It is easy to sympathise with George Mileusnic’s opinion of the epidemic of intrusive hardware and hazards that Kirklees Highways see fit to thrust into the roads to try to make them safer.
His statement that bollards are often not lit and uncleaned is quite right but Kirklees’s response that “defects need to be reported to us” is almost laughable. There are enough Kirklees vans driving round the area at any one time, so their drivers should be told to report on those defects.
Muffit Lane’s chicanes shouldn’t be a “Russian Roulette” scenario because it is a 30 mph limit, although why both of them are on the same side is a puzzle. Thrusting a large chunk of pavement into one side of the roadway becomes a hazard if the thin yellow reflective “flapper” were to get flattened during bad visibility or snow.
George asks if “bright sparks” are to blame for these barmy road plans. I can advise him that, yes, they are the next generation of “sparks”. The previous lot planned the mess that is Cawley Lane junction which I wrote about some time ago, with lane priorities, parking and safety getting ignored.
I mean, who, in their right mind, would allow parking adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, (down to Cawley) and then allow parking round the same corner right up to the school zig-zags.
The flow of traffic on High Street needs urgent attention. At school times, traffic-flow is impeded by the two central “tombstone” bollards as well as the cars that park at the bus-stop opposite the Grammar School which means that buses have to stop in the middle of the road. The police should issue tickets regularly to those car owners.
I wonder if George’s “bright sparks” ever thought of painting the kerbs of all these central bollards with the same yellow reflective paint used on the “flappers”? Road plans are no good without the application of road-sense and common-sense.