Double yellow lines leave residents baffled (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Double yellow lines leave residents baffled
11:00am Tuesday 28th February 2012 in News
By Damian Fantato, covering Summertown, Jericho and North Oxford. Call me on 01865 425429
City councillor Ruth Wilkinson with one of the sets of double yellow lines
MOTORISTS have called them “baffling” and they have left the experts stumped.
Not even the Highway Code seems to cast light on what these double yellow lines might mean.
The road markings have sprung up across some of the junctions in Headington.
Oxfordshire County Council has painted the lines as part of its scheme to upgrade the area.
But nobody seems to know what they mean.
Stephen Road resident Dominic Francis said: “They are really baffling.
“What I would take from it is you cannot park in the middle of the road.
“But I cannot understand what the council is doing. It must be some sort of mistake.”
According to the Highway Code, published by the Department for Transport, double-yellow lines along the edge of the carriageway indicate no waiting at any time.
It makes no mention of double yellow lines across the carriageway.
The lines are before a flattened speed bump which pedestrians can use to cross the road.
But Bickerton Road resident Mike Ratcliffe said: “There have been no problems with people parking there.
“It seems to be a bizarre error.”
Even Martin Bourne, an expert in road traffic law with law firm Darby’s, could not understand what the lines were for.
He said: “If you were to park there you would be committing an offence anyway because you would be obstructing the highway.
“That’s a much more serious offence, so the lines are redundant.”
Local city councillor Ruth Wilkinson said: “It makes you wonder what they will think of next.”
The lines are part of New Headington Transport Improvements scheme, which began in October last year to make the area’s roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
Nearly £500,000 was spent on the scheme over the past five months, but it has already emerged the council is reviewing the works after residents raised safety concerns.
Referring to the yellow lines, county council spokesman Owen Morton said: “The aim is to make the junction look more residential and deter drivers who are less familiar with the area from using side roads as a rat run.”
Comments(53)
Dilligaf2010
says...
11:13am Tue 28 Feb 12
.......In other words "it's a c**k up!"......
Bart_Simpson1
says...
11:13am Tue 28 Feb 12
McDave
says...
11:22am Tue 28 Feb 12
Milkbutnosugarplease
says...
11:33am Tue 28 Feb 12
multitask
says...
11:39am Tue 28 Feb 12
museli
says...
11:58am Tue 28 Feb 12
Bart_Simpson1 wrote:A 'rat run' when describing roads is a way through residential or otherwise unsuitable roads used by motorists to avoid the congestion etc on more suitable roads. It's a well used term so I don't know why you claim there is no such thing. Just because there is no law preventing a motorist using an inappropriate route doesn't alter the fact that he is acting like a rat, the fact certain behaviour isn't illegal doesn't stop it being selfish and antisocial.
Once again, there is NO such thing as a rat run. This is another balls up by the council. They are not fit to be in charge of the highways.
museli
says...
12:05pm Tue 28 Feb 12
The Big Issue
says...
12:27pm Tue 28 Feb 12
museli
says...
12:41pm Tue 28 Feb 12
The Big Issue wrote:There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article.
That Highways bod hasn't a clue what they're for and the rat run thing was just an excuse. There's nothing wrong with rat running unless it is a private road ie not maintained by government money, or a public road where the sign showing a motorbike jumping a car is displayed. What's more anti-social is residents who think the road is for their exclusive use when we all contribute to its' upkeep.
GPOWELL
says...
12:51pm Tue 28 Feb 12
museli
says...
1:14pm Tue 28 Feb 12
GPOWELL wrote:Oxford was not designed for motorists and no road planner, however good, can possibly be expected to prevent congestion caused by too many vehicles in too small a place.
If the road planners were doing their job well there would be no need for 'rat runs'. Motorists have every right to use side roads as an alternative route as long as they obey the law (speed limit). It's obvious that they'd rather do that than sit in a queue caused by bad road design. It also a lot kinder to the environment to be moving rather than sat with the engine running.
Motorists have no 'right' to use any public space, society allows then to share it under strict license conditions and is quite entitled to impose conditions or even ban them from some roads if they become too much of a nuisance.
WitneyGreen
says...
1:24pm Tue 28 Feb 12
The Big Issue wrote:Owen Morton isn't a highways bod. He's a press officer.
That Highways bod hasn't a clue what they're for and the rat run thing was just an excuse. There's nothing wrong with rat running unless it is a private road ie not maintained by government money, or a public road where the sign showing a motorbike jumping a car is displayed. What's more anti-social is residents who think the road is for their exclusive use when we all contribute to its' upkeep.
John Lamb
says...
1:31pm Tue 28 Feb 12
multitask wrote:I totally agree multitask.
A flattened speed hump as it has been described in this non news article is NOT an official safe place to cross a road in other words it does not work like a zebra or any other type of crossing it is purely there for speed control purposes only.
I just wish the kids going to and leaving Gosford High School would realise this as they seem to think it is some kind of zebra crossing and jump out onto it.
All the while a teacher from the school watches them do this.
Sid Hunt
says...
2:15pm Tue 28 Feb 12
What is your definition of a 'local road'?
museli
says...
2:50pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Sid Hunt wrote:In this context I mean a road that is designed to serve local housing rather than one that is designed to allow large amounts of vehicles to get from A to B. There are many different forms of rat running though whether through Quarry Hollow to avoid congestion on the London Road or through Horspath village to avoid tailbacks on the A40 it's all abuse of our road system.
"There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article."
What is your definition of a 'local road'?
Christine Hovis
says...
3:37pm Tue 28 Feb 12
It can't help to have pictures of Liberal Democrats looking confused and helpless. That's not their normal state at all...
Mike Ratcliffe
says...
3:53pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Now the later would be a serious marker of entering a residential area, but there's no way that the County have sorted that out. It might be an answer though...
The key issue is that making people slow down when they enter these roads is not the problem - keeping speed down as they get into the straight bit is.
RetiredMan
says...
4:33pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Andyturner
says...
4:51pm Tue 28 Feb 12
wahahey
says...
5:05pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Andrew:Oxford
says...
5:08pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Isn't 15cm the correct distance?
urbandesign
says...
5:16pm Tue 28 Feb 12
EMBOX1
says...
5:29pm Tue 28 Feb 12
LittleBrother
says...
6:17pm Tue 28 Feb 12
on.gov.uk/uksi/2002/
3113/schedule/6/made Page 172
These aren't, and as they are one continuous set of DYL then they are unenforceable so park on them freely (including the sections by the pavement).
SNJ
says...
6:54pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Ruth Wilkinson is a city councillor: she has no control over the county (does anyone?)
Gunslinger
says...
7:03pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Unlawful road signs are a serious matter, because they confuse and distract road users - as the CC are quick to remind us when people stick unofficial signs on lamp posts etc for parties and other events.
In the old days, council auditors could surcharge council officers or members who incurred unlawful expenditure. I doubt somehow the clown who thought up this one will end up paying.
Feelingsmatter
says...
7:51pm Tue 28 Feb 12
As someone who lives in Abingdon and regularly uses a "Rat run" I can only say that selfishness doesn't come into it. I have 15 minutes to get to work after my kids leave for school. The ridiculous system in Abingdon means that I have to resort to a so-called "Rat-run" or I will be late for work. Perhaps the term is overused, as the road which I use has been labeled thus yet is NOT a residential road as it has businesses, cemeteries and social clubs on it.
The Big Issue
says...
8:51pm Tue 28 Feb 12
museli wrote:But it's acceptable for someone delivering to you to do it?
The Big Issue wrote:There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article.
That Highways bod hasn't a clue what they're for and the rat run thing was just an excuse. There's nothing wrong with rat running unless it is a private road ie not maintained by government money, or a public road where the sign showing a motorbike jumping a car is displayed. What's more anti-social is residents who think the road is for their exclusive use when we all contribute to its' upkeep.
The Big Issue
says...
8:54pm Tue 28 Feb 12
museli wrote:What a load of tosh! You've got the right username..Muesli.
Sid Hunt wrote:In this context I mean a road that is designed to serve local housing rather than one that is designed to allow large amounts of vehicles to get from A to B. There are many different forms of rat running though whether through Quarry Hollow to avoid congestion on the London Road or through Horspath village to avoid tailbacks on the A40 it's all abuse of our road system.
"There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article."
What is your definition of a 'local road'?
museli
says...
9:17pm Tue 28 Feb 12
The Big Issue wrote:Would you like to say why you think it's a 'load of tosh'? Why should people have to suffer your noise and air pollution. Local authorities have been obliged to take measures against this sort of selfishness for years as it totally unacceptable. The more selfish motorists rat run the more attempts the council will be obliged to make to deter them and the more the rest of us will have to suffer from the chicanes and humps and one way streets they create.
museli wrote:What a load of tosh! You've got the right username..Muesli.
Sid Hunt wrote:In this context I mean a road that is designed to serve local housing rather than one that is designed to allow large amounts of vehicles to get from A to B. There are many different forms of rat running though whether through Quarry Hollow to avoid congestion on the London Road or through Horspath village to avoid tailbacks on the A40 it's all abuse of our road system.
"There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article."
What is your definition of a 'local road'?
museli
says...
9:31pm Tue 28 Feb 12
The Big Issue wrote:Yes obviously, can't you see the difference?
museli wrote:But it's acceptable for someone delivering to you to do it?
The Big Issue wrote:There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article.
That Highways bod hasn't a clue what they're for and the rat run thing was just an excuse. There's nothing wrong with rat running unless it is a private road ie not maintained by government money, or a public road where the sign showing a motorbike jumping a car is displayed. What's more anti-social is residents who think the road is for their exclusive use when we all contribute to its' upkeep.
Andyturner
says...
2:43am Wed 29 Feb 12
SNJ wrote:Ruth Wilkinson is a city councillor who must have seen the county council plans before they were implemented. The Headington Plan must have been published well in advance and one would think if she is the councillor for that area she should have looked at it. Or was it better to wait until it was done so she could use it as a popularity stunt?
Parking is allowed half-on, half-off the kerb in some streets in Highfield. The lines for the car-parking spaces go up on to the pavement here in Bickerton Road. Ruth Wilkinson is a city councillor: she has no control over the county (does anyone?)
BenkiuGuasu
says...
12:45pm Wed 29 Feb 12
Feelingsmatter
says...
6:16pm Wed 29 Feb 12
Who, exactly, decided that roads, which are kind of designed with cars in mind, should only be used by the favoured few? If you want a low-pollution, quiet road either buy a house in a cul-de-sac, move to a village off the beaten track or earn enough money to live on a private estate. What about the people who live on the "main drag". Why should THEY suffer more? Why should I sit in a traffic jam with a miserable child for 30 minutes when I know a shorter route? Who's being selfish and inconsiderate exactly? The motorist looking for a way to conserve fuel and maintain their mental health or the NIMBYs whingeing about their air quality?
museli
says...
6:18pm Wed 29 Feb 12
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-oxf
ordshire-17209729
LittleBrother
says...
6:25pm Wed 29 Feb 12
museli
says...
6:45pm Wed 29 Feb 12
Feelingsmatter wrote:The road I live in was built in the 1930s when motorists would only have been a small part of design consideration. Rat runs through Quarry Hollow and Horspath use roads built centuries before anyone had dreamt of cars. By the time your kid grows up most people will travel by less selfish means as you lot will have squandered all our oil. The council and government can't force you out your car (yet) but they will continue to make it difficult for you and to ensure you pay through the nose if you don't take the initiative and sort out your own lifestyle.
Muesli wrote; "Would you like to say why you think it's a 'load of tosh'? Why should people have to suffer your noise and air pollution. Local authorities have been obliged to take measures against this sort of selfishness for years as it totally unacceptable. The more selfish motorists rat run the more attempts the council will be obliged to make to deter them and the more the rest of us will have to suffer from the chicanes and humps and one way streets they create."
Who, exactly, decided that roads, which are kind of designed with cars in mind, should only be used by the favoured few? If you want a low-pollution, quiet road either buy a house in a cul-de-sac, move to a village off the beaten track or earn enough money to live on a private estate. What about the people who live on the "main drag". Why should THEY suffer more? Why should I sit in a traffic jam with a miserable child for 30 minutes when I know a shorter route? Who's being selfish and inconsiderate exactly? The motorist looking for a way to conserve fuel and maintain their mental health or the NIMBYs whingeing about their air quality?
museli
says...
6:49pm Wed 29 Feb 12
LittleBrother wrote:I wonder if the Oxford mail will be reporting what action is taken against whichever incompetent traffic management professional okay'd it in the first place.
So do we tax payers get to pay for them to be removed as well - fantastic!
Feelingsmatter
says...
7:54pm Wed 29 Feb 12
You are a truly ignorant, insulting individual. Until you have a chronically ill child you should refrain from using words like "selfish" and think about how it is for people who have no CHOICE in their lifestyle. I really get sick of idealists who have NO IDEA what it is like to live within the limitations of a chronically ill child, financial hardship and mental torment. If taking the "rat-run" means I get to spend 30 minutes more with my other two children then I make NO APOLOGY to insulting liberal idealists who moan about the quality of their air. What do you suggest I do; fit a bicycle with an air-tight bubble to accommodate my child? Oh, and by the way, I am also struggling with a spinal injury which happened as the result of working as a nurse.
Don't like your quality of life? Then move! At least you have a choice. I cannot do ANYTHING to change my child's chronic illness.
John Lamb
says...
8:27pm Wed 29 Feb 12
museli
says...
8:29pm Wed 29 Feb 12
Feelingsmatter wrote:I'm sympathetic to your problems Feelingsmatter but they are totally irrelevant to traffic policy. I don't care what you do as an individual, it is you who insists on bringing personal circumstances into things and then gets all upset.
"By the time your kid grows up most people will travel by less selfish means as you lot will have squandered all our oil. The council and government can't force you out your car (yet) but they will continue to make it difficult for you and to ensure you pay through the nose if you don't take the initiative and sort out your own lifestyle."
You are a truly ignorant, insulting individual. Until you have a chronically ill child you should refrain from using words like "selfish" and think about how it is for people who have no CHOICE in their lifestyle. I really get sick of idealists who have NO IDEA what it is like to live within the limitations of a chronically ill child, financial hardship and mental torment. If taking the "rat-run" means I get to spend 30 minutes more with my other two children then I make NO APOLOGY to insulting liberal idealists who moan about the quality of their air. What do you suggest I do; fit a bicycle with an air-tight bubble to accommodate my child? Oh, and by the way, I am also struggling with a spinal injury which happened as the result of working as a nurse.
Don't like your quality of life? Then move! At least you have a choice. I cannot do ANYTHING to change my child's chronic illness.
Don't take things so personally, I don't give a monkeys which way you drive to work. Just because circumstances force you to take a particular route doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to do it though.
If you get that stressed by what you read here why not just give it a miss and spend a bit more time with your kids or learning to relax.
Feelingsmatter
says...
8:44pm Wed 29 Feb 12
In addition, your veiled insults about how I spend my time are completely out of order. How do YOU know how much time I spend with my children? How do YOU know whether my husband is home and I'm spending time catching up with local issues? How do YOU know whether I have given up my career to care for my kids? Your superior attitude sickens me. Roads are roads, and you have no right to dictate who travels on them. If you,a blue-blood nimby, have to resort to personal insults in the form of fake-sympathy and patronising slights, it is clear that you are on the defensive. Seriously, you DO NOT OWN the tarmac in front of your boundary, and if you don't like plebs like me driving along it then TOUGH!
museli
says...
8:49pm Wed 29 Feb 12
Feelingsmatter wrote:I'll just respond to say my sympathy is genuine and the insults you refer to are not intended to be personal.
I'm not getting all upset, or taking things personally! It is YOU who began the insults! Allow me to refresh your mind; "By the time your kid grows up most people will travel by less selfish means as you lot will have squandered all our oil". YOU LOT, meaning everyone who dares to drive in front of your house. I get sick of people like you who can survive without using any of the earth's natural resources. I mean, what do you live on? Old copies of the Oxford Mail, or the gas from your own emittance?
In addition, your veiled insults about how I spend my time are completely out of order. How do YOU know how much time I spend with my children? How do YOU know whether my husband is home and I'm spending time catching up with local issues? How do YOU know whether I have given up my career to care for my kids? Your superior attitude sickens me. Roads are roads, and you have no right to dictate who travels on them. If you,a blue-blood nimby, have to resort to personal insults in the form of fake-sympathy and patronising slights, it is clear that you are on the defensive. Seriously, you DO NOT OWN the tarmac in front of your boundary, and if you don't like plebs like me driving along it then TOUGH!
The Big Issue
says...
9:08pm Wed 29 Feb 12
museli wrote:Yes, as a lorry driver I have to use residential and unsuitable roads to get to customers who are so anti social ordering gravel for their drive, sand for their extension etc. Quite often dodging the tanker delivering their heating oil or the supermarket van delivering their shopping they were too lazy to go to the shop to buy.
The Big Issue wrote:Yes obviously, can't you see the difference?
museli wrote:But it's acceptable for someone delivering to you to do it?
The Big Issue wrote:There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article.
That Highways bod hasn't a clue what they're for and the rat run thing was just an excuse. There's nothing wrong with rat running unless it is a private road ie not maintained by government money, or a public road where the sign showing a motorbike jumping a car is displayed. What's more anti-social is residents who think the road is for their exclusive use when we all contribute to its' upkeep.
tellkevv
says...
10:08pm Wed 29 Feb 12
museli
says...
7:03am Thu 1 Mar 12
Early deaths due to air pollution in the UK are somewhere between 25 and 50 thousand a year depending on who you believe:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/environment/20
10/mar/22/air-pollut
ion-deaths
Children living near busy roads suffer much higher rates of asthma:
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm201012/cmselect/c
menvaud/writev/air/m
07.htm
Meanwhile we have huge levels of adult and child obesity mostly due to lack of exercise. Fuel becoming increasing expensive reducing those who become dependent on it to poverty. Cyclists feeling squeezed off the roads and causing problems for pedesrians etc etc
Yet still you bleat on about some fictitious right you think you've bought to monopolise public road space.
Fortunately neither the authorities or the majority of voters agree with you or we would have political parties fighting for your vote instead of trying to discourage you and tax you off the roads which I expect they will continue to do.
museli
says...
7:05am Thu 1 Mar 12
The Big Issue wrote:Delivery drivers often reduce car journeys by combining what would be many trips into one. Delivering to peoples houses is obviously not what's meant by rat running.
museli wrote:Yes, as a lorry driver I have to use residential and unsuitable roads to get to customers who are so anti social ordering gravel for their drive, sand for their extension etc. Quite often dodging the tanker delivering their heating oil or the supermarket van delivering their shopping they were too lazy to go to the shop to buy.
The Big Issue wrote:Yes obviously, can't you see the difference?
museli wrote:But it's acceptable for someone delivering to you to do it?
The Big Issue wrote:There is a lot wrong with rat running. Different roads are designed for different purposes and treating a local road as a thoroughfare is far more antisocial than many criminal acts. It's the fact that some motorists don't acknowledge this that results in the council taking silly measures such as that described in the article.
That Highways bod hasn't a clue what they're for and the rat run thing was just an excuse. There's nothing wrong with rat running unless it is a private road ie not maintained by government money, or a public road where the sign showing a motorbike jumping a car is displayed. What's more anti-social is residents who think the road is for their exclusive use when we all contribute to its' upkeep.
The Big Issue
says...
8:41am Thu 1 Mar 12
museli wrote:Ah the Guardian; I find Andrex is much more absorbant but I can see where your points of view come from. Toddle off and make some free range lentil soup to serve at the next Guild Of Village Idiots meeting.
You guys are incredible!
Early deaths due to air pollution in the UK are somewhere between 25 and 50 thousand a year depending on who you believe:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/environment/20
10/mar/22/air-pollut
ion-deaths
Children living near busy roads suffer much higher rates of asthma:
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm201012/cmselect/c
menvaud/writev/air/m
07.htm
Meanwhile we have huge levels of adult and child obesity mostly due to lack of exercise. Fuel becoming increasing expensive reducing those who become dependent on it to poverty. Cyclists feeling squeezed off the roads and causing problems for pedesrians etc etc
Yet still you bleat on about some fictitious right you think you've bought to monopolise public road space.
Fortunately neither the authorities or the majority of voters agree with you or we would have political parties fighting for your vote instead of trying to discourage you and tax you off the roads which I expect they will continue to do.
Feelingsmatter
says...
9:22am Thu 1 Mar 12
Having said all that, I thank you for your explanation. In an ideal world, where buses had sufficient seats and ran on time and hospitals weren't built in the middle of built-up areas, Headington would be a different place.
museli
says...
11:08am Thu 1 Mar 12
The fact remains though that the government will continue to increase tax on motorists and it's one more good reason for those that can to minimise dependence on them.
oxfordborn
says...
7:03pm Thu 1 Mar 12
It's a foul up, you know it, we know it.
WhereIlive
says...
12:51pm Fri 2 Mar 12
says...