Let me tell you about Mr Novak. Mr Novak lives in Uphill Road, Mill Hill. For those of you who don't know Uphill Road, it is one of Barnet's most well to do roads. It is also used by many children walking to Mill Hill County High School. It is also used as a ratrun by many drivers travelling between Totteridge Lane and Mill Hill Circus roundabout. You don't have to be a genius to see that this is a potentially dangerous mix.
The previous Council addressed this problem by putting in road humps. The current Tory administration resurfaced the road and as they are "pro car" removed the humps. To moderate the speed on the road, they installed 4 speed operated warning signs which tell you to slow down if you exceed 30 mph. These 4 signs replace 14 humps.
Now cars, if they wish can hurtle up the road as fast as they like. Mr Novak sees this every day. Being a responsible citizen, he decided to do something about it. He lobbied his neighbours and managed to get all but three of them to support him in his campaign to reinstate the humps. As I was leaving last Mondays lobby of the Barnet Council Cabinet, I saw Mr Novak going in. I recognised him as he is a customer of my studio. I thought I'd see what he was up to.
He had spent his time preparing his case and he gave a presentation to the Cabinet of Barnet Council. Mr Novak presented a very compelling case and was clearly on top of his brief. The Cabinet listened. Mr Novak explained how
a) There was near unanimous support for the humps to come back by residents
b) How there have been a string of minor accidents caused by speeding cars
c) The only objections were from the emergency services and these fears could be shown to be unfounded
d) There were 14 humps, there are 4 signs. Motorists soon learn that the signs are merely advisory & hurtle past them
e) The road is one of the most popular thoroughfares for children and they were at risk
Mr Novak has clearly given many presentations and was very impressive. When he finished, the Leader asked councillors if any would like to question Mr Novak. To my surprise, they all chickened out. Mr Novak was dismissed.
Councillor Andrew Harper, supremo for roads stepped up to demolish Mr Novaks case. The trouble is, unlike MrNovak, although Harper is a lovely bloke, he's rather dim. It seems as if maths is not his strong point. He announced that a speed survey had refuted Mr Novaks claims of speeding. The average speed of cars on Uphill road is 29.6mph he triumphantly announced. Now as Mr Novak had been dismissed he couldn't point out a couple of rather obvious facts to Harper. Firstly if the average speed is 29.6mph, this must mean that almost 50% of cars are breaking the speed limit. As the road is prone to congestion at busy times, some of the cars are travelling at a virtual standstill. Harper didn't reveal how many cars were travelling at or above 40mph a day, although he surely knows. 40mph is the speed at which 95% of children will die if hit.
As to the accidents, he stated that as no one had been hurt yet, there was no case to answer. It seems the Harper strategy is wait for a child to be killed or injured, then look at the problem. I suppose that when this happens a Council Officer will get the sack.
Harper also stated that the emergency services objected to the reinstatement of humps. He didn't address Mr Novak's points that these could be shown to be invalid. The humps were down for years. If there was a case to answer about the humps delaying emergency vehicles, these would have been available. One other point of note, several teenagers have been killed by speeding police cars. Maybe there is a case for slowing these down where children are walking. Let me just quickly summarise what shocked, amazed and disgusted me about this.
1. The opinion of residents were ignored
2. The facts were ignored
3. The figures were misrepresented
4. Mr Novak was treated with contempt and not even given the opportunity to answer questions
Perhaps the thing which most shocked me is the fact that Mill Hill is a marginal ward. It has 2 Lib Dems and 1 Tory Councillor. Uphill Road, one of Barnets most wealthy roads should be staunch Tory territory. The sheer contempt for their core voters was stunning. Harper told Mr Novak that Barnet was a pro car Tory Council who don't like roadhumps. If this is how their "core voters" are treated, it's no surprise that the rest of us don't stand a chance.
Following on from the sheltered housing debate, it demonstrated, in it's own way exactly what is wrong with Barnet's Conservatives. I don't suppose Harper will take much notice of me, I don't suppose he takes much notice of anyone apart from his boss, Mike Freer.
8 comments:
Hey Rog, back to our original sparring arena! I really respect your passion and energy for improving road safety but I fear it is misplaced with your faith in lumps of tarmac in the road.
Where roads have been cleared of these menances, after things have settled down and people have become reaccustomed to a flat smooth road surface, there is no campaign to put them back in.
Recently Church Hill Road in East Barnet has been resurfaced with all of Labour's humps and bumps removed. As a driver my attention is now freed up to look further ahead on the road and make mature adult judgment on the right speed for that moment (which is often less that 30mph) rather than being treated like a child.
We need safer driving. This is only going to happen with less cameras and bumps, more lot more highway police officers, more targetting of those really dangerous people on the roads and a lot less harassment of law abiding and safe drivers going about their business.
Whilst we have gone down the camera and humps route our safety has not increased, whereas in Europe (without these gimmicks) they have experienced continued improvements. Maybe it's time for us to learn from over the Channel?
Going slightly off topic, your article highlights one of the problems with the council’s constitution. Mr Novak was allowed to address the Cabinet, but he could only speak for 5 minutes. If he had been asked any questions, he would have been allowed to respond, but councillors have now realised that if they just sit there, smile sweetly and say nothing, the objectors are quickly dispensed with.
The last time I wasted my time addressing Cabinet, no questions were raised and I had to return to my seat. Up pops Brian Reynolds who then tells a blatant untruth about the Underhill indemnities and we, the people, had absolutely no right to challenge him.
Like Gordon Brown, Freer cannot abide debate. Perhaps it has something to with the fact that neither of them have a democratic mandate to represent the people. Mr Novak should bring this matter to the attention of the electorate and let them make the decision at the ballot box. Daniel Hope might be correct in what he says above, but that is not the issue. If the public want the humps back, they should be given them back. The council exists to serve the public, not the other way around.
The days of politicians and council officers knowing what's best for us are over.
Dan,
I seem to recall the council sayin that the retention or not is up to the residents. You may not agree with me or Mr Novak, you may have other ideas, but his views and the overwhelming view of his neighbours were ignored.
I totally disagree with Boris abolishing the western congestion zone, but he has a democratic mandate so I don't moan about his actions in my blog. He has a mandate and public support. In Uphill Road this is not the case.
The Council has said many things, but they have never said that consultations were referenda.
In anycase, if that was the case why do people who live in a road have the exclusive right to say how it should be constructed? I remember sitting on a Committee where the residents of a certain public road actually wanted it gated off with swipe cards to stop people speeding on it! Where is the consultation with road users? Drivers are taxpayers too and they have just as much right to have a say or view over how roads are maintained.
There is a perverse Nimbyism where many people would like all this junk outside their house but not have it on the roads that they have to drive on themselves!
I do think the Council has a mandate to remove humps. Conservatives campaigned hard against them before the last two Council elections. They have to go through the charade of consultation but frankly, in my view, it is unlikely that a qualitative fact will come forward to change the Council's well tested and proven position on such measures.
Your man Freer and his mate Coleman are in the latest Private Eye under the 'Rotten Boroughs' section. :-)
Dan,
Couple of observations.
1) Nearly 50% of cars are breaking the speed limit in Uphill Road, according to the councils figures. The measures aren't workin
2) I know the road. my daughter walks up it to school. It isn't safe. End of story.
It's not nimbyism, it's putting safety of children first. There are some roads where humps don't work (eg the neighbouring Lawrence St). Why doesn't the council trust it's residents.
Oh Dan, back to your first comment. You are wrong here. Uphill Road has been hump free for some time. The protest goes on, although I suspect that as it's clear the council will ignore it, they may give up. Don't mistake this for happiness
I live in Hammers Lane, which has never had any speed calming measures apart from some rumble strips painted on in the 1990s and are now all worn away.
Every day I can see cars racing past at speeds of up to 70 mph (I have timed them) and yet the council's priority is to ticket motorists who park two wheels on the pavement near the Three Hammers pub.
I know which batch of motorists cause more problems and yet get away scott free!
Post a Comment