Rockfield Rodent

They have women-only carriages on the Cairo Metro. Nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with the attitude to women in that part of the world. In the UK we need to concentrate on making public transport safer for all.

ok, a small city then...

There are only so many take-aways that one small market town can support. Can't say I am sorry to see this place go, but another empty shop on Commercial Road is not great news.

Yes, the Rodent has been woken from his slumber by the demolotion every day at 7am for the last week and a half, although I am currently in the centre of Cairo which is quieter even with the regular call to prayer and the traffic! The centre had lots of asbestos in it, so perhaps better it has gone for good. Still, I agree that the link road is a very expensive solution to a problem I am not even sure exists.

The Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 quotes the following: Road marking shown in diagram 1001.3: zig-zag lines—no stopping 27.—(1) In this regulation and regulation 28— “controlled area†means a length of carriageway— (a) which is adjacent to a signal-controlled crossing facility and has a zig-zag line marked along each of its edges (with or without zig-zag lines also marked down its centre); and (b) in or near which no other signs or markings have been placed except ones comprised in the combination of signs and markings indicating the presence of the facility or shown in diagram 610, 611, 612, 613, 616, 810, 1029 or 1062; “local service†does not include an excursion or tour as defined by section 137(1) of the Transport Act 1985; and “vehicle†does not include a pedal bicycle not having a sidecar attached to it, whether or not additional means of propulsion by mechanical power are attached to the bicycle. (2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and without prejudice to regulation 28, a zig-zag line shall convey the requirement that the driver of a vehicle shall not cause any part of it to stop in the controlled area in which it is marked. (3) Paragraph (2) does not prohibit the driver of a vehicle from stopping it in a controlled area— (a) if the driver has stopped it for the purpose of complying with an indication given by a light signal for the control of vehicular traffic or the direction of a constable in uniform or a traffic warden; (b) if the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid injury or damage to persons or property; or © when the vehicle is being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes. (4) Paragraph (2) does not prohibit the driver of a vehicle from stopping it in a controlled area— (a) for so long as may be necessary to enable the vehicle to be used for the purposes of— (i) any operation involving building, demolition or excavation; (ii) the removal of any obstruction to traffic; (iii) the maintenance, improvement or reconstruction of a road; or (iv) the laying, erection, alteration, repair or cleaning in or near the controlled area of any sewer or of any main, pipe or apparatus for the supply of gas, water or electricity, or of any telecommunications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of a telecommunications code system or of any other telecommunications apparatus lawfully kept installed in any position; (b) in the provision of a local service, and the vehicle, having proceeded past the light signals to which the controlled area relates, is waiting in that area in order to take up or set down passengers; or © if he stops the vehicle for the purpose of making a left or right turn. So from what I can see, it is not entirely clear whether the controlled area includes both carriageway and adjacent verges as well. To me (a non lawyer) the wording implies the actual tarmac carriageway only - but I could indeed be wrong. I have asked some colleagues at work (who know far more than me) for their view. It could be argued that the van was stopped for "police purposes". Whilst speed enforcement is indeed annoying and perhaps sometimes a little bit harsh, I currently work in Cairo - a city where there is no enforcement of any traffic laws. Believe me, it is not pretty.

Parking on the grass verge is not illegal unless the vehicle is causing an obstruction, or if it is over 7.5 tonnes. The only other instance would be if there was a local bye-law preventing such parking. The zig zags on the carriageway are irrelevant because they apply only to a vehicle that is parked on the road itself. I can't see how the vehicle is causing an obstruction. If you don't want to lose your licence and job, don't exceed the speed limit.

Although this is by no means a bad summary, I don't think point 2 is entirely correct. The DfT and Highways England (as they are now called) do require a range of transport options to be considered before road building, but not necessarily implemented. There is a big difference! The scheme promoter (the council) needs to show that it has thoroughly considered all the options and selected the best performing one against the relevant objectives. It is highly debatable whether the council have done this. It is important that point 2 is checked out and changed if necessary. The council will seize on any factual errors in objection submissions.

I recall that Anthony stated that the DfT / Highways England has no plans to fund the Western Relief Road up to 2040. It is certainly true that the scheme does not exist in any committed government road programme. However I am not sure where the year 2040 came from. The trouble with Herefordshire Council is that they believe that they are the centre of the universe. And yet the A49 is not likely to be a high priority for Highways England. They have many bigger problems than little old Hereford.

Hello, I was at the meeting too and it was reasonably informative. It is true the money is not guaranteed, and (if they get planning permission) the Council will still have to get a detailed business case produced by their consultants and signed off by both the LEP and DfT. That might be quite tricky if the rationale for the scheme is as bad as people say it is. A pedantic point - although the ultimately money comes from DfT it has been allocated to the LEP through the Growth Deal by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. This department does not care about sustainable transport - for them roads = jobs. The woman who stated that Jesse Norman can persuade the DfT to ditch the scheme is totally wrong. Indeed Norman has caused this problem by agitating for an Enterprise Zone at Rotherwas that is awful to access. If I were an opponent of the scheme I would choose my bedfellows very carefully...