Is Eddington Avenue now a bypass from Huntingdon road to M11?

[Owen Scarrott]

I'd be curious to the views of the group here

It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from Huntingdon road to the M11 - despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally pedestrianised) area.

This is creating quite a few issues - not least large motorway bound vehicles passing a school playground all day, kids unable to cross roads in the area (the school is needing to hire a lolly-pop person no less... as there is no formalised pedestrian crossings in the area) and a bypass through a "sustainable" neighbourhood.

Several near misses with children and vehicles lately. Accident waiting to happen. And then more generally, diesel next to schools is not a good mix.

Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and closure of Storey's Way?

Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott
I'd be curious to the views of the group here
It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
Huntingdon road to the M11

Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

Post by Owen Scarrott
- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
pedestrianised) area.

I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
good to drive on.

Post by Owen Scarrott
This is creating quite a few issues - not least large motorway bound
vehicles passing a school playground all day,

What kinds of vehicles, and where are they originating from?

Post by Owen Scarrott
kids unable to cross roads in the area (the school is needing to hire a
lolly-pop person no less... as there is no formalised pedestrian
crossings in the area) and a bypass through a "sustainable"
neighbourhood.
Several near misses with children and vehicles lately. Accident waiting
to happen. And then more generally, diesel next to schools is not a
good mix.
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction
and closure of Storey's Way?

Large vehicles wouldn't have fitted there anyway. (I didn't know it had
been closed - is this permanent?)

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

Can't think of any useful change, short of trying to persuade these
vehicles to use Queen's Road and Barton Road, which has its own
drawbacks.

[Owen Scarrott]

See below!

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
I'd be curious to the views of the group here
It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
Huntingdon road to the M11

Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

CORRECT

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
pedestrianised) area.

I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
good to drive on.

Speed bump infested, still a rat run - alternates are going into Cambridge or going along A14. Both longer.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
This is creating quite a few issues - not least large motorway bound
vehicles passing a school playground all day,

What kinds of vehicles, and where are they originating from?

North Cambridge I assume. Mostly trade and goods vehicles and other obvious motorway traffic (lots of Range Rovers). You can see at junction to South of Eddington - 90% of traffic goes right (west) then left (south onto M11)
It is not construction traffic for Eddington, as that has a separate route from the West of the site.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
kids unable to cross roads in the area (the school is needing to hire a
lolly-pop person no less... as there is no formalised pedestrian
crossings in the area) and a bypass through a "sustainable"
neighbourhood.
Several near misses with children and vehicles lately. Accident waiting
to happen. And then more generally, diesel next to schools is not a
good mix.
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction
and closure of Storey's Way?

Large vehicles wouldn't have fitted there anyway. (I didn't know it had
been closed - is this permanent?)

COVID closure, no oversight, no analysis. Now school has all the traffic passing instead. Rumour is that the great and the good of Storey's Way made a bargain with planners to stop opposition to Eddington in order to get it, then COVID meant no oversight and a modal filter was put in. Fwiw Storey's Way is just as unsuitable for through traffic as Eddington Way. Though far fewer children under 10 doddering about.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

Can't think of any useful change, short of trying to persuade these
vehicles to use Queen's Road and Barton Road, which has its own
drawbacks.

One way in and out would be logical method controlled with ANPR. Stops through traffic but does not stop access to sainsbury's / facilities. The road was not built as through road, so shouldn't be much opposition to closing it. It wasn't even there a few years ago! Cannot argue that "this has been a road since roman times!"

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
I'd be curious to the views of the group here
It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
Huntingdon road to the M11

Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

I've tested it with four different online map routers, and they all take
you that way. Google Maps, in its notes, explicitly states that it's the
"Fastest route now, avoids road closure on Storey's Way".

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
pedestrianised) area.

I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
good to drive on.

As eny fule kno, speed bumps are a sekrit sign meaning "handy short cut
this way".

Mark

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
I'd be curious to the views of the group here
It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
Huntingdon road to the M11

Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

I've tested it with four different online map routers, and they all take
you that way. Google Maps, in its notes, explicitly states that it's the
"Fastest route now, avoids road closure on Storey's Way".

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
pedestrianised) area.

I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
good to drive on.

As eny fule kno, speed bumps are a sekrit sign meaning "handy short cut
this way".
Mark

Er no, in the case of Newmarket, they mean 'this is the one and only
main road out towards Clare, and we will destroy your car if you take
this at more than 15mph, although its a 30mph limit, because we hate you
and your car'. Every single 'road imporovement' made makes things much
much worse...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
I'd be curious to the views of the group here
It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
Huntingdon road to the M11

Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

I've tested it with four different online map routers, and they all take
you that way. Google Maps, in its notes, explicitly states that it's the
"Fastest route now, avoids road closure on Storey's Way".

Starting where though? By the time you get to Histon Road corridor (or
any further west) it'd be quicker to go up to the A14.

And wasn't there supposed to be a new road from NIAB to Orchard Park?

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Owen Scarrott
- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
pedestrianised) area.

I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
good to drive on.

As eny fule kno, speed bumps are a sekrit sign meaning "handy short cut
this way".
Mark

[Theo]

Post by Owen Scarrott
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
closure of Storey's Way?

Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
thought process was something like:

'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
opportunity to build one'
'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
bumps'

In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

What changes would you suggest?

In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?

Theo

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
closure of Storey's Way?

Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
opportunity to build one'
'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
bumps'
In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

What changes would you suggest?
In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?
Theo

If that's true - why wasn't the road built to a standard of what is a defacto A road (connection between two A roads) and to a motorway?

Also why was it built alongside a school?

Seems like anti-car sustainability has actually created a worse.issue than building a "proper" road north south closer to the M11.... So now Eddington has a traffic problem, kids have a pollution/safety problem...and drivers have a very inconvenient route to the motorway.


My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

[Theo]

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
parcel, continue on with delivery round.

Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
to evidence why you had to go there.

In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

Theo

[Tim Ward]

Post by Theo
Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
to evidence why you had to go there.
In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

I've also seen it claimed that it works at Addenbrookes by assuming that
if you take a while to transit you probably stopped off for a real
reason. I have entered the site from one side, collected a patient, and
left from the other side, and nobody asked me to justify what I was doing.

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Theo
Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
to evidence why you had to go there.
In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

I've also seen it claimed that it works at Addenbrookes by assuming that
if you take a while to transit you probably stopped off for a real
reason. I have entered the site from one side, collected a patient, and
left from the other side, and nobody asked me to justify what I was doing.
--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

Minimum 20 minutes in Eddington would do the trick. Everyone in Eddington recognises the need for cars - but the road was not designed as an M11 bypass. That's the core issue.

Regarding road next to school - key difference is that this is a new road and a new school. I'd like to see a planner stand up and say an effective A-road (connecting two A-roads and a motorway junction) is best placed next to a school....

I suspect, sadly, it will take an incident with a motorway bound truck for this to be recognised

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Theo
Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
to evidence why you had to go there.
In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

I've also seen it claimed that it works at Addenbrookes by assuming that
if you take a while to transit you probably stopped off for a real
reason. I have entered the site from one side, collected a patient, and
left from the other side, and nobody asked me to justify what I was doing.

Minimum 20 minutes in Eddington would do the trick.

Can you find the approved sign for that in the Traffic Manual? It's a
bit like the Ely station underpass, and the lack of a sign which says
"private cars only". [Yes, I know such signs exist at Regents Park in
London, but that's got very special rules]

Post by Owen Scarrott
Everyone in Eddington recognises the need for cars - but the road was
not designed as an M11 bypass. That's the core issue.

I think just as important a core issue is the lack of at slip road at
Girton Interchange for northbound local traffic to turn towards London.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Regarding road next to school - key difference is that this is a new
road and a new school. I'd like to see a planner stand up and say an
effective A-road (connecting two A-roads and a motorway junction) is
best placed next to a school....
I suspect, sadly, it will take an incident with a motorway bound truck
for this to be recognised

How about a 7.5 ton weight limit [except for loading]? Now there *is* a
sign for that. The central core of Ely is protected in that way and I
have almost never seen an HGV infringe it.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Theo
Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
to evidence why you had to go there.
In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

I've also seen it claimed that it works at Addenbrookes by assuming
that if you take a while to transit you probably stopped off for a real
reason. I have entered the site from one side, collected a patient, and
left from the other side, and nobody asked me to justify what I was doing.

I suppose they could ANPR cars seen in the vicinity of Outpatients (the
road which then goes past A&E to the main car park) and delete them from
the list of "offenders".

I'm annoyed by the speed-control signage on Mary Archer way (which is
still largely unbuilt-upon) that flashes eg <<25, SLOW DOWN>> when it's
a 30mph limit. If I were her I'd try to get it fixed, because some of
the mud sticks!

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry
I'm annoyed by the speed-control signage on Mary Archer way (which is
still largely unbuilt-upon) that flashes eg <<25, SLOW DOWN>> when it's
a 30mph limit. If I were her I'd try to get it fixed, because some of
the mud sticks!

Used to attend meetings with her, which would have been an appropriate
forum in which to make such a suggestion.

Main thing I remember about her is that she doesn't take someone else
doing the chairing - if she's in a meeting she's in charge.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry
I'm annoyed by the speed-control signage on Mary Archer way (which
is still largely unbuilt-upon) that flashes eg <<25, SLOW DOWN>> when
it's a 30mph limit. If I were her I'd try to get it fixed, because
some of the mud sticks!

Used to attend meetings with her, which would have been an appropriate
forum in which to make such a suggestion.
Main thing I remember about her is that she doesn't take someone else
doing the chairing - if she's in a meeting she's in charge.

In all the meetings with big-wigs I've attended the chair is supposed to
be (and generally is) impartial. More of a referee. I suppose the
Commons Speaker is the extreme example.

Therefore if that model applied (I'm not saying it didn't) how would she
ever be able to attend a meeting and give an opinion about anything?

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Main thing I remember about her is that she doesn't take someone else
doing the chairing - if she's in a meeting she's in charge.

In all the meetings with big-wigs I've attended the chair is supposed to
be (and generally is) impartial. More of a referee. I suppose the
Commons Speaker is the extreme example.
Therefore if that model applied (I'm not saying it didn't) how would she
ever be able to attend a meeting and give an opinion about anything?

This was a city council (and maybe some other councils, don't remember)
<-> Addenbrooke's liaison meeting. The chair rotated. She always acted
as if she was in charge regardless of whether she was the chair on that
occasion. I decided it was least trouble to just let her get on with it
when I was nominally chairing - it wasn't a formal legal decision making
body, so there was no significant risk.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
parcel, continue on with delivery round.
Addenbrookes do it,

Do they? I've done many through-trips [always with one stop usually at
the outpatients or Rosie entrance/exit] and never got a ticket.

Post by Theo
but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail,

Barely, appointments are often done by SMS these days.

Post by Theo
deliveries usually do, visitors have a named patient who has a paper
trail. Unless the ANPR requires everyone to take and keep a receipt
when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard to evidence why you had to go
there.
In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders,

Do you mean "almost daily" offenders?

Post by Theo
because I think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on
the way to work) to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might
catch some commuters, but not randoms (although dropping it from satnav
might filter those).
Theo

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.

I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
parcel, continue on with delivery round.
Addenbrookes do it,

Do they? I've done many through-trips [always with one stop usually at
the outpatients or Rosie entrance/exit] and never got a ticket.

Well that's the point, isn't it? You've stopped for a valid reason
so you're not a rat-runner.

I assume that the system works on some sort of minimum transit time.

I have no idea what their cut-off time is - and one would
hope that in the event that you do a lightning-quick drop-off
you'd be able to appeal the ticket with evidence of an appointment.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Fevric J. Glandules

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

But their Plan A was to have a TRO applied to those private roads, which
may or may not hold water. If they are relying upon the signage at the
entry points forming a contract with drivers, where they can apply
penalties (a bit like private car parks) if not followed to the letter,
I think it might make an interesting[tm] court case one day.

Let alone a public body like a Hospital Trust making itself potentially
inaccessible to people as a result of making all the access over private
roads.

Post by Fevric J. Glandules

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
parcel, continue on with delivery round.
Addenbrookes do it,

Do they? I've done many through-trips [always with one stop usually at
the outpatients or Rosie entrance/exit] and never got a ticket.

Well that's the point, isn't it? You've stopped for a valid reason
so you're not a rat-runner.
I assume that the system works on some sort of minimum transit time.
I have no idea what their cut-off time is - and one would
hope that in the event that you do a lightning-quick drop-off
you'd be able to appeal the ticket with evidence of an appointment.

The hospital already has the evidence of any appointment - in the
records of the patient. I wonder if "because of GDPR" they could access
that data if I simply nominated the patient I was allegedly ferrying?

There's no particular reason the patient kept their appointment letter,
assuming it ever arrived. Quite a lot is done by website/SMS nowadays.
And most (but not all) A&E patients don't have "appointments".

Although of course, I haven't just ferried patients, also members of
staff [both clinical and non-clinical], and not just to the hospital -
there are other facilities/ organisations within the site.

[Paul Bird]

On 13/01/2022 00:43, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>

Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.

Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

PB

[Roland Perry]

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.
--
Roland Perry

Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto main routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has used this extensively.

Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions - city council?
a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis of the impact on alternate routes, particularly running next to a school and through the centre of town?
b. Planning Eddington Ave as a thoroughfare with no thought as to the consequence of it being used as an effective A-road, but not built to the standards of an A-road?

And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It seems extremely well informed!

Thanks again for the input / thoughts / views.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Owen Scarrott
Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto
main routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has
used this extensively.
Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions -
city council? a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis
of the impact on alternate routes, particularly running next to a
school and through the centre of town? b. Planning Eddington Ave as a
thoroughfare with no thought as to the consequence of it being used
as an effective A-road, but not built to the standards of an A-road?

Went through the joint committee previously mentioned for the overall
original planning. Any more recent changes to transport arrangements are
vastly more likely to have been the county council than the city council.

Post by Owen Scarrott
And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It
seems extremely well informed!

Are you asking "what is news:cam.misc"? - that's either a short answer -
"it's not usenet" - or a long answer - which I think is on a web page
somewhere, but I can't remember where.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.

Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto main
routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has used
this extensively.

Can you post a streetview[tm] of one of the signs?

Post by Owen Scarrott
Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions - city council?
a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis of the impact
on alternate routes, particularly running next to a school and through
the centre of town?

No idea. Highways are usually a County matter.

Post by Owen Scarrott
b. Planning Eddington Ave as a thoroughfare with no thought as to the
consequence of it being used as an effective A-road, but not built to
the standards of an A-road?

I think Tim has explained most of that.

Post by Owen Scarrott
And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It
seems extremely well informed!

It's Usenet geeks from the 1990's who live in Cambridge.

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 17:04:23 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
It's Usenet geeks from the 1990's who live in Cambridge.

Or don't.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Brian Morrison
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 17:04:23 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
It's Usenet geeks from the 1990's who live in Cambridge.

Or don't.

...any more

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:24:05 +0000

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Brian Morrison
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 17:04:23 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
It's Usenet geeks from the 1990's who live in Cambridge.

Or don't.

...any more

Or never did.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.
--
Roland Perry

Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto main routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has used this extensively.
Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions - city council?
a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis of the impact on alternate routes, particularly running next to a school and through the centre of town?
b. Planning Eddington Ave as a thoroughfare with no thought as to the consequence of it being used as an effective A-road, but not built to the standards of an A-road?
And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It seems extremely well informed!

Cambridge Usenetters

Google Usenet and then dont use 'google groups' which are in the end a
copyright infringement of the One True Usenet, Wot Invented Trolls,
Flame Wars and Kill Files'

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.
--

But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

And, TROs can apply to any road, it does not need to be a public
highway. It needs to be "promoted" by the frontagers.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of

London.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.

But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

Only if they are legitimate signs, and quite likely only if on public
roads. Is it a crime to ignore a non-standard in effect "No vans/HGVs"
sign in a motorway services car park, for example.

https://goo.gl/maps/pP71cZ6fE65HAa5P9

Post by Roland Perry
And, TROs can apply to any road, it does not need to be a public
highway. It needs to be "promoted" by the frontagers.

Let's park the thing about "public highway" as some road traffic law
undoubtedly covers highways on private land. But wasn't there some
controversy about whether Addenbrookes could 'promote' such a TRO?

Is it even a matter about which TROs could be drafted.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of

London.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.

But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

Only if they are legitimate signs, and quite likely only if on public
roads. Is it a crime to ignore a non-standard in effect "No vans/HGVs"
sign in a motorway services car park, for example.

The requirement of the sign has to be clear. Any sign is legitimate
but the clarity is impaired if it isn't similar. The TSGDR only
applies to highways and, of course, any relevant authority can get
permission for 'specials' anyway.

Post by Roland Perry
https://goo.gl/maps/pP71cZ6fE65HAa5P9

Post by Roland Perry
And, TROs can apply to any road, it does not need to be a public
highway. It needs to be "promoted" by the frontagers.

Let's park the thing about "public highway" as some road traffic law
undoubtedly covers highways on private land. But wasn't there some
controversy about whether Addenbrookes could 'promote' such a TRO?

Almost all old highways are on private land. That is how they were
created. it is only much more recently that the Authority had to buy
the land to put the highway on.

I was quite careful to say "road".

Post by Roland Perry
Is it even a matter about which TROs could be drafted.

Yes. Have a look at the law.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
<snip>

Post by Fevric J. Glandules
I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.
I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

<snip>
Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of

London.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in

whose

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Bird
counties they operate.

Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.

But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

Only if they are legitimate signs, and quite likely only if on public
roads. Is it a crime to ignore a non-standard in effect "No vans/HGVs"
sign in a motorway services car park, for example.

The requirement of the sign has to be clear. Any sign is legitimate
but the clarity is impaired if it isn't similar. The TSGDR only
applies to highways and, of course, any relevant authority can get
permission for 'specials' anyway.

Post by Roland Perry
https://goo.gl/maps/pP71cZ6fE65HAa5P9

Post by Roland Perry
And, TROs can apply to any road, it does not need to be a public
highway. It needs to be "promoted" by the frontagers.

Let's park the thing about "public highway" as some road traffic law
undoubtedly covers highways on private land. But wasn't there some
controversy about whether Addenbrookes could 'promote' such a TRO?

Almost all old highways are on private land. That is how they were
created. it is only much more recently that the Authority had to buy
the land to put the highway on.
I was quite careful to say "road".

Post by Roland Perry
Is it even a matter about which TROs could be drafted.

Yes. Have a look at the law.

I'm not sure which law sets out the acceptable parameters for TROs, but
I hope the ones for access aren't as pliable as for 'No Waiting', which
sometimes get almost as intricate as "Between 8am and 10am, on Tuesdays
in June, except GPs".

Anyway, getting back to Adbenbrookes, I was waiting until I went there
this morning because I didn't remember seeing any equivalent signage on
the Hills Rd entrance, to that on the Trumpington side.

Now that I've checked with Streetview (I could have done that earlier, I
suppose) we have:

Before the Trumpington entrance was open, and from May 2011, not there
in 2010: https://goo.gl/maps/NQ4zR56iBn6UypYu8 and still there today
rather lost in the cluttered streetscape, but the lefthand one askew
since 2018.

And for a short period in 2017: https://goo.gl/maps/HoQ3XotxEoKD6pYq5
with a plate saying "Police Camera Enforcement... from 22nd May 2017...
offenders could be fined". Gone by the following year.

So maybe they were anticipating a formal TRO, which never turned up. In
any event, whose CCTV is it they are alluding to, the police's, or the
hospital's?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

But is it though?

I rather thought it depended on the sign.

E.g. you can drive past a 'no through road' no problem, but not a 'no entry'

IIRC Addys is 'no through road' signed, when of course it is a through road.

[Roland Perry]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

But is it though?
I rather thought it depended on the sign.
E.g. you can drive past a 'no through road' no problem, but not a 'no entry'
IIRC Addys is 'no through road' signed, when of course it is a through road.

The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

I haven't looked up that exception plate in the DfT manual to see if
it's one of those allowed.

Traditionally the police veto "Except for Access" signs, because they
say they have no realistic way to enforce them.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

But is it though?
I rather thought it depended on the sign.
E.g. you can drive past a 'no through road' no problem, but not a 'no entry'
IIRC Addys is 'no through road' signed, when of course it is a through road.

The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

Doing this in stages; section of 5.2.3 of the 2019 Traffic Signs Manual,
Chapter 3, gives the following allowable exception plates for motorised
vehicle prohibitions:

a) buses (or local buses)
b) taxis[2]
c) <<the disabled badge holder symbol>> [1]
d) permit holders
e) one of -

i) for access
ii) for loading
iii) for loading by <<plus the lorry symbol>>
iv) for access to off-street premises

plus you and "&" them together, and add a time period.

But there's no "to Hospitals", which in any event would be wrong because
there are several private/third sector research establishments within
the cordon. So this isn't an official sign, and as such may not be
permitted to be cited in a TRO.

[1] Which is separate from having a local authority permit to allow a
blue-badge vehicle not to simply park, but to gain access. So
pedestrianised High Streets tend not to have "except <<blue badge>>"
access, but require the issuing of a supplementary permit.

[2] I've seen secondary plates in some cities saying "Taxis mean
Hackneys", because they don't want to grant the exemption to Private
Hire vehicles. Just like the manual allows them to discriminate
against long distance [and private] buses.

Not sure where Phil the Duke's infamous London Cab would fit into
this, because it might imply not just a taxi-shaped vehicle, but one
with (along with the driver) a Hackney licence. Or maybe he had
honorary ones of those anyway.

[Tim Harris]

Post by Roland Perry
The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

I am curious if the signage was ever installed correctly. Turning right from Addenbrookes Road into Dame Mary Archer Way at the Abcam roundabout there is a sign on the right hand side of the road, and an empty pole on the left.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1703739,0.1342526,3a,75y,63.17h,83.05t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sE5gtAzSKLf6c-2pWnlSNqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i32

--Tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Harris

Post by Roland Perry
The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

I am curious if the signage was ever installed correctly. Turning
right from Addenbrookes Road into Dame Mary Archer Way at the Abcam
roundabout there is a sign on the right hand side of the road, and an
empty pole on the left.
data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sE5gtAzSKLf6c-2pWnlSNqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2
i32

Whether private signage like that has to be on both sides of the road is
a subset of the wider debate about TROs and so on. As time passes, the
rules get more (rather than less) relaxed about whether signs MUST be on
both sides.

I think the 20mph signs at the Elizabeth Way roundabout towards Maids
Causeway were non-compliant to begin with.

In any event, the streetview footage on that bit of road skips
alarmingly from one year to another, every time you travel a few feet.
This one has signs both sides:

https://goo.gl/maps/BfG9GF6A7TvgGTGe6

[Alan]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Harris

Post by Roland Perry
The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

I am curious if the signage was ever installed correctly. Turning
right from Addenbrookes Road into Dame Mary Archer Way at the Abcam
roundabout there is a sign on the right hand side of the road, and an
empty pole on the left.
data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sE5gtAzSKLf6c-2pWnlSNqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2
i32

Whether private signage like that has to be on both sides of the road is
a subset of the wider debate about TROs and so on. As time passes, the
rules get more (rather than less) relaxed about whether signs MUST be on
both sides.
I think the 20mph signs at the Elizabeth Way roundabout towards Maids
Causeway were non-compliant to begin with.

Maybe that's why the Pedestrian Zone, No Motor Vehicles signs into Ely
Market Square are so ignored. Both entrances only have the sign on one
side of the road.

(Admittedly the Brays Lane Road has exception for Permit Holders and
Loading, but the High Street one has no exceptions.)

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Harris

Post by Roland Perry
The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

I am curious if the signage was ever installed correctly. Turning
right from Addenbrookes Road into Dame Mary Archer Way at the Abcam
roundabout there is a sign on the right hand side of the road, and an
empty pole on the left.
data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sE5gtAzSKLf6c-2pWnlSNqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2
i32

Whether private signage like that has to be on both sides of the road is
a subset of the wider debate about TROs and so on. As time passes, the
rules get more (rather than less) relaxed about whether signs MUST be on
both sides.
I think the 20mph signs at the Elizabeth Way roundabout towards Maids
Causeway were non-compliant to begin with.

Maybe that's why the Pedestrian Zone, No Motor Vehicles signs into Ely
Market Square are so ignored. Both entrances only have the sign on one
side of the road.
(Admittedly the Brays Lane Road has exception for Permit Holders and
Loading, but the High Street one has no exceptions.)

The High St entrance is mainly used by commercial vehicles, and has to
be one of the most ignored restrictions in the City. (Leaving aside Fore
Hill parking for a moment). The Brays Lane one is also used b private
vehicles, and some people explain that it's to drop off disabled
passengers. However, the "Permit" referred to is not the Blue Badge, nor
is dropping off and picking up people "loading".

I've also seen on many occasions vans and minibuses reversing through
the No-Entry outside Costa, which also has a redundant "No Motor
Vehicles", typically to park on the pavement[1] outside the Cycle shop.
Neither has an exception plate.

Needless to say the Streetview car drives straight through. Maybe they
are "loading" data onto a hard drive?

https://goo.gl/maps/HMR3uoAGhbNk3Yev7

The van in the distance will almost certainly have come via the High St
entrance.

[1] Although the area is pedestrianised there's a clear demarcation
between 'road' and 'pavement' in the surface, and of course driving
on the pavement is a separate offence.

[Alan]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Harris

Post by Roland Perry
The signage is "Beware low flying motorcycles" with an "Except for
access to hospitals".

I am curious if the signage was ever installed correctly. Turning
right from Addenbrookes Road into Dame Mary Archer Way at the Abcam
roundabout there is a sign on the right hand side of the road, and an
empty pole on the left.
data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sE5gtAzSKLf6c-2pWnlSNqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2
i32

Whether private signage like that has to be on both sides of the road is
a subset of the wider debate about TROs and so on. As time passes, the
rules get more (rather than less) relaxed about whether signs MUST be on
both sides.
I think the 20mph signs at the Elizabeth Way roundabout towards Maids
Causeway were non-compliant to begin with.

Maybe that's why the Pedestrian Zone, No Motor Vehicles signs into Ely
Market Square are so ignored. Both entrances only have the sign on one
side of the road.
(Admittedly the Brays Lane Road has exception for Permit Holders and
Loading, but the High Street one has no exceptions.)

The High St entrance is mainly used by commercial vehicles, and has to
be one of the most ignored restrictions in the City. (Leaving aside Fore
Hill parking for a moment). The Brays Lane one is also used b private
vehicles, and some people explain that it's to drop off disabled
passengers. However, the "Permit" referred to is not the Blue Badge, nor
is dropping off and picking up people "loading".
I've also seen on many occasions vans and minibuses reversing through
the No-Entry outside Costa, which also has a redundant "No Motor
Vehicles", typically to park on the pavement[1] outside the Cycle shop.
Neither has an exception plate.
Needless to say the Streetview car drives straight through. Maybe they
are "loading" data onto a hard drive?
https://goo.gl/maps/HMR3uoAGhbNk3Yev7
The van in the distance will almost certainly have come via the High St
entrance.
[1] Although the area is pedestrianised there's a clear demarcation
between 'road' and 'pavement' in the surface, and of course driving
on the pavement is a separate offence.

Basically any rule that can be is usually broken :-)

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

But is it though?
I rather thought it depended on the sign.
E.g. you can drive past a 'no through road' no problem, but not a 'no entry'
IIRC Addys is 'no through road' signed, when of course it is a through road.

The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

<Omnes> Oh no they don't

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

 The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

<Omnes> Oh no they don't

How many cyclists do you know who go to bed still mounted? (On their
bicycles.)

It is in the nature of cyclists that they dismount sooner or later.

(Like the time I was doing some floatplane training on the Island.
"Aren't we a bit low?" I asked the instructor as he got me to cross a
ridge a few tens of feet about the treetops. "It's OK to be as low as
you like when taking of or landing," he said, "and we're landing ... ...
... eventually." Besides, he said, we bush pilots get nosebleeds if we
go much above about 200'.)

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

 The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

<Omnes> Oh no they don't

How many cyclists do you know who go to bed still mounted? (On their
bicycles.)
It is in the nature of cyclists that they dismount sooner or later.

Unfortunately, it's also in their nature not to dismount when
encountering such a sign, which is usually preceding some kind of hazard
or other (typically where they'll be mixing closely with pedestrians).

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

My favourite was out of a very old readers digest..
When asked by the judge why she had ignored the 'Slow Down Here' sign,
the defendant replied that she had though it had referred to the local
inhabitants.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:56:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

My favourite was out of a very old readers digest..
When asked by the judge why she had ignored the 'Slow Down Here' sign,
the defendant replied that she had though it had referred to the local
inhabitants.

"Slow children crossing" is one of my favourites.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:56:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

My favourite "statement of fact" sign is the one that says "cyclists
dismount".

My favourite was out of a very old readers digest..
When asked by the judge why she had ignored the 'Slow Down Here' sign,
the defendant replied that she had though it had referred to the local
inhabitants.

"Slow children crossing" is one of my favourites.

There's a "Slow Pedestrians Crossing" in our Waitrose carpark, and it's
pretty accurate much of the time.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

But is it though?
I rather thought it depended on the sign.
E.g. you can drive past a 'no through road' no problem, but not a 'no entry'
IIRC Addys is 'no through road' signed, when of course it is a through road.

The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
But not complying with road signs is the crime in this case.

But is it though?
I rather thought it depended on the sign.
E.g. you can drive past a 'no through road' no problem, but not a 'no entry'
IIRC Addys is 'no through road' signed, when of course it is a through road.

The former is information, the latter imperative. You can't comply or
not comply with an informative as it is simply a statement of fact.

I once got a ticket in Cambridge for doing what they told me to do. It
was for parking in a *prescribed* place. Pre printed too. I should have
challenged it.
Stupid petty little uneducated bureaucratic council nebbishes.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
closure of Storey's Way?

Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
opportunity to build one'
'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
bumps'
In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

What changes would you suggest?
In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?

If that's true - why wasn't the road built to a standard of what is a
defacto A road (connection between two A roads) and to a motorway?
Also why was it built alongside a school?

A bit like "why did they build Windsor Castle under the Heathrow
flight-path, perhaps the school should have been further away from the
through route, or have a car park or something so children don't have to
mix with traffic. Local pedestrian children (are there any? I thought it
was one-year foreign students living there mainly) could have a grade
separated route.

[Andrew]

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

So how would you then get from say, Girton to the M11 south?

The options seem to be rat-run through Storeys Way (if it was open).
Rat-run through Eddington or rat-run through Madingley. Other options
are to join all the traffic trying to get in to Cambridge on Huntingdon
Road to go through Shelly Row, rat-run through Oxford Road and out on
Histon Road to the A14 or join the A14 going North all the way to Bar
Hill, turn around and come back again.

None are ideal.

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Andrew

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

So how would you then get from say, Girton to the M11 south?
The options seem to be rat-run through Storeys Way (if it was open).
Rat-run through Eddington or rat-run through Madingley. Other options
are to join all the traffic trying to get in to Cambridge on Huntingdon
Road to go through Shelly Row, rat-run through Oxford Road and out on
Histon Road to the A14 or join the A14 going North all the way to Bar
Hill, turn around and come back again.
None are ideal.

Agree - the difference is that the planners had (and still do, phase II could resolve this) an opportunity to plan holistically with Eddington and an opportunity to put a connecting road parallel to M11, likely paid for by the developer.... Instead, Eddington Ave becoming the new rat run is incomprehensibly poor planning - next to a school, in a highly densely populated "sustainable" area, with bikes paths which require the crossing of roads... and no formalised pedestrian crossings!

[Roland Perry]

Post by Andrew

Post by Owen Scarrott
My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't
have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves
the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily
do it.

So how would you then get from say, Girton to the M11 south?

Where in Girton are all these HGVs coming from? Is there a stealth
industrial park, or something?

Post by Andrew
The options seem to be rat-run through Storeys Way (if it was open).
Rat-run through Eddington or rat-run through Madingley. Other options
are to join all the traffic trying to get in to Cambridge on Huntingdon
Road to go through Shelly Row, rat-run through Oxford Road and out on
Histon Road to the A14 or join the A14 going North all the way to Bar
Hill, turn around and come back again.
None are ideal.

Having a fiddle with Google Maps, the "flipping point" is the junction
of Storeys Way and Huntingdon Road. North of there it says Eddington,
south of there the Mount Pleasant one-way system and Madingley Road.

On the other hand it you set a destination of Churchill College, the top
route is always Mount Pleasant, although if you are sufficiently far up
Huntingdon Road it offers Eddington as second-best.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
closure of Storey's Way?

Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
opportunity to build one'
'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
bumps'
In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

Depends who you think designed it, and which version of which document
you're looking at (not all of which you'll be able to find, because
drafts aren't always published somewhere easy to find).

The original concept was to have a wiggly slow incomprehensible local
road so that people who lived there could get out either way - so
wouldn't have to decide on which side of a barrier to buy their house,
constraining on which side everyone in the household would have to work
or go to school forever more - but it would be too much of a pain to use
as a rat run, even if you could find it. The obvious through road had to
be there for decent bus transport but was to have a bus gate so that it
couldn't be used as a rat run.

Every now and then the county council tried to sneak in changes to turn
the wiggly connection into a more useful rat run. We on the joint
committee had, several times IIRC, to remind them of the original design
principles and force them to change it back into a local road less
obviously useful as a rat run.

Since then Storey's Way has been closed (and satnav is now on
everybody's phone rather than just something built into high end cars -
not quite sure of the timescale of that though). A prediction of rat
running through Eddington *should* have been an output from the
modelling of the Storey's Way closure, but I wasn't involved then.

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

What changes would you suggest?
In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?

The motivation behind having two new medium sized supermarkets in the
north of the city, rather than one large one and a corner shop, was the
hope that at least one of them would be taken by someone other than
Tesco, who we felt had enough shops in the city already leaving quite a
few people with not much of a real choice. A preference for particular
tenants couldn't be written into planning policy though, so this was
just a hope.

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
closure of Storey's Way?

Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
opportunity to build one'
'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
bumps'
In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

Depends who you think designed it, and which version of which document
you're looking at (not all of which you'll be able to find, because
drafts aren't always published somewhere easy to find).
The original concept was to have a wiggly slow incomprehensible local
road so that people who lived there could get out either way - so
wouldn't have to decide on which side of a barrier to buy their house,
constraining on which side everyone in the household would have to work
or go to school forever more - but it would be too much of a pain to use
as a rat run, even if you could find it. The obvious through road had to
be there for decent bus transport but was to have a bus gate so that it
couldn't be used as a rat run.
Every now and then the county council tried to sneak in changes to turn
the wiggly connection into a more useful rat run. We on the joint
committee had, several times IIRC, to remind them of the original design
principles and force them to change it back into a local road less
obviously useful as a rat run.
Since then Storey's Way has been closed (and satnav is now on
everybody's phone rather than just something built into high end cars -
not quite sure of the timescale of that though). A prediction of rat
running through Eddington *should* have been an output from the
modelling of the Storey's Way closure, but I wasn't involved then.

Post by Theo

Post by Owen Scarrott
Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

What changes would you suggest?
In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?

The motivation behind having two new medium sized supermarkets in the
north of the city, rather than one large one and a corner shop, was the
hope that at least one of them would be taken by someone other than
Tesco, who we felt had enough shops in the city already leaving quite a
few people with not much of a real choice. A preference for particular
tenants couldn't be written into planning policy though, so this was
just a hope.
--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

Thanks for this input Tim. I do not believe there was any modelling re Storey's Way - it was done quickly under covid legislation.
I could not imagine anyone wanting to defend that position of a road alongside a school in a public forum
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

Do you think there is a chance for Eddington residents to get it changed to same way in and out (from either direction)?

Not to mention the bollards not operational due to "covid"...so now even the pedestrian area is a through route.

It's really poor planning and as I said, an accident waiting to happen.

[Brian Morrison]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0800 (PST)

Post by Owen Scarrott
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

There are many schools with roads running past them, so I can't see how
that could be the case.

[ianb]

Post by Brian Morrison
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0800 (PST)

Post by Owen Scarrott
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

There are many schools with roads running past them, so I can't see how
that could be the case.

The main entrance to the school,and where the parents park their cars
is not on the rat run but on the direct route before the bus stop.
Closing the rat run would not improve safety or air quality at the front
of the school, and the playground is at the back on the west side

ian

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Brian Morrison
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0800 (PST)

Post by Owen Scarrott
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

There are many schools with roads running past them, so I can't see how
that could be the case.

The main entrance to the school,and where the parents park their cars
is not on the rat run but on the direct route before the bus stop.
Closing the rat run would not improve safety or air quality at the front
of the school, and the playground is at the back on the west side
ian
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The main area of playground runs parallel to Eddington Avenue.
The bollarded/supposedly pedestrian area (no longer operational, now the through cut - with COVID and staff working remotely being the reasoning, since Feb 2020) is infront of the main entrance.
Reducing traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles on diesel, would improve air quality.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Brian Morrison
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0800 (PST)

Post by Owen Scarrott
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

There are many schools with roads running past them, so I can't see how
that could be the case.

The main entrance to the school,and where the parents park their cars
is not on the rat run but on the direct route before the bus stop.
Closing the rat run would not improve safety or air quality at the front
of the school, and the playground is at the back on the west side

The main area of playground runs parallel to Eddington Avenue.
The bollarded/supposedly pedestrian area (no longer operational, now
the through cut - with COVID and staff working remotely being the
reasoning, since Feb 2020) is infront of the main entrance.
Reducing traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles on diesel, would improve air quality.

Perhaps you could jot down the branding of some of these HGVs, because
I'm still unsighted as to where they are starting from, such that they
need to be going through Eddington at all (rather than for example via
the Histon intersection on the A14).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott
I could not imagine anyone wanting to defend that position of a road
alongside a school in a public forum
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

This is the part which was puzzling me, because the school(s) appear to
be on the no-through-route part anyway.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Do you think there is a chance for Eddington residents to get it changed
to same way in and out (from either direction)?

They tried that at Addenbrookes, but the application of TROs to enforce
it was controversial. I'm not even sure they did eventually implement
it. Indeed, it would be very unfair on patients/staff and their "taxi
dads" if they did, because I often find it convenient to enter on th
West side (to avoid getting stuck in jams on the Ring Road, but then
exit towards the City to do some errands, while my patient [who isn't
allowed to be accompanied indoors at the moment] kicks their heels at a
typically one-hour-late-running clinic.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Not to mention the bollards not operational due to "covid"...so now even
the pedestrian area is a through route.

I see, so it might change back quite soon. JOOI, in what way does
disabling the bollards reduce the spread of disease?

[Tim Ward]

JOOI, in what way does disabling the bollards reduce the spread of
disease?

Just a guess: makes it easier for people to use cars, thus reducing
infections taking place in buses and taxis?

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Tim Ward

JOOI, in what way does disabling the bollards reduce the spread of
disease?

Just a guess: makes it easier for people to use cars, thus reducing
infections taking place in buses and taxis?
--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

There is no such second derivative thinking. It was/is because the bollards need someone onsite (apparently) because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard. Given the Transport staff of Eddington work remotely, therefore they cannot operate the bollards.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?

[Owen Scarrott]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?
--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

Honestly, the mind boggles.

It has created quite an unsafe situation as pedestrians think they have right of way, but any car can also go through. Sticky tape has crossed out the "no access for vehicles other than taxis / buses 7-7" - but as I understand when the local councillor asked about it, they received a "non-response"

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?

Honestly, the mind boggles.
It has created quite an unsafe situation as pedestrians think they have
right of way,

You think(sic) by now they'd have realised they don't!

Post by Owen Scarrott
but any car can also go through. Sticky tape has crossed out the "no
access for vehicles other than taxis / buses 7-7"

In my experience as a pedestrian, areas with just taxis and buses are
often more dangerous than with regular traffic. The drivers are more
self-entitled, and because of the low traffic levels, travelling faster.

Post by Owen Scarrott
- but as I understand when the local councillor asked about it, they
received a "non-response"

They gave up rather easily it seems.

[Alan]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?

And if the driver's insurer takes a week to agree to sort it out, what
happens to the authorised ( and presumably emergency ) vehicles that
cannot get through in that time?

Better to have someone "official" to do it, and then follow up with the
driver afterwards.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it
be their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the
mess they have chosen to create?

And if the driver's insurer takes a week to agree to sort it out, what
happens to the authorised ( and presumably emergency ) vehicles that
cannot get through in that time?

There are commercial recovery services which will attend somewhere like
that in half an hour. Emergency vehicles (how many dozen a day of
those?) can take the rat-run, if the road really is temporarily
completely impassable (which sounds like more poor design).

Post by Alan
Better to have someone "official" to do it, and then follow up with the
driver afterwards.

So these are private recovery services? A typical "can't do that from
home".

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?

It depends on the location. If the bollards protect a bus route, then,
for the sake of the bus operators and their customers, the bollards must
be cleared as soon as possible if blocked (or fixed as soon as possible,
including manually lowering them pending repair, if they go wrong).
Similarly if the bollards control a route that is likely to be used by
emergency vehicles.

If the damage or blockage is due to an unauthorised user coming into
contact with the bollards, then they can be billed for that
retrospectively, but you can't wait for them to clear up themselves, you
need to get them out of the way first. In practice, that often requires
staff either on site or on call at a convenient location nearby.

If the bollards merely protect a pedestrian area, where the only valid
users during their hours of operation are service vehicles (and
emergency vehicles have a suitable alternative route), then it's a lot
less urgent. In which case, remote monitoring and simply adding them to
the "needs a fix" list in case of damage or failure is acceptable.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Owen Scarrott
because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?

It depends on the location. If the bollards protect a bus route, then,
for the sake of the bus operators and their customers, the bollards must
be cleared as soon as possible if blocked (or fixed as soon as possible,
including manually lowering them pending repair, if they go wrong).
Similarly if the bollards control a route that is likely to be used by
emergency vehicles.
If the damage or blockage is due to an unauthorised user coming into
contact with the bollards, then they can be billed for that
retrospectively, but you can't wait for them to clear up themselves, you
need to get them out of the way first. In practice, that often requires
staff either on site or on call at a convenient location nearby.
If the bollards merely protect a pedestrian area, where the only valid
users during their hours of operation are service vehicles (and

There's an "if" missing here

Post by Mark Goodge
emergency vehicles have a suitable alternative route),

Although of course a lot of places with bollards have such alternative
routes, including Eddington!

Post by Mark Goodge
then it's a lot less urgent. In which case, remote monitoring and
simply adding them to the "needs a fix" list in case of damage or
failure is acceptable.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Owen Scarrott

Post by Tim Ward

JOOI, in what way does disabling the bollards reduce the spread of
disease?

Just a guess: makes it easier for people to use cars, thus reducing
infections taking place in buses and taxis?
--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

There is no such second derivative thinking. It was/is because the
bollards need someone onsite (apparently) because an UBER once was
stuck on a raised bollard.

Boo Hoo. They can wait until someone comes to rescue them.

Post by Owen Scarrott
Given the Transport staff of Eddington work remotely, therefore they
cannot operate the bollards.

Working from home has always been something you do "if possible". There
are plenty of "boots on the ground" jobs you can't.

If having left the bollards permanently open, a pedestrian is struck by
a car, do the emergency services work from home?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward
The motivation behind having two new medium sized supermarkets in the
north of the city, rather than one large one and a corner shop, was the
hope that at least one of them would be taken by someone other than Tesco

What's the other one? Aldi perhaps.