Use of our street as a short cut.

[tt82]

We have an ongoing problem of motorist using the street we live on as a short cut, despite their being clear signage prohibiting cars from using it, apart from those needing access. We had yet another visit from the Police this morning after another angry confrontation with a motorist we stopped. We have struggled to get the council or the police to actively prevent motorist using it as a short cut.

This is the Google street view from the top of the Way



and from the bottom.



and the overhead view.



Both signs show -

No vehicles
Except for access

The lower sign has since been replaced with a newer sign in better condition. Tbh I don't know wether its classed as a road, path or whatever but it is pretty irrelevant as the signage clearly states car are not allowed. This also only the lower half of Vicarage Way, the top half is still a cobbled street. It doesnt have any restrictions in place but then it has no residancys which are only accessable from it either.



As you can see from this picture, the gardens border the way and when you step off your property you are on it, where everybody else has a pavement outside their front gates we don't. Unless, as some of us have done and we remove all fencing and therefore privacy from passing pedestrians, you can't see when stepping out or leaving your drive in the car. It is only a wonder more accidents havent happened.



The main reason we have an issue is due to the shop on Princess Road at the top end. Residents from Moor Street and the neighbouring roads are too lazy and bone idle to walk or drive around to the shop and so use Vicarage Way as a short cut. Personally I don't want myself or a member of my family to be hurt or killed due to the bone idleness of others.

Any suggestion on how we can get more support from the council?

[Marty Dolomite]

Im understand your conerns but no one is breaking any laws.
'No vehicles except for access' Access to where? it deosn't state this. unless the sign is changed to say 'access for residents of Vicarage way only' or similar you are fighting a losing battle.
If there is real concerns for safety you (the residents, set up a residents group) you can apply to the council to have the road blocked at one end or made one way if this would help but with the councils being short of funds it will take a few injuries for teh council to take any action.

[purplebargeken]

I tend to agree with Justyn. It is annoying and potentially dangerous but unless the council puts bollards at one end then there is little to be done in all reality.

The other option is to 'park' a car thus blocking the road but that has it's own issues. Complaints to the local newspaper initially then council then MP perhaps. Residents group is a good idea and perhaps a 'we'll fund a bit if the council funds a bit' thinking re: bollards? Sadly I don't see much happening otherwise.

[zoidberg]

I've responded to this on 'other' sites you have been moaning about this. It is a CLEAR right of way.As stated 'access' to where ??? Just another case of a NIMBY attitude.After seeing the pics posted I have very little sympathy for any of you who live down that road and are moaning about it !!!
Do I take it that NON OF YOU drive out of either end ??? Or do you ALL travel one way along it ? Goose and Gander spring to mind regarding this. Stop moaning and accept it is STILL a public highway !!!
ps, blocking off the route is an offence as it is a PUBLIC highway !

[tt82]

It's not a public highway is it though. There is a restriction on vehicles and only access is allowed. Access means for residents to gain access to their property's, if it meant that you can drive through from one side to the other then it makes the whole restriction invalid and pointless in the first place.

If you've seen this on the other site then you will know I posted examples where people have been fined for passing "No vehicle" signs and even the during the visit from my neighbouhood PC, even he said that this has gone on long enough and needs sorting out. He just sympathizes that we are piggy's in the middle with both the Council and Police holding the others responsible for taking action. You will also know that I said he plans to spend some time here and to warn drivers of the offence they are commiting.

How when they authority's deem this to be an offence can you maintain your stance that it isn't?

[jor]

As the council placed the sign it is up to them to enforce it. Will none of your local representatives agree to take up the issue on your behalf? Seems like a good spot for camera enforcement.

jor

[tonyv70d5]

1. Is there a Traffic Management Order issued by the local Council?
2. Note registration marks of vehicles using the road.
3. Access includes egress and delivery and collection from premises on that throughfare.
4. Is the thoroughfare a road, a footpath, a bridleway and a common right-of-way?
5. Take photographs of the offending vehicles and be prepared to attend Court and give evidence that the driver of the vehicle did not stop/deliver/unload.
6. A commond defence is that the driver or occupant of the vehicle knew someone at the address but when they arrived there it was apparent the house occupiers were out: therefore this is a defence to failing to flout the Access rule.
7. Police will do nothing, nor will the Police Community Support Officers (plastics) unless forced into a position to do this, so send your evidence directly to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Chief Executive of the local Council and invite them to prosecute.
8. Invite the local press to visit and see the problem thereby you will obtain publicity.
9. Nag your local Councillor.
10. Nag your local Member of Parliament.
11. Nag the Chairman of the local Bench of Magistrates.

DO NOT LOSE YOUR TEMPER OR BECOME IRRITATED.

I hope this helps. By the way I think the sign is incorrectly placed - it should be on the nearside of the route and if possible backed up by another on the offside.

12. Ask the Traffic Department of the Council to confirm the signs are corectly placed and authorised in law.

I hope the above is of use.

Being calm and collected wins the case.

Tony V70

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by tt82

Tbh I don't know wether its classed as a road, path or whatever but it is pretty irrelevant as the signage clearly states car are not allowed

That’s the first thing I would want to find out, and also who owns it, and who is responsible for it, and what rights are attributable

I have known properties with lets call it a ‘not allowed way through’ having had alley gates installed.

Some routes like that may be owned in part by the residents to the centre, spanning the width of the property, or is it church owned or church connected land?

Looks pretty narrow to drive down mind,whatever it is.

If it’s a road or a pavement, your car looks to be sticking out over it,and one of the ‘rat runners’ may complain about that in retaliation .

The sign looks like a legally enforceable one under the road traffic act although doubtful if the police have the manpower and time to enforce?

Regards

[tt82]

Originally Posted by tonyv70d5

1. Is there a Traffic Management Order issued by the local Council?
2. Note registration marks of vehicles using the road.
3. Access includes egress and delivery and collection from premises on that throughfare.
4. Is the thoroughfare a road, a footpath, a bridleway and a common right-of-way?
5. Take photographs of the offending vehicles and be prepared to attend Court and give evidence that the driver of the vehicle did not stop/deliver/unload.
6. A commond defence is that the driver or occupant of the vehicle knew someone at the address but when they arrived there it was apparent the house occupiers were out: therefore this is a defence to failing to flout the Access rule.
7. Police will do nothing, nor will the Police Community Support Officers (plastics) unless forced into a position to do this, so send your evidence directly to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Chief Executive of the local Council and invite them to prosecute.
8. Invite the local press to visit and see the problem thereby you will obtain publicity.
9. Nag your local Councillor.
10. Nag your local Member of Parliament.
11. Nag the Chairman of the local Bench of Magistrates.

DO NOT LOSE YOUR TEMPER OR BECOME IRRITATED.

I hope this helps. By the way I think the sign is incorrectly placed - it should be on the nearside of the route and if possible backed up by another on the offside.

12. Ask the Traffic Department of the Council to confirm the signs are corectly placed and authorised in law.

I hope the above is of use.

Being calm and collected wins the case.

Tony V70

Cheers for that Tony. We've started stopping drivers and explaining to them that they are not alowed to drive up, often we get abuse and aggression back. This is actually ideal as it allows to report them to the police. (I ring the non emergency number but get transferred to the control room anyway, would be a bit excessive to report every car going through on it's onw but I will look into the log, especially if I could back it up with photographic evidence).

The Police sympathise with us and can only apologise for the situation. They and everybody else knows they simply don't have the resources to enforce the restriction. All they can do is suggest we contact the council, knowing full well that the council won't act and will just tell us to contact the Police. I know from when we had a problem with feral youths a few summers ago that if they police have no reports about an issue, then as far as they are concerned there is no issue. By reporting people for threatining and abusive behaviour we got reports about the issue and it will get flagged up and the local police team told to look into the situation by their bosses. (Everything is about statistics these days).

As we talked about with them at the weekend, a letter/leaflet campaign to the nrighbouring area 100-200 houses explaing the situation and that people are commiting an offence by driving through, along with action days where they hang around and stopping people themselves should reduce the numbers greatly to what would be an acceptable level.

However we know this would only have a short term effect and it wouldn't be long before people resumed using it a short cut so again we still need action from the council to deter the use, if not stop it completely.

Originally Posted by volvorocks

That’s the first thing I would want to find out, and also who owns it, and who is responsible for it, and what rights are attributable

I have known properties with lets call it a ‘not allowed way through’ having had alley gates installed.

Some routes like that may be owned in part by the residents to the centre, spanning the width of the property, or is it church owned or church connected land?

Looks pretty narrow to drive down mind,whatever it is.

If it’s a road or a pavement, your car looks to be sticking out over it,and one of the ‘rat runners’ may complain about that in retaliation .

The sign looks like a legally enforceable one under the road traffic act although doubtful if the police have the manpower and time to enforce?

Regards

People in the past have suggested alley gates but it's not an option as that would stop pedestrians travelling through. Our goal is to provide safety for them as well as our own familys and not have a "Private" street. As it's public it is maintained by the council.

[migrator]

Would the residents of the 'road' be happy if there was a bollard at each end? That would mean that the 'road' would be pedestrian/cycle/motorbike only.

Would the residents be happy if there was say a set of bollards at the midpoint to allow them access in/out from only one end of the road? This would require some new 'NO THROUGH ROAD' signs but it would stop all of the current 'through' traffic and debate about 'ACCESS ONLY'.

In the above, I assume that there is vehicular access for the residents to their own properties.

There was mention of a 'shop' at one end of the 'road'. Do any of the residents use this 'road' as a vehicular short-cut to the shop? If the shop is not actually on the 'road' (as far as address is set) not even the residents should be using this 'road' as a vehicular short-cut to the shop.