Thursday, August 09, 2007

Serving a Purpose

mangled railings This is a photograph of the railings in Clayhall Avenue opposite Claybury Broadway. I can’t remember exactly when they were last repaired but it was not that long ago, and they lasted for, at the most, a day before they were buckled yet again. They get progressively worse until they become a safety issue at which time they are replaced once again.
The problem is that large vehicles turn into Clayhall Avenue from Woodford Avenue/Southend Road and are then faced with a width restriction [just out of picture to the photographer’s left] and have to do a three point turn. I say “have to” but that is not necessarily the case, maybe they are doing it on purpose because the Industrial Estate in Southend Road is on a dual carriageway and cannot be accessed from the direction of Charlie Brown’s roundabout without turning round – and being too lazy to drive on to the the Beehive Roundabout to execute this manoeuvre. Probably a combination of both.
Anyway one could argue that the railings are doing the job they are there for – protecting passing pedestrians. However, one can equally question why the Council do not put in a CCTV camera to gain recompense from the vandals so we, the Taxpayer, don’t have to foot the bill all the time. And maybe consider moving the width restriction up to the junction so that these monster lorries cannot turn into Clayhall Avenue in the first place. Er, hold on, wasn't that the original location of the width restriction? – I seem to recall it was, can anybody confirm?

23 comments:

  1. I do not recall the width restriction being anywhere other than where it is now. I suspect it has to be east of the junction with Claybury Broadway in order to allow deliveries to the shops there. As to responsibility for the junction, to the best of my knowledge it is with TfL, not with Redbridge. So don't expect quick action: it takes TfL somewhere between 5 and 6 years to understand what a knock on the front door means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Morris,
    The width restriction could not have been where it is now prior to the new bus stand in Clayhall Avenue. Then the buses looped around Stradbrook and stood in the Broadway opposite the shops before there were any parking bays. Turning right out of the Broadway they must have had a free run!

    ReplyDelete
  3. There were no width restrictions at all when the then 129 looped round Peel Drive and Stradbroke Grove ending in Claybury Broadway. The one in Clayhall Avenue was placed there after the new bus stand was built, and at the same time as retrictions in Claybury Broadway and Stradbroke Grove.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Must be my ageing memory circuits.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apart from anything else, I expect the drivers are completely discombobulated by the insane number of blue notices (both round and square) that infest the corner from Woodford Ave round into Clayhall Ave.

    Mr Hickey bravely attempted to get a Highways Officer to decimate them, but the effort failed. I still suspect that they grow in the damp mists that swathe that area in the autumn.

    Isn't it good to know that our taxes are spent in planting ever more pointless notices and replacing expensive railings, when the common sense approach would surely be for Redbridge and TfL to work together to put in a roundabout there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh no, B21. Not you .... just lots of the others!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Judith,
    In a roundabout way I agree. In some places there are so many signs that if motorists actually read them all, some twat would end up adding an Accident Black Spot sign. That said there does appear to be a need for a BIG sign saying if you turn left there is a width restriction. I've not seen it myself but I am told that sometimes artics have to reverse out into Woodford Avenue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The point about that damn junction's notices is that they are practically all saying the same thing, apart from the cyclists' direction to S Woodford which points towards Gants Hill.

    One's Dearly Beloved is a cyclist of ancient renown and experience in these 'ere parts, and he reckons they are a load of nonsense. But then he also thinks cycle lanes are pernicious articles of tomfoolery (I am cleaning up the language somewhat here).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Judith,
    Have you also noticed that the big blue width restriction sign is actually in Clayhall Avenue so drivers coming from CBs roundabout only see it AFTER they have turned left. There is though a small weight restiction sign in Southend Road that is easily missed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good grief, I've lived in and around this part of Redbridge for 40 yrs, and that misplacement has NEVER occurred to me. Says it all really.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really didn't know you were that old Judith......

    ReplyDelete
  12. Morris,
    Ladies do not get old, they merely ripen!

    ReplyDelete
  13. This junction appears to be one of those problems for which there is no solution except for removing the width restrictions completely.
    May cause problems along Clayhall Avenue of course but at least the never-ending costs will be largely diminished. How about a separate blog about the value of cycle paths, could be interesting?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Disagree DGS.
    There is a large emergency vehicle access gap in the centre of the Clayhall Avenue width restriction. I have seen, and reported to the plod, numerous lorries illegally using this - including council vehicles.

    The problem is the dual carriageway which encourages drivers to enter Clayhall Avenue to execute a U-turn.

    The solution is a roundabout - an elongated one that would include the secondary route between Roding Lane North and Roding Lane South.

    If you watch the rush hour traffic, much of it exits RLN into Southend Road, enters Clayhall Avenue to U-turn [much to the annoynace of those waiting in a queue there] to go back into southend Road and turn left into RLS.

    The same happens in reverse only using Tescos as the turn round point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Or slightly re-engineer the bus bay so that lorries can use it to do a neater u-turn? except that would further increase the build-up of traffic exiting Clayhall Ave.

    Or have a masked marksman perched on top of the Claybury Broadway flats, knocking off illegal u-turners for a few weeks? The publicity should keep some of the rotters away for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I assume, Judith, that you mean a Camera gun, as in Speed gun, and that said drivers are prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can't see how an elongated roundabout is going to do anything other than snarl up the traffic even more. How about making Claybury Broadway a no entry from Clayhall Avenue, have central barriers all the way along from the traffic lights and terminating at the entrance to the bus terminus and leaving sufficient width between the central barriers for emergency vehicles either entering or leaving Clayhall Avenue only (no entry signs at each end except for the said emergency vehicles). Most vehicles wanting to enter Claybury Broadway would then have to pass through Stradbroke. Claybury Broadway could be two-way for the convenience of local traffic only.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nope.

    I meant gun, as in AK47.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A teeny weeny bit drastic, Judith. I would prefer "gentle persuasion" like Stocks on the Grassy Knoll.

    ReplyDelete
  20. All very well, DGS, but that would block off the access road to the rear of the shops - used for delivery vehicles. The whole purpose of the width restrictions is to keep these and other large vehicles away from residential roads - just look at the problems in Cleve's Walk.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What happens here fundamentally is drivers undertaking contraventions of legally placed traffic signs. These are moving traffic offences. Plod does nothing about it. Of course not - they're far too busy incurring penalties for similar such offences across London in excess of £300,000 that are paid for out of public funds.

    The plod are lazy, incompetent, and consider themselves above the law. They are a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  22. dgs - a certain VIP councillor with an expensive taste in motors lives in Stradbroke, he certainly won't want increased traffic past his window, will he?

    ReplyDelete
  23. i have four tickets from the camera in the past week. i have been living for 11 years and always do a u turn there to get to charlie browns round about. has any one else had tickets from there and if i can appeal. i now go from Wensleydale Avenue.

    ReplyDelete