Plans for a 20mph zone in Chipping Sodbury go public

Plans for a 20mph zone in Chipping Sodbury go public

Plans for a 20mph zone in Chipping Sodbury go public

First published in News Gazette Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter covering Yate, Chipping Sodbury, Winterbourne, Frampton Cotterell, Rangeworthy, Wickwar, Hawkesbury, Iron Acton, Coalpit Heath and Old Sodbury

A PUBLIC exhibition on traffic calming, including proposals for a 20mph limit through Chipping Sodbury, takes place in the town next week.

Sodbury Town Council has organised the exhibition, at Chipping Sodbury Town Hall Charter Suite on Monday, June 9 (2-8pm).

It will detail potential traffic calming measures such as a 20mph zone through High Street and Broad Street a well as double yellow lines and sleeping policemen.

Mayor of the town, Cllr Wendy Whittle, said: “We are conducting a traffic calming survey and as part of that will hold this public exhibition.

“There are a number of proposals including a 20mph limit on all roads leading on to the High Street and on Hounds Road up to St John’s Mead Primary School.

“There could also be double yellow lines in various places and we are also looking at sleeping policemen as a way of slowing traffic down.”

She added: “I am not necessarily in agreement with all the measures but we do need a way forward.

“If any of these measures stops a child getting killed or anyone being injured it will be a good thing.”

Cllr Whittle said some traffic improvements were needed at the junction of Wickwar Road with High Street and Broad Street and she wanted to see a stop line installed at the junction of Hounds Road with Broad Street.

“I really would encourage anyone who has an opinion on traffic in Chipping Sodbury to come along and have their say,” she said.

The exhibition is being run by consultancy firm CH2MHill and follows several years of debate over traffic issues in Chipping Sodbury.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:34am Sat 7 Jun 14

Chipping Resident says...

South Glos Council continues to exhibit split personality disorder on the issue of traffic.

On the one hand it invites extra vehicles by approving the Waitrose scheme (including an anticipated two cars per household for the houses currently being built), yet on the other it seems bent on making Sodbury car unfriendly (parking restrictions, attempts to close Hatters Lane, the new Waitrose/Wickwar Road crossing that I hear cars ground their undertray on almost daily).

Now they're using a puerile argument about saving the lives of fictional children to promote another wave of traffic constraints -- who could possibly argue against saving the life of a child?

Well, according to police data made available to the Economic and Social Data Service there were a grand total of 149 road traffic fatalities in the whole of South Gloucestershire between 1999 and 2010. Of these 149 road deaths zero occurred in central Chipping Sodbury -- the area being proposed for the majority of the new traffic measures.

4 occurred on the A432 between Chipping Sodbury and Old Sodbury:

1999 - 24 year old motorbike rider
2009 - 86 year old car driver
2008 - 46 year old pedestrian
2010 - 55-69 year old pedestrian

You then have to skip Chipping to find the next death in Yate

2008 - 18 year old motorbike rider.

Of course, more recently we had 39 year old John Ferguson who died on the A432 for reasons the inquest failed to understand. There seemed to be no rational reason why he was on the road, in the dark, in the path of easily visible traffic.

So it is simply not the case that Chipping Sodbury is some kind of traffic death trap. And when I hear people invoke 'saving the children' it sets my alarm bells ringing.

All of which is not to say that Chipping might not benefit from the inevitable traffic management knock-on caused by increased volume due to Waitrose but, in any event, this traffic tends to be slow moving regardless of limits.

One would hope that in public consultation, those speaking on behalf of the council might proffer a more genuine and credible reason for their latest meddlesome scheme. Certainly there is no evidence to suggest there is any problem of the kind described by the council. In fact all the evidence suggests that the current traffic system in and around Chipping Sodbury (save for the link to Old Sodbury) is perfectly safe. Which makes one wonder about the logical faculties of Council Whittle & co.

On a separate note, any resident near the edge of Chipping will know that all these measures will be spectacularly redundant anyway. Chipping summers are not only signalled by the singing of the skylark but by the frequent revving of boy racers between 10pm and 1am racing along the dual carriageway, up the common to Horton, along St. John's Way, turning doughnuts in car parks, often heard for up to an hour. Most people in Chipping drive conscientiously; those who blatantly do not generally go unpunished. In that sense the proposed unnecessary measures are preaching to the coverted.
South Glos Council continues to exhibit split personality disorder on the issue of traffic. On the one hand it invites extra vehicles by approving the Waitrose scheme (including an anticipated two cars per household for the houses currently being built), yet on the other it seems bent on making Sodbury car unfriendly (parking restrictions, attempts to close Hatters Lane, the new Waitrose/Wickwar Road crossing that I hear cars ground their undertray on almost daily). Now they're using a puerile argument about saving the lives of fictional children to promote another wave of traffic constraints -- who could possibly argue against saving the life of a child? Well, according to police data made available to the Economic and Social Data Service there were a grand total of 149 road traffic fatalities in the whole of South Gloucestershire between 1999 and 2010. Of these 149 road deaths zero occurred in central Chipping Sodbury -- the area being proposed for the majority of the new traffic measures. 4 occurred on the A432 between Chipping Sodbury and Old Sodbury: 1999 - 24 year old motorbike rider 2009 - 86 year old car driver 2008 - 46 year old pedestrian 2010 - 55-69 year old pedestrian You then have to skip Chipping to find the next death in Yate 2008 - 18 year old motorbike rider. Of course, more recently we had 39 year old John Ferguson who died on the A432 for reasons the inquest failed to understand. There seemed to be no rational reason why he was on the road, in the dark, in the path of easily visible traffic. So it is simply not the case that Chipping Sodbury is some kind of traffic death trap. And when I hear people invoke 'saving the children' it sets my alarm bells ringing. All of which is not to say that Chipping might not benefit from the inevitable traffic management knock-on caused by increased volume due to Waitrose but, in any event, this traffic tends to be slow moving regardless of limits. One would hope that in public consultation, those speaking on behalf of the council might proffer a more genuine and credible reason for their latest meddlesome scheme. Certainly there is no evidence to suggest there is any problem of the kind described by the council. In fact all the evidence suggests that the current traffic system in and around Chipping Sodbury (save for the link to Old Sodbury) is perfectly safe. Which makes one wonder about the logical faculties of Council Whittle & co. On a separate note, any resident near the edge of Chipping will know that all these measures will be spectacularly redundant anyway. Chipping summers are not only signalled by the singing of the skylark but by the frequent revving of boy racers between 10pm and 1am racing along the dual carriageway, up the common to Horton, along St. John's Way, turning doughnuts in car parks, often heard for up to an hour. Most people in Chipping drive conscientiously; those who blatantly do not generally go unpunished. In that sense the proposed unnecessary measures are preaching to the coverted. Chipping Resident
  • Score: 13

1:13am Mon 9 Jun 14

Born,Bred&Disillusioned says...

So nice to see someone else has found the same information asI have.
However, this "consultation" is basicaly a sham as the 20mph zone for Sodbury has already been rubber stamped. So no mater what residents say,its comming. Nice to know democracy rules here.
It wad also interesting to note, that the councils own traffic study showed an average speed during the day to be 16mph - 24mph, so why introduce a reduced speed limit all the time?
The other fact that they do not take into account is the increase in fuel burn at slower speeds as the engine gets further away from its ideal operating range. To reduce speed from 30 to 20mph incrases fuel burn by upto 20%. In turn, each car emitts more exhaust fumes. In those fumes are traces of Benzene. Benzene is used to lubricate the engine since.leaded fuel was stopped. Benzene is a carsnogenic that can.survive the combustion chamber and its this that is really concerning.
At least though, we will not harm the odd person who has never stepped out in the road with a 20 zone, we can just increase everyones chance of getting cancer instead.
So nice to see someone else has found the same information asI have. However, this "consultation" is basicaly a sham as the 20mph zone for Sodbury has already been rubber stamped. So no mater what residents say,its comming. Nice to know democracy rules here. It wad also interesting to note, that the councils own traffic study showed an average speed during the day to be 16mph - 24mph, so why introduce a reduced speed limit all the time? The other fact that they do not take into account is the increase in fuel burn at slower speeds as the engine gets further away from its ideal operating range. To reduce speed from 30 to 20mph incrases fuel burn by upto 20%. In turn, each car emitts more exhaust fumes. In those fumes are traces of Benzene. Benzene is used to lubricate the engine since.leaded fuel was stopped. Benzene is a carsnogenic that can.survive the combustion chamber and its this that is really concerning. At least though, we will not harm the odd person who has never stepped out in the road with a 20 zone, we can just increase everyones chance of getting cancer instead. Born,Bred&Disillusioned
  • Score: 3

3:57pm Tue 10 Jun 14

drivesafenotslow says...

What a spectacular waste of time and money just to massage the egos of the anti-car fanatics on SG council. The whole vista of the town will be destroyed by a plethora of ugly signs, yellow lines and other 'traffic calming' features.
Why on earth do we need a 20mph limit, it will be ignored, just like all the other inappropriate limits SGC have inflicted on us. As for the 2 hour parking limit - that will put off any visitors who were planning to stop for a bit of a lunch as well as doing some shopping.

So, well done SGC, you will have destroyed both the look of the town and half the businesses on the High Street with your pathetic meddling.
What a spectacular waste of time and money just to massage the egos of the anti-car fanatics on SG council. The whole vista of the town will be destroyed by a plethora of ugly signs, yellow lines and other 'traffic calming' features. Why on earth do we need a 20mph limit, it will be ignored, just like all the other inappropriate limits SGC have inflicted on us. As for the 2 hour parking limit - that will put off any visitors who were planning to stop for a bit of a lunch as well as doing some shopping. So, well done SGC, you will have destroyed both the look of the town and half the businesses on the High Street with your pathetic meddling. drivesafenotslow
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree