre of Charlbury accessible to all users as we have the same accessibility problems with my mother as we had with my grandmother 30 years ago. 

(And it has been cheekily suggested to me that the reason for wanting cyclists to go the wrong way along market Street is so they see the deli cafe first before seeing the co-op. This being the debate thread I feel I can put this here.) 

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 09:50

Actually Gareth the cyclists shout abuse at me because I can't hear them, and I know I'm far from alone. As long as I know it's safest to avoid the centre of Charlbury I'll do so, I've already given up working there because of the impossibility of parking. 

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 07:53

Harriet - I realise that those who like to shout abuse at cyclists think one proposal (in a package of eight) in 20 years might be pandering to cyclists.  The fact is that everything else the Town Council has proposed principally stands to benefit the motorists, and there are other road users.  Some people clearly see cyclists as some sort of pariah, but not all of us.

And what is ‘the wrong way’ is your opinion.  The current road layout results in people regularly using their cars to see how fast they can go, ignoring the 20mph limit and creating hazards for other road users.  For a good 20 years, people have wanted to make the town centre a safer space for all road users, which principally means slowing down road traffic.  I don’t see so much indignation at the drivers who accelerate past the school at pick-up and drop-off time, which suggests a very selective interpretation of care for vulnerable road users.

Anyone not looking both ways is inviting a collision with the not infrequent occurrence of a car failing to read a No Entry sign or with a faulty satnav.

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 07:43

I refer to my earlier post (cut from this thread) when I exited Tim's shop the other day I and my wife were stepping off the pavement into Market Street having looked to the right when the 'lycra clad' gentleman came from the wrong direction at I guess 10/15 mph and I guess again, knowing that he was breaking the law. Luckily we are still relatively agile 80 year olds. My rude shout was one of indignation.  I can only speak from experience.

Steve Cavell 

Mon 29 Nov 2021, 07:13

Gareth why is the town council obsessing about having bikes going the wrong way up market Street? Imagine what happens if you have a cycling club out on a ride all coming the wrong way. Is that acceptable to cause a tailback and reversing plus associated pollution? It's not just the benefits to individual riders (who may live in Market street) that need to be considered. And as Philip and I have said, elderly people won't be looking both ways on a one way street, so it doesn't stand to benefit vulnerable members of society either. There's far more space and better visibility on Park Street in terms of contraflow than there is on market Street. 

Sun 28 Nov 2021, 23:41 (last edited on Sun 28 Nov 2021, 23:48)

If there is not room to overtake a cyclist in eg Market Street then it is currently possible to follow him/her. If she/he is coming at you in the opposite direction there is a real problem.

Sun 28 Nov 2021, 22:25

I agree that the churchyard is beneficial for traffic from the station.  Not so good if you’re cycling from Spelsbury though (unless you go via Taston).

You still don’t get the point though.  A contraflow is not a one way street.  Just like it’s not illegal to cycle up or down a cycle contraflow.

I note you cite the 1.5m rule.  A rule physically very challenging to follow on many roads in the town centre.  So are you arguing for banning parking on Market Street (and Park Street, Browns Lane etc) because the existing situation is insufficient for cyclists?  (Park Street is already a contraflow, of course.)

Your arguments, as with others I’ve seen, are contradictory and inconsistent.  Your occasional care for cyclists (I’m a much more frequent pedestrian) is touching, though, and a step forward from some of those making similar arguments.

Personally, I’d rather look at the interests of all road users.

Sun 28 Nov 2021, 18:54 (last edited on Sun 28 Nov 2021, 19:04)

Very well Gareth, I will.

The potentially increased danger to elderly pedestrians arises IF cyclists are allowed to travel on a one way street in the opposite direction as pedestrians are intuitively likely to only look in ONE direction on a one way street before crossing the road. Happy?

I am a pedestrian as well as a motorist.

As motorists are supposed to allow 1.5 metres when overtaking a cycle travelling in the SAME direction, I presume that at least the same space is required to pass safely in OPPOSITE directions? That space is simply NOT available in Market Street UNLESS no parked vehicles are present.

I note that you ignore the perfectly practical churchyard solution and the dismount and walk option.

BTW where did I suggest banning cyclists from any roads? I just don't buy the contraflow idea.

Sun 28 Nov 2021, 10:32

Philip - presumably you would also ban cyclists from other roads where there is not currently enough space for a large vehicle to safely overtake them.

Road users other than motor vehicles are allowed to use the road too, you know.

And I’d love to know how allowing cyclists to cycle *on the road* - rather than currently illegally on the pavement - would form an additional hazard for vulnerable pedestrians.  Please do enlighten us.  

Sat 27 Nov 2021, 21:34

Notwithstanding Richard Fairhurst's ownership of this forum, I have to disagree about the cycling contraflow proposals for Market Street and Browns Lane. 

Unless ALL parking on Market Street is banned, there simply is not enough width for pedestrians, parked cars, moving motor vehicles AND contraflow cyclists. Faced with such a ban, it is not difficult to imagine which way a poll of Market Street residents would go. 

Cyclists have a choice, either get off and walk 150 metres, or cycle through the churchyard -  a very small detour and safer. 

Contraflow cycling would be a particularly challenging concept for elderly pedestrians, who are the most vulnerable.

Mon 22 Nov 2021, 07:33 (last edited on Mon 22 Nov 2021, 16:00)

Sam is absolutely right.  We have to consider all road users, not just cars.  Pedestrians as well as cyclists have rights, are vulnerable and are regularly ignored (not least by dangerous law-breakers at Bull Corner).

One fallacy that has regularly cropped up is an example of where this is misunderstood: the claim that the proposal would ‘encourage cyclists to break the law by going the wrong way’.  Er, no: it would change the law by allowing them to go where they go anyway.  Just as they do already, more dangerously, along Thames Street and Park Street.  And it would benefit the most vulnerable road users of all, more likely to be disabled - those on foot.

It is also worth noting that the proposals are in line with Department for Transport guidance.

To pick up on a point earlier in the thread, the tech does exist for average speed monitoring; but the cost would be in six figures, and I suspect there won’t be the appetite for the doubling of the precept that would entail.

Mon 22 Nov 2021, 07:19

Unfortunately Richard's reaction is precisely why people told me there was no point in them giving their views on traffic management to the TC. I know he's no longer on the TC, and hopefully other people are aware of this too, but at the time they specifically stated Liz Reason and Richard Fairhurst (probably IMO because they were more publicly visible in terms of views) as forcing a pro-cycling policy regardless of whether it made the centre accessible for those less able or not.

Sun 21 Nov 2021, 23:02

The perspective has gone astray somewhat. All road user - vehicle users, those on foot, horse riders, cyclists - have an 'equal access' right to use the highway. The problem is that over the decades there has built up a presumption that vehicles have priority over everything else. Its the questioning of this presumption thats at the heart of the issue here.

Sun 21 Nov 2021, 16:14 (last edited on Sun 21 Nov 2021, 16:14)

Frances, whaat! The fastest people on the roads in Charlbury, are CYCLISTS! Many do not adhere to any speed limit. Are there speedo’s on bikes, even?

Just yesterday I was driving up towards Pooles Lane from Dancers Hill at my usual 12mph  carefully avoiding the parked vehicles on the roadside in various places, and pedestrians, when a speeding cyclist came hurtling down towards me making my position precarious. Was I supposed to swerve to avoid a head on with him, or what? There wasn’t much wiggle room anywhere. He was not in full control of the bike. Of course he was going as fast as he could, because he wanted to achieve the maximum speed possible to help him up the hill. This isn’t the way to create an atmosphere of tolerance. It’s potentially dangerous, and irresponsible.

All this debate about the wrongs and rights brings me once again to my exasperated comment: ‘Ask a child of five about this, and they would tell you what to do!’

Fri 19 Nov 2021, 20:46

Speed limiting transmitters and concomitant transponders have been successfully piloted decades ago. When I did a bit of work for the Open University energy group back in the 80s it was relatively trivial then. Now the small pencil case size box would be 1 cm cube/2 gramme dongle stuck on with Velcro and a thin wire (or even wireless) to the engine management centre.. I’m sure it would be relatively easily retrofitted if the political will were there.

Fri 19 Nov 2021, 09:27

Most modern cars have speed limiters built in already.  Also a lot of modern cars have the ability to read speed limit signs.  I am sure it would be a very easy step to link these 2 pieces of technology together.  You have to wonder why this hasn't been done as standard?

Wed 17 Nov 2021, 11:41

But what happens when it stops working? Like when everybody with phones comes into the co-op and the visa is down and only the people with cash can buy anything?

Tue 16 Nov 2021, 14:11

It's a logical, if Orwellian, step, Wendy, I agree.* 

The tech must be there just about, at least for average speed monitoring along roads like the Slade/Sturt Rd.

*And that's a lot of commas for a short sentence. 

Tue 16 Nov 2021, 14:09

Yes it may 😄

(But I wouldn’t disagree with you… it’s curious that flimsy little e-scooters have to be fitted with a 15.5mph speed limiter, but it’s completely legal to sell a 200mph supercar for use on the road!)

Tue 16 Nov 2021, 14:04

Perhaps in the age of WiFi and electronics vehicle manufactures could have speed restrictors built in, after all why build a car capable of 0-60 in 3 seconds,  road signs have an electronic chip which is triggered when a car passes, speed could be regulated that way perhaps???

So when a vehicle passes a 20 limit the car automatically slows to that speed, then automatically adjusts accordingly to other legal limits when possible, so on a motorway can drive up to 70 etc. 

I am being controversial so this may end up in the debate page sorry.