Don’t ig­nore our le­git­i­mate con­cerns

Harefield Gazette - - OPINION - VLADIMIR MATVEEV Swan Road

THE re­cent com­ments of Coun­cil­lor Do­minic Gil­ham that there are no is­sues with Swan Road in West Dray­ton are ar­ro­gant and hyp­o­crit­i­cal (Gazette, Fe­bru­ary 17).

His ar­gu­ment that the av­er­age speed recorded on Swan Road was 28mph and thus no ac­tion should be taken is dis­re­spect­ful to res­i­dents.

The coun­cil has in­tro­duced traf­fic calm­ing mea­sures on many roads where speed was con­sid­er­ably lower than on Swan Road.

For ex­am­ple, a 20mph zone in Bell­close Road in West Dray­ton where the av­er­age speed was only 21mph with not a sin­gle ac­ci­dent recorded.

No­body is stop­ping the coun­cil in­tro­duc­ing mea­sures on more roads than the pe­ti­tion had asked for – the more the bet­ter – and in fact the Green was in­cluded in the pe­ti­tion, but the pe­ti­tion should not be re­jected for the rea­son that other roads were not in­cluded in the pe­ti­tion as Cllr Gil­ham sug­gests.

The vol­ume of ac­ci­dents and near misses should be the pri­mary rea­son to act.

Dur­ing the road safety pe­ti­tion hear­ing, the coun­cil had com­pletely ig­nored the voices of 350 pe­ti­tion­ers, lo­cal busi­nesses, two coun­cil­lors and the MP, in favour of Cllr Gil­ham who does not live on Swan Road or the Green.

The pe­ti­tion had also asked for pedes­trian cross­ings as there is not a sin­gle one on Swan Road.

How­ever, the Cllr Gil­ham was also against this ini­tia­tive with­out any clear rea­son.

For a coun­cil­lor not to work with res­i­dents is bad, but to be against them is even worse!

Cllr Gil­ham should con­tinue de­liv­er­ing in milk and not in pol­i­tics.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.