Readers’ letters - October 19

A reader says she has been having problems with cyclists in Fishergate, see letter
A reader says she has been having problems with cyclists in Fishergate, see letter
Share this article
0
Have your say

Have traffic rules changed?

I have a great concern about cyclists on Fishergate.

I have encountered cyclists two abreast on the newly widened pavement, going in contra-flow to the traffic.

Today I was crossing Fishergate outside the shopping centre opposite Next.

I looked to my left before crossing, and then ventured into the new narrow road, just wide enough for a bus.

I was almost mowed down by a cyclist coming in the opposite direction against the flow of traffic.

We both stopped.

I stated: “It is one way.”

The mature cyclist, complete with full cycling gear, replied: “It is a bike.”

Had he knocked me over, he would have had no insurance if I had been injured.

Or have I missed something?

Have the traffic rules changed for Fishergate?

Christine Abram, Cottam

Supermarket nightmare

Re: Wasted chances for housing in Penwortham (LEP Letters, October 8), to me, the most sensible use of the site would be to move all the sports facilities from Penwortham Holme and make it a real community area.

The chaos of Saturday morning parking on Leyland Road would be removed and also the risk of flooding to the pitches.

Having a supermarket and petrol station near the junction would be a nightmare as deliveries could not take place via Cop Lane.

This is because large artics could not swing into the site on such a narrow road, plus there is the health centre and church hall opposite and a high school next door. A recipe for disaster.

Neither could they and the public use the same entrance on Liverpool Road.

The representative from Tesco clearly had never visited the site or done his homework as he knew nothing about the Telephone Exchange being adjacent to the site or the dreadful state of the site and the vandalism.

I can’t wait to see how the consultation is published this time as Sainsbury’s thought Penwortham ended at the bypass or that it included Lower Penwortham!

Sue Taylor via lep.co.uk

Speed camera was hard to spot

On Thursday, September 24, I was returning home via Oxcliffe Road, heading towards Heysham.

Just after Westcliffe Drive is the long sweeping bend to the left and onward up to the railway bridge.

Parked someway back off the road on the right, at the start of the bend, partially hidden by trees and signs, was the mobile speed camera.

It was either viewing the oncoming traffic below the sign and between the two supports, or round the sign.

Very sneaky, I thought to myself, but how ‘legal’ is 
this?

I contacted Lancashire Police to make a polite inquiry.

At this point, I will add I have no axe to grind with the police or the camera.

I wasn’t speeding, but its position alone concerned 
me.

In short, and relayed back to me by the officer who I was speaking to, from a traffic officer (Sergeant), was this very odd reply: “If the van was parked in a more visible position, drivers would just slow down ...”

Is this not the general 
idea?

Is it not a visible deterrent 
(as we are told issuing tickets is not the driving factor behind these vans, but a reminder to drivers they are operating in the area to deter drivers from speeding).

The answer seems to indicate that issuing tickets is the prime objective.

Name and address supplied