What you say about dan­ger road

Rossendale Free Press - - Cameras On Danger Road -

WHAT you’ve been say­ing about the scheme on our Face­book page:

Tony South­ern: I’m a HGV driver and I see lots of speed re­lated ac­ci­dents and I travel over Grane Road some morn­ings early am by car and you want to see the speed some are do­ing then due to it be­ing quiet. I helped a guy out of his car ear­lier this year after he’d lost it and ended up­side down in one of the fields, so if th­ese cam­eras put a stop to it then happy days.. Cut the speed it’s not worth los­ing yours or an­other per­son’s life.

Les­lie Nut­tall: It isn’t the speed that’s a prob­lem. I could do al­most ev­ery bend at 60mph when that was the limit. The prob­lem is some peo­ple don’t know the best line to take and make bends sharper or some don’t even take any no­tice of the road what­so­ever. Lee Glover: Plenty over­take on the dou­ble white lines. Seen it plenty of times. Speed is part of the prob­lem though. Self­ish driv­ing, Peo­ple think­ing they are un­touch­able. Giv­ing zero re­gard for other road users... I see it all the time on plenty of roads. Don’t use that road of­ten but any­time i’ve got from Hasling­den to Black­burn or visa versa you are guar­an­teed to see at least one clown.

Andy Kyme:

Frus­tra­tion is a ma­jor rea­son for ac­ci­dents on this road. There are so many driv­ers brak­ing for ev­ery bend and trav­el­ling at 25 mph in a 50 limit, it cre­ates frus­tra­tion and some driv­ers THEN speed and over­take in dan­ger­ous places. My pre­dic­tion: This will not pre­vent col­li­sions on Grane Road.

A NUM­BER of years ago, Rossendale coun­cil’s scru­tiny com­mit­tee de­cided to make the is­sue of dog foul­ing a top pri­or­ity.

It’s one of those things which few peo­ple like to talk about, but which ir­ri­tates folk like few other things.

Rossendale coun­cil sub­se­quently in­creased its spend­ing on dog pa­trols to £44,000 a year, while Bacup was a par­tic­u­lar tar­get for coun­cil ac­tiv­ity with glow in the dark signs and more poo bins.

This year, the coun­cil re­ported a sharp drop in the num­ber of dog foul­ing com­plaints the author­ity had re­ceived – although there was some sug­ges­tion that com­plaints go­ing down can also be a re­sult of peo­ple think­ing there is lit­tle point in com­plain­ing.

Ear­lier this year, it was sug­gested that Rossendale coun­cil was look­ing into pro­pos­als from Liver­pool city coun­cil to of­fer free coun­cil tax to peo­ple who pro­vided in­for­ma­tion which led to pros­e­cu­tions of peo­ple who let their dogs foul.

That pro­posal, while in­no­va­tive, is fraught with dif­fi­cul­ties – not least it in­volved mem­bers of the pub­lic be­ing pre­pared to po­ten­tially col­lect ev­i­dence about peo­ple who, if they can’t be both­ered to clear up after their pet, are highly un­likely to wel­come be­ing mon­i­tored.

A much more prac­ti­cal op­tion would be to fol­low the lead – par­don the pun – of Can­ter­bury coun­cil in Kent and in­tro­duce a new pub­lic space pro­tec­tion or­der which re­quires dog walk­ers to have at least two dog poo bags with them when walk­ing their pooch.

Those caught walk­ing a dog without the bags will run the risk of be­ing fined.

No re­spon­si­ble dog owner will have a prob­lem with such a rule, so long as it’s en­forced sen­si­bly.

It’s a win, win for the coun­cil too.

It doesn’t re­quire con­stant polic­ing, but pro­vides of­fi­cers with the in­stant power to check up on dog walk­ers in dif­fi­cult hot spots.

It es­sen­tially does the same thing for dog own­ers as speed cam­eras do for driv­ers.

The mere pres­ence of a speed cam­era forces most driv­ers to slow down to the limit, even if the odds are slim of the cam­era ac­tu­ally be­ing switched on.

Cru­cially, the Can­ter­bury ap­proach re­moves any risk to those who are fed up by dog foul­ing.

No ask­ing peo­ple to col­lect ev­i­dence to help the coun­cil – and the risks that en­tails – just a sim­ple rule the coun­cil can en­force if it chooses to.

The Dogs Trust, how­ever, aren’t so keen on the idea.

They call it a sledge­ham­mer to crack a nut, pe­nal­is­ing the well-be­haved many be­cause of the ac­tions of a badly-be­haved mi­nor­ity.

But that’s kind of the point isn’t it?

The mi­nor­ity who think it is fine for their dogs’ mess to be left be­hind for the rest of us to avoid and clear up con­tinue to flout the ex­ist­ing rules be­cause they sus­pect they won’t be caught.

Of course, car­ry­ing poo bags doesn’t guar­an­tee some­one will ac­tu­ally use them, but it’s surely a step in the right di­rec­tion, given it’s some­thing we still see in our area week in, week out?

Signs warn dog own­ers to clear up after their pets

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.