Neil Winship would like to see 'quiet roads' introduced in parts of the Suffolk countryside
By Craig Robinson
Friday, September 28, 2012
5:58 PM
A CAMPAIGNER is calling for an innovative traffic calming scheme to be trialled in parts of the Suffolk countryside.
Neil Winship, of Waldringfield, near Ipswich, would like to see “quiet lanes” introduced in certain areas. He is currently gauging opinion in his own parish of whether or not people would like see such a measure introduced on the by-road between Martlesham and Woodbridge. However he thinks it could have benefit across the county.
The idea of “quiet lanes” has been trialled elsewhere - including Norfolk, Kent and Wiltshire.
The aim is not to ban vehicles but to encourage drivers to be more aware of other road users such as walkers, cyclists, and horse riders and promote rural tranquillity.
Mr Winship said: “Recent increases in fast vehicles along rural lanes are dangerous to walkers, riders and those emerging from their driveways.
“‘Quiet lanes’ are designed to enable users to enjoy country roads in greater safety and encourage drivers to respect more vulnerable road users. It’s not a ban on vehicles. Nor would it lead to more signs being erected in the countryside - I recognise that’s a concern. But some of the speed limit signs could be taken down and replaced by those for ‘quiet lanes’. So far the response I’ve had has been positive and I’d be keen to hear people’s views.”
Guy McGregor, Suffolk County Council’s cabinet member for roads, said “quiet lanes” were an “extremely interesting” idea and he had asked his highways team to investigate further.
Email Mr Winship at neil@alpheco.co.uk for more details.
ADVERTISEMENT
3 comments
Inevitably at least one reader has presumed that motorists “are to be told to drive elsewhere.” Not by me, Dean, despite my stupidity being obvious to Eddy Boy. The aim of quiet Lanes is considerate sharing of minor rural roads and lanes. The reasons for such a potential campaign may be considered under two broad headings: 1. Encouragement of walking, cycling and riding for utility (Department of Transport’s word!) and health enhancing recreation; 2. Promotion of good manners and thoughtfulness. The latter obviously lays me open to an accusation of being patronising, but the Olympics’ and Paralympics’ Games Makers were praised for just that. Perhaps we tend to become more assertive of our rights and less human when separated from other people by our motorised shell. Some seem to assume that tarmac gives priority right of way to vehicles. A rather pejorative tem for that might be ‘The tyranny of the car’ One local respondent has asserted that outside limited areas, drivers are lawfully entitled to go at 60 MPH; but the Highway Code advises “You should always reduce your speed when sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders….” and “ Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.” I acknowledge that the majority of drivers follow that advice, but sadly the statistics from RoSPA show that more deaths occur on rural roads than on urban ones and “Surveys have shown that drivers, especially younger and inexperienced ones, on rural roads drive with less care than they do on urban roads, because they think it is safer to break the speed limit on rural roads and they believe these roads are safer because they are quieter.” Regarding facilitation of walking, cycling and riding for health (physical and mental) and to reduce consumption of fossil fuel, clearly a perception of risk of injury or death is a discouragement. The Times is running a ‘Cities fit for cycling’ campaign and given that some 80% live or work in urban areas, that focus is entirely understandable. But if Suffolk and its AONB is likely to be increasingly used and valued for recreation by its growing population, a concurrent rural campaign seems worth considering with a Quiet Lane Trial to assess if the expenditure will be justified. Neil Winship
Report this comment
Neil Winship
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
This is a stupid idea. I've a better one how about putting up signs to tell stupid dog walkers not to walk down the middle of the road and have some consideration for people driving, after all roads are made for cars not for dog walking.
Report this comment
eddy boy
Friday, September 28, 2012
So what's proposed is that the largest tax paying group who pay through the nose to use the roads are to be told to drive elsewhere! That's ludicrous! As if it's not enough that motor vehicles are being hounded out of the countryside by the closing of more and more byways. Where is the tax disc for a bike, or Horse? And yet along with walkers, who let's be honest have the largest percentage of all the Public Rights of Way in England and Wales already, are to once again be given precedence over motor vehicles. Let's look at the breakdown for a second: Footpaths = 91,000 miles - only walkers allowed (pay attention cyclists and horse riders!) Bridleways = 20,000 miles - walkers, horse riders and cyclists allowed. (Pay attention car-owning picnickers on Roman Road outside Westleton) Restricted byways (the old R.U.P.P. status) = 4,000 miles - walkers, horse riders, cyclists and horse drawn vehicles allowed Byways Open to All Traffic = 2,000 miles or less than 2% and decreasing - walkers, horse riders, cyclists, horse drawn vehicles and mechanically propelled vehicles allowed. Then there's the cycle lanes where roads that we the motorists are paying for are reduced in width to cater for the bike. Don't you think you already have enough of your own way, non-MPV people?
Report this comment
Dean
Friday, September 28, 2012