|
IT'S an accident waiting to happen.
The pedestrianised town
centre used to include two streets with clearly defined rules. If
you drove, or cycled, across The Square - a part of High Street -
you turned left into Hospital Street at the T-junction because
Pillory Street, which faced you, was a one-way street.
That is still the case, but
there are no No Entry signs at the High Street end of Pillory
Street.
Are the two streets
regarded as one now? There are No Entry signs at the Pratchitt's Row end of Hospital Street, which stops vehicles going
the wrong way down it. But these are two streets, not one L-shaped
thoroughfare.
Cyclists can frequently be
seen cycling the wrong way along Pillory Street - although I have
yet to see one in Hospital Street. Perhaps I just missed them.
Apart from riding the wrong
way down either street being a danger to the cyclists because of
oncoming traffic, pedestrians crossing the streets can get a nasty
shock in the form of a collision with a cyclist.
I always look both ways
when crossing the streets, although I shouldn't need to.
I SAY there aren't any No Entry signs
at the end of Pillory Street, which is correct, but to get to that
point cyclists have to pass - and probably ignore - a No Cycling
sign in High Street, by the flower bed. Maybe they walk across the
Hospital Street junction before remounting their cycle for the ride
down Pillory Street!
There will be some reason
why highways authorities won't allow it, but how about erecting
two No Cycling signs at the end of Pillory Street in the same
way as there were two No Entry signs? Wouldn't this make it |
|
clearer to cyclists that they cannot
ride down the street? Probably not. Since when have many cyclists
ever thought that road traffic rules apply to them?
There are side streets off
Hospital Street and Pillory Street so it would be possible for
cyclists to ride the wrong way down either street having ridden in from
one of those.
It is possible to cycle
along the footpath on the Mill Street side of High Street without
being stopped. By that I mean there is no No Cycling sign on that side
of the flower bed. And so cyclists could believe they are doing
nothing wrong. Assuming they would know what the image-only (no
words) No Cycling sign is telling them.
I WAS waiting to cross at a pedestrian
crossing, in a different street, when a cyclist came along the road,
turned on to and
rode across the crossing, and cut across the mouth of the adjacent junction.
Although I hadn't reacted
to his escapade, he felt he had to explain. "I'm trying to get
across (the junction) before the lights change," he shouted.
Having missed me as I waited for the "green man".
That's another place where
pedestrians have to be extra careful as a cyclist will often ride
across the junction, through red lights, and despite the "green man"
signalling that pedestrians have the right of way.
You have to look both ways,
as well as where you are going, when using a pedestrian crossing. it
would seem.
I said this situation was an accident
waiting to happen. Let's hope it doesn't take one before something is done. |
|
 |
