Dangerous location for crossing
Reported in the Roads/highways category anonymously at 14:44, Mon 20 July 2020
Sent to Hertfordshire County Council less than a minute later
This is a dead end service road and the council intend putting a crossing on the 1 bit of it that leads to the dead end beyond which is 1 house and a lay-by for parking for 2-3 cars. Because it is a dead end, all traffic using the road at this point reverses over it 50% of the time - either to access or exit. The contractor agrees this is a dangerous location as does my local councillor but the Highways Dept will not reconsider. They know that in reality people walk along the road (not the narrow pavement) and cross diagonally over the access road to get to/from the path on the main road. Reversing is a dangerous manoeuvre at the best of times so to put a crossing here would bring people into danger rather than protecting them. I need someone to do a proper independent risk assessment as I am sure that is they observed this location they would absolutely agree with me. Can the Mercury help? I suggested that rather than put the crossing here they put a path across the end of the dead end thus avoiding reversing vehicles and also avoiding traffic entering or leaving the service rd/main rd but as this would probably cost more than a crossing, it seems they would rather endanger pedestrians that spend a little more to keep them safe! (What happens in practice here is that pedestrians walk along the service road (the footpath would only allow single file - most people walk side by side with companions - (with all it's trip hazards!) and then cross diagonally over the access/exit road to the pavement on the main road. Anyone doing a proper risk assessment would realise that the way to keep pedestrians safe would be to spend the money re-surfacing the service road and pavement. A crossing is unnecessary and a crossing in the proposed location is actually dangerous!
Whilst I wholeheartedly believe that this is a dangerous location for a crossing I offered to compromise and back down in my protests to enable the workmen to put the crossing in place without further protest or hindrance, if, in compensation for my being unable to park outside my house (where parking has been possible ever since the houses were built!), there was some financial or physical assistance to widen my drive so that both our cars could park on it. (I do not want to be one of the vehicles that has to reverse over this crossing! The dropped kerb is already in place as the drive used to be wider before the cost of block paving made narrowing of it sensible - we could still park on the road after all!. We are both pensioners so this would be an amicable solution for us ... and the Highways dept can tick their box to say they have installed their crossing! I am trying to find a suitable compromise but nobody is helping or listening!
Posted anonymously at 13:20, Tue 18 August 2020
Still open, via questionnaire
Provide an update