No Motor Vehicles Except for Access Sign?
Discussion
Well what do you know, yesterday I got pulled by the bib for travelling down a road that had this very sign!!!!
The conversation after I climbed into the back of the X5......
Bib:....Do you live down here sir?
Me:....No sir I live about twenty miles away.
Bib:.....Why are you here then?
Me:......Im on my way home from work sir.
Bib:..........Where do you work?
Me:..........I own a business 3 miles that way.
Bib:............Are you aware that its a £30 fine for entering a no access sign.
Me:.........Why yes sir but im house hunting and Im sure there are a couple of houses on this road that would save me an awful lot of commuting.
Bib:..........Good answer!
Followed by him and me bursting into laughter!
Bib:.........Off you go!
As others have said on this thread.
Impossible to police!!!
Ill keep checking daily just in case the particular house that im after comes on the market, I mean i wouldnt want to miss it would I !
The conversation after I climbed into the back of the X5......
Bib:....Do you live down here sir?
Me:....No sir I live about twenty miles away.
Bib:.....Why are you here then?
Me:......Im on my way home from work sir.
Bib:..........Where do you work?
Me:..........I own a business 3 miles that way.
Bib:............Are you aware that its a £30 fine for entering a no access sign.
Me:.........Why yes sir but im house hunting and Im sure there are a couple of houses on this road that would save me an awful lot of commuting.
Bib:..........Good answer!
Followed by him and me bursting into laughter!
Bib:.........Off you go!
As others have said on this thread.
Impossible to police!!!
Ill keep checking daily just in case the particular house that im after comes on the market, I mean i wouldnt want to miss it would I !
Well that may have worked for you the officer could just have said "likely story, I suggest you buy a property paper??" I think it depends on wether they believe you have a legitimate excuse for using the road illegally. They usually take your no plate at least, give you an education (which is clearly what some people need...) about the sign and a warning, sometimes in the form of a letter, however if you are caught more than once a lame excuse won't wash if your plate is on their records. I don't always agree with fines but we are long past a society which cares more about rules than saving time and money so the only way people will learn is being hit in the pocket.
It might be worth mentioning that the tax we pay to be on the road now is not called 'road tax' it's a tax you pay for owning a car, just like your TV license, so it might also be worth mentioning that it is not a valid argument that it entitles you to drive where you wish, I mean, God forbid you should adhere to the rules just because they don't suit you, why can't you drive the wrong way up a motor-way, after all... if you've blatantly paid for the privilege...
There are reasons for the signs; the logistics of certain roads means having more than resident access is not feasible for the volume of traffic that would use it otherwise (hence why planners are sometimes restricted from sizable projects due to public objections of this nature, if access for example is restricted) so if there are limited (or no) passing places on a road, no pavements for people to walk on - perhaps due to the narrow nature of the road, restrictions so additional lighting cannot be installed for pedestrians having to walk in the road, a school route which is walked by children with previous examples of safety taken into account, as well as other things then no doubt the road can be deemed unsuitable as a main highway and is restricted to access only - I should imagine it's mainly a pedestrian issue.
I've lived on a no through road. The main problem was that people wanted to get from A to B as quickly as possible, this is understandable... so is leaving on your trip earlier.. but quickly is the operative word - residents on the other hand usually took a dim view of running over their neighbor's kids and tended to drive more carefully than commuters on a road which offers a number of hazards mentioned before. There were narrow passing places yet the reversing etiquette dumbfounded most commuters and it got pretty boring continually reversing 30 meters back down the road several times for commuters who sat cross-armed at the hint that they may have to reverse 2 meters on a road they shouldn't legally be using in the first place.
It might be worth mentioning that the tax we pay to be on the road now is not called 'road tax' it's a tax you pay for owning a car, just like your TV license, so it might also be worth mentioning that it is not a valid argument that it entitles you to drive where you wish, I mean, God forbid you should adhere to the rules just because they don't suit you, why can't you drive the wrong way up a motor-way, after all... if you've blatantly paid for the privilege...
There are reasons for the signs; the logistics of certain roads means having more than resident access is not feasible for the volume of traffic that would use it otherwise (hence why planners are sometimes restricted from sizable projects due to public objections of this nature, if access for example is restricted) so if there are limited (or no) passing places on a road, no pavements for people to walk on - perhaps due to the narrow nature of the road, restrictions so additional lighting cannot be installed for pedestrians having to walk in the road, a school route which is walked by children with previous examples of safety taken into account, as well as other things then no doubt the road can be deemed unsuitable as a main highway and is restricted to access only - I should imagine it's mainly a pedestrian issue.
I've lived on a no through road. The main problem was that people wanted to get from A to B as quickly as possible, this is understandable... so is leaving on your trip earlier.. but quickly is the operative word - residents on the other hand usually took a dim view of running over their neighbor's kids and tended to drive more carefully than commuters on a road which offers a number of hazards mentioned before. There were narrow passing places yet the reversing etiquette dumbfounded most commuters and it got pretty boring continually reversing 30 meters back down the road several times for commuters who sat cross-armed at the hint that they may have to reverse 2 meters on a road they shouldn't legally be using in the first place.
Edited by RV8 on Tuesday 30th March 02:32
RV8 said:
... residents ... usually took a dim view of running over their neighbor's kids and tended to drive more carefully than commuters ...
It is often the case that residents who complain about excessive speed on a road are among those booked when the police turn out to enforce the limit - StreakyRV8 said:
I've lived on a no through road. The main problem was that people wanted to get from A to B as quickly as possible, this is understandable... so is leaving on your trip earlier.. but quickly is the operative word - residents on the other hand usually took a dim view of running over their neighbor's kids and tended to drive more carefully than commuters on a road which offers a number of hazards mentioned before. There were narrow passing places yet the reversing etiquette dumbfounded most commuters and it got pretty boring continually reversing 30 meters back down the road several times for commuters who sat cross-armed at the hint that they may have to reverse 2 meters on a road they shouldn't legally be using in the first place.
Was it a true no through road if it was being used to travel quickly and safely from A to B? Were any more dim viewing neighbours kids run over than in any other typical road 
What are roads for?
streaky said:
RV8 said:
... residents ... usually took a dim view of running over their neighbor's kids and tended to drive more carefully than commuters ...
It is often the case that residents who complain about excessive speed on a road are among those booked when the police turn out to enforce the limit - StreakyHow they huff'n'puff, too.
Don said:
streaky said:
RV8 said:
... residents ... usually took a dim view of running over their neighbor's kids and tended to drive more carefully than commuters ...
It is often the case that residents who complain about excessive speed on a road are among those booked when the police turn out to enforce the limit - StreakyHow they huff'n'puff, too.
Not how it works madam.
Of course with rat runs the problem is that the users of said run are trying to make progress, effectively racing another set of drivers, so the incentive is strong to squeeze the gas and push it a bit.
Just hope the locals don't get too antsy. I'm almost sure some bar steward fired on my car the other day, hardly going any speed <25 mph and whatever hit was a lot heavier and faster than a stone chip. Christ on a bike, what a bang! No evidence of damage though and no evidence where it came from, suspicions on who it was though. Keeping Watching.
F i F said:
Of course with rat runs the problem is that the users of said run are trying to make progress, effectively racing another set of drivers, so the incentive is strong to squeeze the gas and push it a bit.
Yes, this is what happens.Children are not permitted to play on any road, this mostly seems to be the behavior of drunken and idiotic grown ups on a night out in most of our town and cities from what I witness.
Children, (like adults
) however do have to walk on roads if no pavement or alternative route to their homes are available, like I said. And like the comment above correctly suggests, the majority of people generally using the road as a rat run seem to be blinkered into believing that nothing should be holding them up, let alone pedestrians who have nowhere else to walk, residents on the other hand are usually a bit more accommodating to anyone walking on the road as they have to walk on them at times.I think some people need to accept that there are laws for a reason and respect them, as the focus seems (as per usual) to be a disregard for children and this is what has been picked up on.
Perhaps rather than stamping feet like a petulant chid some posters should just set off a couple of minutes early on a journey and stop breaking the law.
You could even try driving a truck on many of our countries wondrous roads with height, weight and width restrictions. Christ. How would you cope with those signs.Edited by RV8 on Tuesday 30th March 13:59
The network is not as cut and dry as that.
There are toll roads, congestion zones, bus lanes, adopted roads and access only roads, just to name a few, which are either chargeable or restricted for one reason or another and make-up part of the network. Buying car tax is not offering you right and passage to all of the road network without, for example, paying a toll or a fine. I imagine you stop at a red light at a junction even you can see that there are no cars coming? We do this because the law dictates we do this even if it seems non-sensical to stop because a red light is telling you to and there is no need to.
It's an easy concept to grasp for some. Maybe not all roads which are restricted should carry restrictions, but if they do as drivers we have to accept that driving down a toll road will mean a fee and driving down a restricted access road may mean a fine, just as we accept the same for speeding, jumping red lights and, for some, the use of fog lamps or unusually spaced number plates.
"If I dont use this road I would have to travel down many more miles of residential roads and past hundreds of properties, countless schools, shops etc etc"
- It might be an inconvenience to do this but say for example you were involved in a collision on the road, one which you are using regularly and should that accident be fatal how well would the following statement and your conscience stand up in court?
"My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis."
There are toll roads, congestion zones, bus lanes, adopted roads and access only roads, just to name a few, which are either chargeable or restricted for one reason or another and make-up part of the network. Buying car tax is not offering you right and passage to all of the road network without, for example, paying a toll or a fine. I imagine you stop at a red light at a junction even you can see that there are no cars coming? We do this because the law dictates we do this even if it seems non-sensical to stop because a red light is telling you to and there is no need to.
It's an easy concept to grasp for some. Maybe not all roads which are restricted should carry restrictions, but if they do as drivers we have to accept that driving down a toll road will mean a fee and driving down a restricted access road may mean a fine, just as we accept the same for speeding, jumping red lights and, for some, the use of fog lamps or unusually spaced number plates.
"If I dont use this road I would have to travel down many more miles of residential roads and past hundreds of properties, countless schools, shops etc etc"
- It might be an inconvenience to do this but say for example you were involved in a collision on the road, one which you are using regularly and should that accident be fatal how well would the following statement and your conscience stand up in court?
"My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis."
Edited by RV8 on Tuesday 30th March 14:26
covboy said:
There is one of these on a route I used a couple of times a week. The length of road must be all of 50 yards long with 1 house on it (wonder if it's a local councillor ?) Used to use it till I passed a police car parked in it!.
I now by-pass it and use another "rat run" on much narrower roads
Checked a bit closer on the “alternative” route I now take. It brings me a little further along from the “No Access” sign (the end of the 50 yard bit) It seems now that it’s not just the first 50 yards of the road as I thought, but the entire length, because at the end of that road is another “No Access” sign for traffic coming from the opposite direction. I now by-pass it and use another "rat run" on much narrower roads
Apart from passing a couple of Weight limit restriction Signs, there is no other restrictions to the route I take.
So you can’t turn into that road from either end, but you can join it from another side road – What’s that all about?
Edited by covboy on Tuesday 30th March 14:24
In the 4 months I have been using this road I have never seen a single child!
If i dont use this road I have to travel an additional (8 Miles approx) No kidding!!!! And add approx 10 to 15 minutes to my journey.
The road in question links a major A road dual carriegaway 50mph limit. And the M60 motorway. The "no vehicles except for Access" road has just 13 large detached properties set back from the road. (I counted this morning) It is one way traffic for 50% of it which I clearly obey.
If I dont use this road I would have to travel down many more miles of residential roads and past hundreds of properties, countless schools, shops etc etc.
My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis.
I assure you that there has been some serious road planning flaws to create the above madness.
If i dont use this road I have to travel an additional (8 Miles approx) No kidding!!!! And add approx 10 to 15 minutes to my journey.
The road in question links a major A road dual carriegaway 50mph limit. And the M60 motorway. The "no vehicles except for Access" road has just 13 large detached properties set back from the road. (I counted this morning) It is one way traffic for 50% of it which I clearly obey.
If I dont use this road I would have to travel down many more miles of residential roads and past hundreds of properties, countless schools, shops etc etc.
My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis.
I assure you that there has been some serious road planning flaws to create the above madness.
screem said:
In the 4 months I have been using this road I have never seen a single child!
.............
My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis.
I assure you that there has been some serious road planning flaws to create the above madness.
why do you need to see a child .............
My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis.
I assure you that there has been some serious road planning flaws to create the above madness.
Have you tried the council to find out for what reasons were?
saaby93 said:
screem said:
In the 4 months I have been using this road I have never seen a single child!
.............
My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis.
I assure you that there has been some serious road planning flaws to create the above madness.
why do you need to see a child .............
My conscience is very clear on the moral ground and i will therefore continue to house hunt there on a daily basis.
I assure you that there has been some serious road planning flaws to create the above madness.
Have you tried the council to find out for what reasons were?
The dibble implied that the road is used by hundreds of people at rush hour so I really wouldnt save any time by using it. I have never seen hundreds using it or more than a handful for that matter. I guess though that the reason for that is the "No vehicles" sign. As said this MAJOR A Road heading South out of manchester doesnt allow access to head onto the M60 without using this road. They (council/highways planning) should have put a junction onto the motorway but havent. Idiots
The focus is seemingly brought to children by posters picking up on individual points made in a body of discussion, this was one (of many) reasons for restrictions, pedestrians and lack of pavements being the main one that I hinted at.
It wasn't the intension, or others I am sure, for posters to focus so intently on children in fact I'd rather draw anyones fixation with children away so that they may focus on some of the other hazards mentioned which are equally viable.
A red traffic light tells you to stop, The 'access only' sign should be read as a reason to avoid using the road it is not offering you a chance to vent your perception of the activity contained down it.
It wasn't the intension, or others I am sure, for posters to focus so intently on children in fact I'd rather draw anyones fixation with children away so that they may focus on some of the other hazards mentioned which are equally viable.
A red traffic light tells you to stop, The 'access only' sign should be read as a reason to avoid using the road it is not offering you a chance to vent your perception of the activity contained down it.
What I have a problem with though is where a problem is identified, eg motorists pressing on in an inappropriate manner to race the other traffic, is when the residents want something put in place which as stated is usually unenforceable in any practical or effective way at reasonable cost, yet refuse to consider a proposal which will stop the through traffic but at the expense of a little inconvenience to themselves.
Obviously they want the rat running to stop, but deep down aren't all that bothered basically, is how I see it. If they were then they'd want, literally, a stopping up of one end or maybe in the middle.
Obviously they want the rat running to stop, but deep down aren't all that bothered basically, is how I see it. If they were then they'd want, literally, a stopping up of one end or maybe in the middle.
Seriously, Id guess the only reason to avoid this road is that it potentially could be carrying the equavelent of (at worst) motorway worth of traffic, or at best a major 4 lane A roads worth. This road is not designed to carry that volume of traffic but either way would the solution not be to go about tackling the cause instead of the effect?
Saying that im sure the sign cost a few hundred quid and solving the problem would cost many thousands. Not that they havent got many thousands from the speeding tickets that are regularly given out on this very road, but hey thats an entirely different topic!
Saying that im sure the sign cost a few hundred quid and solving the problem would cost many thousands. Not that they havent got many thousands from the speeding tickets that are regularly given out on this very road, but hey thats an entirely different topic!
Edited by screem on Tuesday 30th March 15:27
F i F said:
What I have a problem with though is where a problem is identified, eg motorists pressing on in an inappropriate manner to race the other traffic,
If that happens (and it sounds unlikely) there are other ways of dealing with it. Most motorists will be travelling at what they feel is acceptable for the road. If there are no pavements, pedestrians etc they usually modify behaviour to suit.By closing a road in this way, all it does is give the traffic to someone else who already has their fair share and now has more. They in turn want 'their' road closed
F i F said:
What I have a problem with though is where a problem is identified, eg motorists pressing on in an inappropriate manner to race the other traffic.
This road is not like that. As previously said it is not that you would be racing traffic. You genuinely would have to travel either many miles parallel to the motorway and join it at the next junction or go the opposite way to the next junction again travelling many miles. They have made it one way to avoid some of the traffic but obviously cant do that at both ends. Here it is to the left. I dont go down this road i come up it, throw a left and then join the M60 in the distance off this three lane A road !:
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff