Traffic is barred in the land of the Bard

The High Street in Stratford upon Avon used to be a road where traffic came first, and pedestrians – often tourists, unfamiliar with the town – came a poor second. But, a couple of road signs have made it a place where it’s pleasant to linger. What chance that Camberley could do the same? Blue badge parking, but nothing else during shopping hours.

14 thoughts on “Traffic is barred in the land of the Bard

  1. Shame on SHBC…we sat outside Mullans having a lovely coffee and cake…The taxis opposite kept their engines running, Constant stream of cars driving past ,.. a noisy motorbike back firing for several minutes and in the bright sunlight the lights were still on .! Also a few cars parked up outside the bank cash machine next to Mullans. Knoll Road is free for 2 hours.
    The air quality cannot be good.

    • We also sat outside Mullens yesterday and in addition to all the above, except the taxi turned his engine off, noticed many lorries causing mayhem, Deliveries should be timed before say10.00am and after 16.00.

    • As you probably know, the council – many years ago – proposed a service road behind the shops on the east side of the High Street. If the council had only carried out the proposal, the collection/deliveries that now make pedestrianisation difficult could be done at the rear of the shops without any problem.

  2. In reply to a query I raised recently with Woking Borough Council over lack of enforcement of restrictions on parking in the bays, they told me that this was because the process for approving the restrictions had not yet been completed, nor had the necessary signage been put in place. Given that the work started 18 months ago surely that should have been sorted before completion?

  3. Thanks, Stuart. Though I’m a bit puzzled. The whole of the town centre is a Controlled Parking Zone, of course. So parking isn’t allowed anywhere, unless there are signs/road markings permitting it. From memory, the parking bays in the High Street do have such signs. Strange.

  4. I saw a very upset Deliveroo (or other) driver with a parking ticket a couple of days ago. I feel sorry for him even though he was parked on the pavement. He’s trying to earn a living at the lower-end of the income scale and, particularly with the events of the last year, lots of people are now using home delivery services, giving people like him a job.
    However, if McDonalds were to arrange for collections to be made at the back door (which would physically be possible) then that would remove many of the problem parkers from the High Street, making it safer for pedestrians. It would also mean that the delivery drivers would be able to park safely and wouthout fear of tickets.
    In the case of the chap I saw, I presume that the ticket probably represented all of, or possibly more than, his profit for the entire day (after petrol, wear&tear, etc., are taken into account). He deserved it because he shouldn’t have parked there, but alternatives are there, which would be better for everyone…

  5. I don’t know what the inside of McDonalds is like at the back. But I’ve made the same suggestion – Deliveroo et al should collect orders from there. The ‘service yard’ is sufficiently large for it to be possible.

  6. Where is the pedestrian crossing in the middle of the High Street as we used to have. I see a raised area which I think means pedestrians take precedence but how many drivers know that?

    • It is seen by many drivers as an easy parking or drop-off point endangering the safety of pedestrians rather than the promised “pedestrian priority”.

      • As I’ve just written to Roger, in theory it should work, though it doesn’t imply any priority for anyone. But it’s obvious that drivers are abusing the situation in the High Street generally. Strong enforcement – or a ban – then becomes necessary.

    • I suspect, Roger, that it doesn’t imply any precedence. It’s not in the Highway Code. I think it’s just a non legal indication to drivers that pedestrians are more likely to cross there than elsewhere, and it’s an indication to pedestrians that is a place where drivers will be more prepared for them to be in the roadway than elsewhere. In theory it should work, though it’s tough on people with mobility or sight problems. They really need a ‘proper’ crossing.

      • Heaven help us. I Will read about the first court case with interest. I just hope I am not the victim.

      • I should clarify. IF that bit of the road were classified as a ‘shared space’, pedestrians would have priority once they’ve started to cross. But they have an obligation to make sure that there’s a suitable gap in the traffic before starting out. But that bit of road HASN’T be classified as a ‘shared space’, as far as I know. So I don’t believe it’s any different from any other straight stretch of road as far as priorities are concerned. In which case, the ‘blame’ for any pedestrian vs. vehicle accident will have to be allocated according to the actual circumstances. But the pedestrian will probably come off worst…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.