Safety battlers won’t take ‘no’ for an answer

3:30pm Tuesday 22nd January 2013 in News By Catherine Phillips, Reporter

CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to double efforts to secure a public meeting after being told installing safety measures on a Worcester road are not a priority.

Worcestershire County Council officers said they would not be taking any action on Bilford Road following a series of tests.

Councillor Neil Laurenson and Matthew Jenkins, the Green Party’s Worcestershire County Council spokesman, were disappointed to receive this response to their petition calling for a meeting to discuss what could be done to make the road safer.

Nearly 350 people signed a petition in November calling for a public meeting to discuss problems with obstructed views at the canal bridge and the sharp bend leading on to Astwood Road, noted as areas of concern.

Mr Jenkins said: “The response from the council was poor. It is such a major issue in the area and we could have got a lot more signatures.

“We weren’t asking for a crossing, we were asking for them just to look into it to see what the options are, which doesn’t necessarily cost a lot of money.”

They took up the campaign after elderly residents expressed concerns with some saying they refused to cross the road to visit the Costcutter shop because of safety fears.

Mr Jenkins said: “It won’t be just us who are annoyed with the outcome but also the people who signed it and those who are living by Bilford Road.

“They are the people who are going to be much more frustrated by this so we will be fighting on.” A spokesman for the county council said it had carried out speed recording and accident records checks on the road and as a result had no further plans for additional road safety measures at this time.

But Coun Laurenson said the response failed to address the petition’s aim of setting up a meeting and instead spoke about “pedestrian facilities”.

The letter also said there had been no recorded injury accidents at the location – a claim the pair said was not true according to road accident data websites.

The county council has said it would continue to monitor the situation.

The spokesman said: “The county council is always happy to engage and communicate with residents regarding highways issues.”

Comments(6)

Name unknown says...
4:53pm Tue 22 Jan 13

If you visit www.crashmap.co.uk (based on DfT figures) and filter by 'pedestrian casualties' it appears to show 4 slight injuries and 1 serious injury on or near the bend in question.

I'm not going to enter a debate on the pros or cons of improving the road, but let's hope that any decisions are at least based on accurate information.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

i-cycle says...
5:21pm Tue 22 Jan 13

The new swimming pool with its car park for 350 cars will only add to existing problems. The City Council will consider their own outline planning application tomorrow afternoon. They have a real opportunity to use this as a flagship project to demonstrate how such developments can be built in ways that make them more accessible by more sustainable means. Their current proposals don't even meet their own policies for improving access for pedestrians and cyclists. Perhaps its time for the local community to lobby to ensure every effort is made to minimise traffic impacts and for a 20mph area to be set up so its safer for all concerned and therefore a better environment in which to encourage more to walk and cycle rather than get in their cars.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Redhillman says...
5:21pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Another example of the highways department ignoring the views and intelligence of the public. Will they ever change their attitudes?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

i-cycle says...
5:50pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Perhaps its time for the community to start lobbying for change. The attached may provide food for thought and a possibile way forward for the Bilford Road area.

http://www.20splenty
forus.org.uk/briefin
gs.htm

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MulsanneChap says...
9:28am Wed 23 Jan 13

I do wonder what the point of having a highways deportment is. Everyone no longer seems to accept decisions made by this department and its professional staff, instead saying that they are incompetent, don't know what they're doing and that the public and the private sector can do a better job.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe this department may know what they are doing and talking about, or is now a case that if people don't get what they want, because they're a tax payer, or they simply disagree or are unhappy, they start criticising the highways staff as being useless. Yes, errors do occur at times, which is unacceptable but rare, but they are not deliberate as so many people claim. Mistakes happen, it's just the way life is and it happens all too often in the private sector, but no one cares when that is the case because costs of errors can be absorbed or ignored.

If you want the highways department to move away from a structured, methodical and equitable approach, which also means money is spent appropriately, and away from policy and legislation in order to ensure your own personal demands are met, then call your County Councillor MP. And if you think you or the private sector can do a better job, again, speak to the and request the highways department is abolished. Start a petition too.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MulsanneChap says...
9:31am Wed 23 Jan 13

And remember that most schemes that are delivered, or schemes that are claimed to be pathetic and error strew, are a result of directives from councillors, regardless of policy, legislation and advice from officers. And not all decisions they make are in the interest of the public or conducive to the council and its staff.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree