I’ve submitted my request to present the e-petition - Create a safe crossing point on Red Road in Lightwater – to the Surrey County Council Local Committee for Surrey Heath.
The Local Committee meets next at 6.0pm on Thursday, 17th Feb at Collingwood School. The opportunity to ask questions is from 6.0pm to 6.30pm. Not a long time, so must be brief and punchy in my argument, as I’m sure others have questions too.
Subsequent to the pedestrian accident in October last year [and the start of the e-petition], in December a vehicle left the road demolishing one of the few remaining warning signs. At which point I stopped to think a bit more about what is needed to improve road safety, and concluded that:
- Traffic lights at the junctions of Lightwater Road and Macdonald Road with Red Road, and which included a pedestrian sequence, would be a good improvement to road safety and vehicle speed.
- If the demolished warning signs were considered important for road safety when first erected, then that argument doesn’t go away, just because they have. I found the evidence of the demolished signs, and found proof of where the were too.
So, in addition to presenting the e-petition, I’ve also informed the Local Committee that I’ll be presenting a short paper on improving road safety in the bends on Red Road, and will be asking the following questions:
- “What steps are being taken to replace demolished road signs on the bends of Red Road?”
- “What road safety maintenance is planned for this stretch of road, and will it include the removal of the grass covering the road edge rumble strip, repainting of the white lines, and installation of cat’s eye’s in place of the reflectors?”
Finally, I’ve had a positive reply from Surrey Wildlife Trust about removal of the vegetation around the kissing gates and stile on Red Road to improve sight lines, indicating that plans are in place to do this work. Good news.
URGENT REQUEST: The e-petition has, wonderfully, gained 611 signatures to date. I’d appreciate more, so, if you haven’t signed, please do.
The County have no justification in denying the introduction of traffic lights on red road for safety purposes. Just look at the number of traffic lights along the A322 in West end and Bisley some within yards of each other. The speed and density of traffic on red road coupled with the number of accidents is proof enough of the need.
By: M J Reed on February 10, 2011
at 10:00 pm
I would think that mini-roundabouts cost/performance vs Traffic lights would have the same effect of slowing down traffic and reducing vehicular collisions at these junctions and in the case of McDonald Road, remove the electronic speed warning and its cost. They could improve safety matters too by establishing a proper pavement at the MacDonald road junction west up the Red Road to the track leading into the Army Lands (less than 80 yards)
Pedestrian safety is a key matter and might swing the argument to an ‘on demand’ traffic lights sequence altho’ safety might be better served by a footbridge at the 2 major Kissing Gate points – btw, I only know of 4 of these gates – 1 where the poor chap was killed, 1 further west opposite the first group of houses and 2 in the vicinity of MacDonald Road junction – where’s the 5th ?
Its unbelievable to read of the procrastination about replacing the warning signs and improving the sightlines!
By: LD on February 11, 2011
at 11:23 am
To be truthful there are four kissing gates and a stile. The stile is on the heathland side of Red Road some 50 yards beyond the last kissing gate, which itself is just beyond the Macdonald Road junction.
By: timdodds on February 11, 2011
at 11:57 am
[...] of Charles Chasemore, the jogger in question, Tim Dodds had an extra impetus to his campaign, and submitted a petition to Surrey County Council for a pedestrian crossing across Red Road (you’ll note here yet [...]
By: Councillors, the Red Road, and being economical with the truth | leftoflightwater on March 17, 2012
at 11:52 pm
Left of Lightwater – accusations of being economical with the truth are unworthy of you. To assume the meanest of motives in my actions re Red Road is counter to the facts. You are more than welcome to take up the cudgel for improvements to Red Road if you think I’ve failed local residents. As Mayor, I’m both non-political and not demeaning the office with personal campaigns.
By: timdodds on March 19, 2012
at 10:40 am
I don’t think you’ve failed local residents – not in your efforts to secure a safer crossing for the Red Road. There was a process, the correct steps were taken, and the decision was made. It’s disappointing, but it’s probably the correct decision.
What I do find disappointing is that you didn’t feed back to the public. One of the benefits of being such a digitally aware councillor is that for many residents this is the place they come to for Lightwater news. You pinned your colours – rightly – to the campaign, and it would not have been against your terms of mayorality to report back on the outcome. Instead residents are reliant on someone reading the Committee report in the library.
You could quite easily have said “The local area committee report has been published, and the decision has been made not to progress with any pedestrian crossing. You can read the full report in Lightwater Library [or, ideally, a link to an online source if there is one]” That is a politically neutral statement, and quite befitting of a ward member with a duty to communicate to residents.
Alternatively, perhaps you could convince Cllrs Gandhum and Winterton to become bloggers – I’m sure all the other residents would like to be more aware of their work and opinions, and as they aren’t hidebound by the mayorality, they could also pass an opinion. I’m yet more surprised Cllr MacLeod didn’t comment, but that’s not your problem.
My point is this – councillors need to engage in open, honest dialogue with residents (as you do well), but this needs to include the disappointing news too.
By: leftoflightwater on March 20, 2012
at 5:13 pm
Quote: timdodds on March 19, 2012
at 10:40 am
“As Mayor, I’m both non-political and not demeaning the office with personal campaigns”
Erm, how is lobbying to save lives by improving road safety ‘demeaning’?
LofL strikes the right note I feel – it would be excellent to see Mr Dodds acknowledge the facts and not get ruffled feathers about an imagined sleight !
By: Speedicus Triplicatum on March 23, 2012
at 7:57 am