Pelican crossing protest

[Tom Richardson]

the drivers have a right to free passage along the highway.

so do pedestrians. I suspect that if you analysed it you'd find that a significant proportion of people are driving along the road just for pleasure and holding up people trying to cross the road as they do so. People have at least an equal right to walk on the road in the same way. This one stands out because the pelican crossing gives them the means to do it.

[[XAP]Bob]

drivers have a right to free passage along the highway.

Villagers have a right to cross the road - not something which is possible with the advent of fleets of robot controlled (satnav) lorries running through there...
The protest isn't directed against the traffic, but the traffic system - whoever is designing roads...

[mw3230]

the drivers have a right to free passage along the highway.

so do pedestrians. I suspect that if you analysed it you'd find that a significant proportion of people are driving along the road just for pleasure and holding up people trying to cross the road as they do so. People have at least an equal right to walk on the road in the same way. This one stands out because the pelican crossing gives them the means to do it.

drivers have a right to free passage along the highway.

Villagers have a right to cross the road - not something which is possible with the advent of fleets of robot controlled (satnav) lorries running through there...
The protest isn't directed against the traffic, but the traffic system - whoever is designing roads...

Pressing the button endlessly is more than pedestrians exercising their right to cross the road - it's not Trafalgar Square how many pedestrians actually want to cross at that point!

[reohn2]

....................It's fair to say that he had mental health problems.

So do a growwing minority of motorists without the excuse of being elderly,or health problems,just mental!

[reohn2]

drivers have a right to free passage along the highway.

Villagers have a right to cross the road - not something which is possible with the advent of fleets of robot controlled (satnav) lorries running through there...
The protest isn't directed against the traffic, but the traffic system - whoever is designing roads...

Its fair to say the levels of traffic on some roads are beyond what is reasonable for residents who live on those roads,roads which were never designed for those levels of traffic.
I don't know the road in question but if the traffic levels are unreasonable then IMO I think it reasonable to protest against those levels, to highlight the problem.
If this chap is fined/jailed(for none payment of that fine)and the next villager steps into the breach, and then the next,etc,I'd bet something will be done about the problem,this country is sadly short of such protesters.After all what he and the other villagers are doing is within the law.

[Tom Richardson]

Pressing the button endlessly is more than pedestrians exercising their right to cross the road - it's not Trafalgar Square how many pedestrians actually want to cross at that point!

driving up and down on pointless journeys is more than excercising a right but many many people do it.

In this case all of the pedestrians who crossed 'wanted' to even though their journey was as pointless as many motorists'.

[gilesjuk]

driving up and down on pointless journeys is more than excercising a right but many many people do it.

Yep, all these awful "cruuuzes", people in badly modified saxos making loads of noise with their 1.2 litre engines with no silencer

[EdinburghFixed]

Presumably they will just remove the crossing if the villagers can't be prosecuted?

It's a difficult one, as for example, who is responsible for compensating a home-owner whose house is being damaged by heavy traffic passing close by? When the house was build, and potentially when it was bought, this wasn't an issue. Now society as a whole is taking advantage of the road, at their expense.

It's probably worth noting the number of people whose houses have been ruined by airports, though, with no obvious come-back.

[Mick F]

<snip>Chideock, on the other hand, can't be bypassed and the main trunk road just goes through<snip>
...
Eventually, the traffic will go somewhere else.

Err where will the traffic go Mick? there just isn't an alternative, sensible, east west route across Dorset into/out of Devon

What they need to do is to join up Exeter/M5 and the M27 along the south coast. It has been talked about for 30 years, but not a thing has been done. If there was a South Coast Motorway, it would link Exeter to M27 and also the M3 and you could even get to the M25.

This would relive Chideock easily and promote better regional transport.

Why Chideok has been neglected, I don't know. Axminster and Charmouth used to be clogged as I remember, so was Bridport and Dorchester.

[[XAP]Bob]

driving up and down on pointless journeys is more than excercising a right but many many people do it.
In this case all of the pedestrians who crossed 'wanted' to even though their journey was as pointless as many motorists'.

That's a sane viewpoint...

[millimole]

There is an interesting analysis of the legal position of this protest at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8662249.stm the conclusion seems to be "Taking too much time on crossing is a breach of regulations; But 'too much time' is a matter of opinion; Repeatedly pressing the button is not covered."

Before any cyclists on here get too far up on our high horses about recreational use of the roads - how much of our cycling is really necassary? I know we don't contribute to the problems in the same way as HGVs in Chideok, but think of the consequences if the argument to restrict all but essential use is taken to its conclusion and then applied to all vehicular users!

[benm]

What they need to do is to join up Exeter/M5 and the M27 along the south coast.

I agree - I drive eastwards to Bexhill-on-Sea fairly regularly and, coming home, beyond Ringwood the A31/35 is a joke. It takes as long to to the last 1/3 of the journey as it has taken to do the first 2/3. However routing the (fanciful) motorway would be interesting to say the least, which is why, I suspect, nothing has been done, quite apart from the cost.

Why Chideok has been neglected, I don't know.

Or indeed the road between West Moors/Ferndown and Bere Regis (a large chunk of that goes past the Drax estate so that will be why it hasn't been made into a dual carriageway)... and then Dorchester to Askers then Bridport to Honiton. All of it is single carriageway and dire when laden with traffic.

Axminster and Charmouth used to be clogged as I remember, so was Bridport and Dorchester.

Both Bridport and Dorchester are now as bad as they were before the bypasses went in. The trouble is that the short through town route is still a through route. The planners in both cases listen to whinging shop keepers and rather than making it nearly impossible to drive a car/truck through the towns they leave the route open for, largely imaginary, 'passing trade'.

'tis a thorny problem indeed, and sadly I think that the only practical way of reducing the burden on Chideok, and other villages in similar situations, is to reduce the reliance on motorised road transport along side making private motoring much much more expensive.

B.

p.s. BBC are reporting most airports open again so good luck on your JOGLE!

[Tom Richardson]

Before any cyclists on here get too far up on our high horses about recreational use of the roads - how much of our cycling is really necassary?

it was the opposite point really - why do motorists have a higher claim to unnecessary use of the roads than pedestrians (or cyclists)?

[[XAP]Bob]

Before any cyclists on here get too far up on our high horses about recreational use of the roads - how much of our cycling is really necassary?

it was the opposite point really - why do motorists have a higher claim to unnecessary use of the roads than pedestrians (or cyclists)?

Actually, pretty much all of it - or pretty much none of it, I'm doing the modern equivalent of caching a mammoth, it's only my boss who thinks I can't do it from home...

But that's not the point - Why would any one group of road users have a "higher" claim to the road than any other?

At this point in space/time the transient road users (many of whom are large and (mis)guided by satnav) are making life both difficult and unpleasant for the less transient road users (residents / pedestrians). The protest isn't aimed at making their lives a misery (although that is a predictable temporary byproduct), it's aimed at getting more appropriate infrastructure installed into the region.

[GrahamNR17]

There is an interesting analysis of the legal position of this protest at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8662249.stm the conclusion seems to be "Taking too much time on crossing is a breach of regulations; But 'too much time' is a matter of opinion; Repeatedly pressing the button is not covered."

Interesting, but when they did a telephone interview with him on Radio 2, he didn't state even once that they crossed slowly. he just said they pressed the button, crossed the road, waited a few minutes, and pressed the button again. I suspect, as is invariably the case with journo's, they've embellished it somewhat and added the 'crossing slowly' aspect.