Shared Spaces

Does the driver of this van believe that he is parking sensibly? Nice that he has moved his vehicle off the road to some extent? Nice for other motorists.  Shared spaces? Or just ignorance. Just down the road was an elderly women with two dogs who would have to move into the road to pass this van. Are there elderly people who are unwilling to have a walk in the centre of the village because it is dangerous? what if you were losing your eyesight, or were unsteady on your feet, or were accompanying little children how safe would you feel. The pavements are dangerous anyway.

What a motorist does is manoeuvre his or her vehicle which on average weighs at least three quarters of a ton using his feet and hands. If he makes a mistake someone will get injured, and the person most likely to get injured is a pedestrian. I suppose if we had shared spaces this type of parking would not be illegal as the pavement would not exist?

I fail to understand why some people believe that given the freedom to use the maximum road space as in the shared spaces philosophy that some people will NOT act in an inconsiderate manner; example below.

Pavements with their kurbs provide a measure of protection from vehicles. The kerbside also provide drainage and what used to be a place where the dog could do its business -although this is illegal now. The photograph below shows someone's car parked on the pavement in the High street Freshford.

Perhaps, the motorist believes that he or she is acting in the best interests of other motorists in that there is more width available to passing vehicles if their car is parked on the pavement. Or, perhaps the driver thinks that their car is a little safer from being damaged by a passing vehicle. However, the law is the law and has been made for a good reason.

The kerb not only protects pedestrians it is also a strong deterrent to motorists to keep away from the pavements, as to hit a kerbstone in good condition, will usually ruin a tyre.

The pavements in Freshford have become lower with periodic road surfacing and should be restored to the level required to protect pedestrians. It should be remembered that the kerb at its proper height will help to divert a vehicle away from the pavement. Or is B&NES council seeking to save money by removing pavements altogether?

Another example of dog poo. Sorry dog, its not your fault! on someone's drive.

Maybe a DNA test could be used to identify the dog (or rather its owner) Incidentally, paternity DNA tests for dogs are cheaper than that for humans -probably becuase they are more common!

I wonder whether we need to put a notice up on our land: No dog poo allowed! Cat poo is another issue but not well documented. But whatever the animal they know that one does not s**t in one's own backyard!

In praise of cats, apart from being a lot more cuddly than dogs they do catch a lot of vermin, your big fluffy cat can quite easily kill a large rat. I once had a cat who used to actually use the toilet, although he couldn't pull the chain! and the same cat did a poo over the plug hole of the bath! I then decided it was time to cut a cat flap into my garden door. Much to the relief of my cat when he was chased by a fox (I was living in London at the time)

I just thought that residents of Freshford Somerset and Wiltshire would like to know that Hamiliton- Baillie Associates have listed Freshford Parish Council as one of their clients on their website: Hamilton-Baillie Client List Does that mean that the company is being paid by Freshford Parish Council for their services?

Photographed today in Crowe lane, just outside the Vicarage. Some Freshford dog owner allowed their dog to, lets put it politely poo on the pavement. This is not illegal, unless the dog owner or person in charge of the dog failed to remove the excrement, poo or s**t which they failed to do. Someone in Freshford Somerset, or Freshford Wiltshire knows that their dog did this mess, what was going on in their mind at this time? Certainly not a concern for Shared Spaces

Unfortunately, it looks as if someone as already trod in it, I wonder what they said: "Oh dear I have trod in some poo" or "s**t!"

Today I note, and photograph this vehicle parked entirely on the pavement in Freshford Somerset and West Wiltshire.

This inconsiderate behaviour is illegal. How does this evidence support the case for Shared Spaces?  What is the driver thinking? That they are helping other motorists to have more space to pass them? Or is it that they are thinking that by parking thus their is less chance of their vehicle being damaged by another motorist? Pedestrians?

As I have mentioned before I missed the lecture on Shared Spaces. But this does not preclude my right to add my observations on what I consider to be a very dangerous philosophy. Whilst pedestrians may share spaces with other pedestrians without the necessity to have regulation of their movements, there are situations where such regulation is necessary. For example, keeping to the left (in the UK) on stairs both in buildings and in particular in underground railway stations helps people to help each other to keep out of the way, in what are often extremely busy environments. But to share spaces on an equal basis with motorists is almost completely nonsense. One does not argue with the mass of a car, which is on average at least three-quarters of a ton.

Perhaps many years ago when motoring was restricted to well to do people there was little necessity for regulation. After all to be well to do one had to have money and usually having money was associated with a decent upbringing and a good education. Factors which tended to endow such people with an understanding and sympathy for others that is often missing in contemporary British society. However one doesn't have to have a decent upbringing and a good education these days to own a motor car.

And, we all feel that we are quite capable of behaving sensibly in our cars without such regulation, after all it is the others who need such regulation. Scrap the drink drive regulations as well, after all the more I drink the slower and more carefully I drive, up to the point where I am so drunk as to fall asleep in my vehicle (an offence!) Joking aside this Shared spaces concept is a little more complicated than scrapping speed limits etc but it is dangerous. I will add further comments on another post but for the time being if you feel you would like to refresh your understanding of the concept or if like me you missed it then why not refer to the Wikipedia article Shared Space

Its unfortunate that some people are unwilling to collect and dispose of their dog's excrement. part of the pleasure of living in the countryside is to use footpaths rather than roads. However, I won't use my local bridleway at night because I don't want to tread in dog poo. I understand that unless a footpath or bridleway is maintained by the local authority there is nothing preventing dog owners from allowing the dog to foul the ground on which people including children may walk.

During the day, if I do notice dog poo I pick up a stick and use it to move the poo off away from the pathway. for footpath, pavements and other ground that is either owned of maintained by the local authority it is now (since 1996) an offensive for the person in charge of the dog to not take steps to remove that dog's excrement. For B&NES council's information visit:

www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/environmentandplanning/animalwelfare/Dogs/DogFouling.htm

Within Freshford village there are footpaths that are regularly fouled by dogs. What could be a safer option for parents taking their children to school is thus denied to them by the selfish attitude of the dog owner. Under the circumstances, anyone seeing a dog fouling the footpaths, pavements and council owned land should tactfully remind the person in charge of the dog that they should remove the offending excrement. It is not sufficient under the law to just move the poo off to one side, it has to be removed. (However, if you are not in charge of the dog, then why not follow my example and use a stick to move the poo off  the pathway)

"Bath and North East Somerset Council adopted the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 in September 1998.  The whole of Bath and North East Somerset was designated, which means that any person in charge of a dog must clean up after it forthwith, on any land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access.  A copy of the Designation Order can be viewed at the Council Offices, Riverside, Keynsham.

Failure to clean up after your dog is an offence.  Anyone seen allowing their dog to foul and not clean up after it will be approached by the Dog Warden and will either be put forward for prosecution, or be issued a Fixed Penalty of £50.  The owner will have the opportunity to pay the Fixed Penalty and thereby avoid conviction.  The Penalty would have to be paid within 14 days.  If it is not paid, the owner may be prosecuted and, if found guilty of the offence, fined a maximum of £1,000.

Registered Blind persons with dogs are the only exemption.

The Act does not apply to: 

B&NES

Who does Drive Through Freshford?

Because Freshford is a village that is located in a through route to Bath and Bristol. The route is the shortest route according to Microsoft Autoroute (using Trowbridge as datum). A lot of non-local traffic does go through Freshford. The route is also good for getting to Bath -if one wants to get to the South side of the city. As a resident, and when I was teaching at Oldfield School in Bath, it was quicker for me to go through the Village over to Midford lane and go through Bath down to the Globe roundabout (the Bristol side of Bath) and then drive back into the city!  With the lengthy but temporary closure of the bridge, a few years back, at Limpley Stoke, many drivers scrutinsed their maps and realised that a route through Freshford would be better for them and they have stuck to that alteration in their route.

According to Microsoft Autoroute motorists travelling to Bath should go through Bradford on Avon first, which is quicker and shorter, except that the entrance to the city is from the A46 side and is subject to more delays, so is it quicker?

What I am trying to get at, is that, these drivers are just driving through the village, and many of them -as the village has no significance for them- ignore the speed limits. They are intent on getting to work as quickly as possible (they don't really want to go there!) and in the evening coming home as quickly as possible(they can't get away from their workplace quicker enough!)

Some of them even use Dark lane as a short cut! or drive through Mill lane and up Rosemary Lane to get to the A36.

Pavements and Shared Spaces

I do not think, given this group of motorists, that any attempt to make it easier to ease congestion in Freshford would be in the interests of public safety. My view is that Freshford should have pavements for pedestrians and they should be wider and they should be continuous. At present pavements are not continous. The shared spaces lobby, if it exists, would have us removing pavements and would need to depend on the goodwill of road users in machines, and that they would go slower because they would realise that the pedestrians would be more vulnerable!  As a motorist I know exactly how motorists in this country behave, just watch a women with a pushchair trying to cross a busy road or anyone else trying to crosss for that matter! 

Even residents break the speed limit! Even parents dropping off and collecting their children break the speed limit! And,even the smallest car weighs more than one half a ton, and the damage that any contact with a pedestrian especially a child would cause hardly bears thinking about. So, keep the trend to separate vehicles from pedestrians.  Accidents don't happen they are caused, they are caused by human indifference or frailty and the road makers have taken steps to protect us. If changes are made to our village environment that place pedestrians and other road users in greater danger, then those responsible for those changes, will be responsible for those who are killed or maimed, and should bear the consequences.