to report a post contact the Webmaster
|
CATALYST IS SPONSORING WWW.COOKHAM.COM IN 2008 |
|
|
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 22) |
| Author | Comment |
|
Joanne Spreight
Mar 17, 08 - 3:46 PM |
will there be lights outside Spencers pub
Interesting to see the odd shaped speed humps and inert poles. How on earth can it take the council so long to complete this unnecessary job one wonders?
|
|
Paris
Mar 18th, 2008 - 10:32 AM |
Just a thought - I may be wrong, but weren't our speed humps supposed to be of brick and granite sets so as to be more in keeping with the surroundings? I thought they cost a lot more than the normal tarmac ones, so how come this half completed bump is allowed to be different to the others? |
|
Resident
Mar 18th, 2008 - 11:26 AM |
I think it is supposed to be a pedestrian crossing whenever the council get around to finishing it. |
|
Pongo
Mar 18th, 2008 - 11:34 AM |
It is appallingly badly done, lumpy in the wrong places and messy, considering they had three men on it for goodness knows how long. |
|
Suzy
Mar 18th, 2008 - 11:46 AM |
You are absolutely right, Paris. Everyone insisted on having the best quality bricks, real granite kerbs (not concrete) and special street furniture suitable for a conservation area. Even the brick colour was carefully chosen by agreement, although the road consultants for the RBWM seemed to accept that this higher standard of everything would be the norm for Cookham, anyway. So we should definitely not be accepting any old tat now after all the Cookhamites efforts to keep our Conservation area as much in keeping as possible. If the RBWM is now trying to fob us off with cheap materials, we certainly need to get it put right, and quickly. It was bad enough that hardly anyone (apart from certain people in the Pound who live almost on top of the crossing) was ever consulted that this crossing would be constructed, and the silence on this seemed extremely strange. |
|
CH
Mar 18th, 2008 - 12:32 PM |
I'm very glad they are building a crossing - it will be a help. |
|
Robert
Mar 18th, 2008 - 1:52 PM |
Saw it earlier. It looks a real mess and definitely should be rebuilt in quality materials like the other humps. |
|
Observer
Mar 18th, 2008 - 2:02 PM |
Does anyone know why it has taken so long to get this far with these works? If they had taken so long with the other humps there would have been serious complaints. |
|
John Seaton
Mar 18th, 2008 - 2:11 PM |
Simple, one man to do the work - three others to watch! |
|
Pongo
Mar 18th, 2008 - 2:13 PM |
They did take ages over the previous humps, it was during Cookham Summer FM 1997 and if I remember the Pound was closed to traffic for at least three weeks if not longer. There was a diversion around Grange Road and Terry's Lane. |
|
Suzy M
Mar 18th, 2008 - 2:22 PM |
Yes Pongo and what a fuss was heard about that on Cookham FM. I remember people phoning in a rage saying they'd been delayed by up to 7 and a half minutes!!! Oh how we laughed. (as in get a life and try living in London then) |
|
Observer
Mar 18th, 2008 - 3:20 PM |
This has gone on for much longer than that. Does anyone remember when they (or, should I say, he?) started? |
|
Resident 2
Mar 20th, 2008 - 3:24 PM |
Here is some information from Mr Stephen Brown, Head of Highways for RBWM (with thanks to Cllr John Stretton for looking into this) “The white thermoplastic paint used for all the road markings and particularly the Zebra Crossing does not stick well to some materials ie granite setts and brick paviours. Also as about 50% of the hump is covered in paint it would not be good use of funds to put in expensive alternatives that are then hidden. Tarmac humps are also more durable than some others. However we have particularly specified grey anti skid surfacing rather than the usual bright red or orange that would be used on "ordinary" roads. We have also checked the latest guidance on conservation areas and there are no specific requirements. We did have quality issues re the first attempt at the building of the hump and this has been corrected”. Mr Brown added that there have been delays due to bad weather. |
|
Mike
Mar 23rd, 2008 - 4:53 PM |
Regardless of appearance, it isn't slowing everyone down as it isn't high or sharp enough. Unless there is anyone to at the cossing stop for, traffic is going to race over it up to the middle hump where the road and pavement narrows and there will be accidents there. Can't it be built in the same style as the other two? They seem to have worked, by the way they have slowed down traffic through the pound? |
|
JT
Mar 24th, 2008 - 11:01 AM |
Seems as if we have just lost a major part of the very good system that has kept the road safe until now, as the high humps have been very good at slowing traffic. With all the present fuss about safety in the Pound, why have the RBWM taken away an existing safety measure that really does work? |
|
Darren
Mar 25th, 2008 - 11:23 AM |
The lunatics who race through Cookham, particularly at night, are not going to slow down at all when they see an empty crossing. The new hump is much too low and smooth to require any caution to drive over. |
|
Joanne
Mar 25th, 2008 - 4:49 PM |
Note the opening query on this thread.... Will there be lights outside Spencers I wonder. Well, will there? Resident 2...what did RBWM say about that issue as opposed to speed humps. |
|
Pongo
Mar 25th, 2008 - 5:29 PM |
I had heard there would be lights as some residents had complained, but things may have changed. I went through the Pound today and it really is easy to go fast now they have moved the speed hump, I suppose they can now say the Pound is dangerous and we should have a one way system. |
|
SH
Mar 25th, 2008 - 6:03 PM |
I have heard that there will be lights but they will be specially shaded so as not to be intrusive to residents. |
|
Richard
Mar 25th, 2008 - 7:00 PM |
I have also heard this about the lights, which sounds a good thing. The crossing is also a very good idea in principle but I would endorse comments above. I don't understand why pedestrians now can't cross on a hump the height and more angular style of the one which has been removed, as they always managed to when it was an unofficial crossing. I have driven over the low hump which is now the crossing and it is not a speed deterrent at all. A higher hump would also calm the traffic, as before, and its absence now is potentially very dangerous. |
|
Pongo
Mar 25th, 2008 - 7:02 PM |
The real problem is that they have moved the hump so there is a clear run along the first bit of the Pound. |
|
Observer
Mar 25th, 2008 - 7:17 PM |
That is exactly the problem, Pongo. Why can’t the RBWM give Cookham now exactly what they insisted on giving us last time, especially as they now hold the proof that the humps have been a huge success? |
bravenet.com