More cars, more pedestrians

Following yesterday's post I've been asked about the legal position on parking and also what is being done to help solve the problems.

In Stockton the council is responsible for enforcing parking restrictions in most cases. The main issues we have in our estate roads are parking partly on the pavement and parking on bends or junctions or across someone's drive.
Drivers often park with 2 wheels on the pavement because they think that it gives more space on the road for other motorists to pass and therefore is safer or better.  However, there are 2 problems with that approach.  First, the surface of pavements is not reinforced for the weight of the vehicle so damage is caused.  The damage isn't visible immediately but builds up over many months.  Repair costs money which is paid by all tax payers, not just the motorists concerned.
Second, a pavement is designed to be wide enough for someone in a wheelchair or someone pushing a pram to go along comfortably.  If a car is parked partly on the pavement the access for those pedestrians is obstructed.
The council's enforcement officers will take action if someone is parked causing an obstruction such as leaving too narrow a gap on the pavement thereby forcing wheelchair users or people pushing prams to leave the footway and walk on the road.
Although the Highway Code says that motorists should not park on bends or in such a way as to obstruct the use of a dropped kerb or the driveway of a house, we all know that if 50 cars are collecting children from a primary school on a modern housing estate they will end up doing all of those things.  Most residents accept a bit of give and take in these situations but sometimes some drivers can be so thoughtless in their parking that people get really angry. 
Tomorrow Alan Lewis and I have a meeting scheduled with a council enforcement officer to discuss the situation we saw yesterday and see if we can come up with an action plan to improve the situation.  That will give us a better idea of what might be possible outside the other schools in the ward where similar problems are experienced.

That doesn't resolve the issues around youngsters being out on roads on their scooters and skateboards while drivers don't expect them to be in the road. We are trying to find a way of funding some provision for them to enjoy those wheeled activities safely and getting them off the roads and off the front of the shops, but that's going to take a bit of time.
It also doesn't resolve the issue of people who drive at legal but inappropriate speeds on estate roads - 30mph might be legal but it doesn't mean it's sensible.  Unfortunately we can't get the speed limit reduced without lots of speed bumps or build outs or other physical means of slowing down the vehicles - expensive beyond reach even if everyone agreed it was a good thing on all of our longer roads.

So I'm not offering platitudes, nor easy answers.  It is difficult but Alan Lewis and I are doing what we can.  If anyone has any helpful suggestions that we haven't yet tried please do get in touch - we'll see if they can be tried.

The latest In Touch newsletter from the Conservative candidate for the Stockton South Parliamentary seat is being delivered throughout the ward this week. This time I'm not angry but saddened by one of the articles in it. There's an implication though not an explicit statement that speed was a contributory factor in a serious road accident at the Sunningdale Drive/Yarm Rd junction in October. In the same article there's a repeat of the police appeal for witnesses and information Now it may be that speed was a factor, but there's been no evidence released to the public as far as I'm aware, no statement to that effect by the local police. If speed was not a contributer then imagine the distress caused to the families concerned if they read that article.
He goes on to use the accident as a hook on which to hang his campaign for Speed Indicator Devices on Yarm Rd. The Area Transport Strategy Steering Group, which has representatives of his party on it, has never had any suggestion made to it that such devices are wanted. No resident has approached any of the Eaglescliffe ward councillors with the proposal. The police, also part of the Transport Strategy group, have never suggested that there is a need. I'd be more than happy to discuss the possibility of assigning some of the funding available to them if there was evidence of need but as any lawyer knows, evidence is the fundamental requirement for a case to be made. Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
Meanwhile, the Transport Strategy fund and the ward environmental improvement fund have both contributed to measures to improve road safety on Urlay Nook Rd and Durham Lane, both based on evidence from residents, police and consultants.