Use of our street as a short cut.

[DaveNP]

Checking the Department of Transports booklet 'Know Your Roadsigns' (available online here http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191955.pdf )
page 18 includes exemptions from prohibition signs. [Except for access] is explained as 'Except for access to premises or land adjacent to the road, where there is no other route.' Someone driving through to the other end is not accessing premises adjacent to (next to) the road and has the option of an alternative (albeit longer or less convenient) route. This sort of exemption is common with weight limits, as whilst they do not want trucks using the road as a through route there's still a need for deliveries. Unfortunately for the OP whilst a truck running through a weight limit is seen as a wicked crime, someone just popping down a back alley in his car is seen as 'understandable' or 'reasonable' by people who don't live on that back alley, I fear the already uttered NIMBYism allegation is the likely reaction to the OP and his neighbours trying to get some action with this problem. The attendance of the police following an incident earlier in the day is a bit worrying as if the OP and neighbours are taking action on their own behalf, how long before someone ,who's use of the road shows a disregard for the law and wellbeing of other people, decides to retaliate with violence.

[SonyVaio]

This is what you need to get but for residents only.

+ YouTube Video

[tt82]

Originally Posted by Marty Dolomite

Just out of interest how has the road layout, in 'your' road and surrounding roads changed since you moved there?

Apart from the construction of a few new houses on a nearby road, theres been no changes.

Originally Posted by DaveNP

Checking the Department of Transports booklet 'Know Your Roadsigns' (available online here http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191955.pdf )
page 18 includes exemptions from prohibition signs. [Except for access] is explained as 'Except for access to premises or land adjacent to the road, where there is no other route.' Someone driving through to the other end is not accessing premises adjacent to (next to) the road and has the option of an alternative (albeit longer or less convenient) route. This sort of exemption is common with weight limits, as whilst they do not want trucks using the road as a through route there's still a need for deliveries. Unfortunately for the OP whilst a truck running through a weight limit is seen as a wicked crime, someone just popping down a back alley in his car is seen as 'understandable' or 'reasonable' by people who don't live on that back alley, I fear the already uttered NIMBYism allegation is the likely reaction to the OP and his neighbours trying to get some action with this problem. The attendance of the police following an incident earlier in the day is a bit worrying as if the OP and neighbours are taking action on their own behalf, how long before someone ,who's use of the road shows a disregard for the law and wellbeing of other people, decides to retaliate with violence.

Dave I thank you for clarifying the debate about what "except for access" means. As for the NIMBYism, well having re read my post I fear I missed one vital point.

Many people in the surrounding area walk up and down the street, many with children as there is a school nearby. When motorist travel through, the majority tend to be aggresive and force people out of their way, making them squeeze up against walls or hedges or even having to enter property's to get out of the way of the cars. On one occasion when I was upstairs I heard a horn and looked out of the window to see 3 girls have to jump into the opposing neighbours drive as a car sped past well in excess of 30mph. Any changes made to prevent motorist would be gladly supported by other people in the community and not soley the residents on the street. It is not NIMBYism when I'm trying help people I may only say hi to in the street and not know their names.

Indeed one of the reasons we report confrontations to the police is because we know that stopping people and trying to explain that they shouldnt be using the route as a short cut does leave us vulnerable to attack or revenge. By giving the police the details of those people, if there was aggression they usually contact those people so it offers us some protection.

It is a sad indication of modern society that in most instances we are faced with aggression, but is that unexpected when these same people force mothers with prams or elderly people out of their way, hiding in the safety of their car knowing they can be rude without reprimand. Sadly these attitudes seem to have also been displayed in some post as well.

It would be generally acceptable for all, residents and neighbouring people for cars to travel through if it was done in a slower and more considerate manner. Indeed one of things we have asked from the council is for speed humps to be installed, even though these would increase wear on our own vehicles, as it would slow others down. Again until there has been some serious injurys the council will do nothing.

[DaveNP]

No allegation of NIMBYism from me, just referring to the one already voiced, even if it affects a number of local people and parents walking kids to school those who drive down there still won't see what they're doing as wrong.

[tt82]

No, I realise you were just picking up on the term from the other post. I simply realised I had missed out the point that its not just residents that suffer from this. I just wanted to set the record straight on that point and its not just a few disgruntled residents trying make it a private road. It has to my knowledge never been designed for vehicular use and was only opened to vehicles for the benefits of the residents when the houses were built. As said the the fact that vehicles use it is not the main concern, its how they use it.

[SonyVaio]

Originally Posted by tt82

As said the the fact that vehicles use it is not the main concern, its how they use it.

You may want to approach the council with a petition of sorts from local residents to have speed humps put? If nothing else this will act as a calming measure, although a pain in the butt to live with.

[zoidberg]

Thing is, it is STILL apublic highway/right of way, as much as you dont like it. The council have obviously in the past put up signs that they thought were adequate for the road.YOU have no right to stop ANY vehicle driving up there, although they should proceed with 'due care and attention' .
If you jumped out to stop me and I ran over you without stopping because I thought 'my life was at risk' and seriously injured you, what then ???
As far as I'm concerned looking at the 'map' pics you have put up, bollards should be put up half way down the lane, just passed the row of houses.That way folk can get in and out , but that wont happen as apparently you want to use it in a way other tax paying road users can't.
Is it an 'unadopted' road ?? If not, then not a great deal you can do.

[LankyTim]

Am I missing something here? "no vehicles except for access" means exactly that, doesn't it? There is a local estate here that is used as a short cut and the council have erected similar signs, the police are often out pulling people over for driving straight through. No idea what the actual penalty is though.

Just had a look on google street view and the road signage here has a picture of a motorbike over a car, and "Except for access" underneath, so slightly different.

[stevo48]

Originally Posted by zoidberg

, although they should proceed with 'due care and attention' .
If you jumped out to stop me and I ran over you without stopping because I thought 'my life was at risk' and seriously injured you, what then ???
.

If you were to run over a pedestrian because you "thought your life was at risk" then I would imagine the police would prosecute you to the full extent of the law. The highway code clearly states pedestrians have right of way, and you cannot justify hitting someone with 1300kg of steel because you thought your life was in danger (short of someone pointing a gun at you).

You hit the nail on the head, drivers should use the road with due care and attention and as TT82 states people using the road do not abide by that rule, forcing people off the road, by sounding your horn and driving agressively is not driving with due care and attention.
Looking at the google pics it would appear that the road is also a single track road in a built up area with no pavements, surely anyone using this road should drive with caution in the full knowledge that vehicles or pedestrians could appear without warning from private drives or gardens. In addition, if there are signs stating access only then people should abide by those rules and take another route.
I live on an estate in Halifax that has a road through it that is regularly used as a "rat run", we have had three fatalities on this road and have had "traffic calming" built into the road in the form of traffic islands, it does nothing to stop the flow of traffic and at peak times we can regularly see in excess of 200 vehicles short cutting through a densely built up area.
We also have signs stating no through road etc but people take absolutely no notice of them whatsoever, what beggars belief is the fact that the people taking the shortcut are actually causing problems by creating congestion on the very roads they are using in an effort to save time.

[DaveNP]

Originally Posted by zoidberg

Thing is, it is STILL a public highway/right of way, as much as you dont like it.

A Foot path is 'a public right of way' but that doesn't mean you can drive your car on it. At the risk of starting another cat-calling thread are you being devil's advocate here or do you seriously beleive you can drive anywhere you feel like regardless of restrictions which may apply to the 'road'?