Letters to the Editor

SIR, - We attended the consultation meeting in the Clarke Foley Centre last Saturday and did not sign either petition at the entrance expressing concern about the proposed puffin crossings. In fact, neither did the two people who left immediately before and after us.

We thought, therefore, that we should respond to the question Councillor Hawkesworth posed in your report in this week's Gazette: "I wonder what the other people (who attended) were thinking?"

I'm sure we would all like to see parts of the centre of Ilkley pedestrianised, but since we have been told that that is impossible, we have to settle for an (uneasy) compromise between pedestrians and traffic. The problem that we have with the present crossing arrangements, both as pedestrians and drivers, is that it can cause traffic chaos in the centre of the town.

On busy days there is a steady stream of people on the long crossing causing serious build-ups of traffic in all the surrounding roads. Some people stroll on to the long crossing regardless of how many cars are waiting: or stand chatting so that drivers are unsure whether they are about to step on to it.

When we are walking rather than driving, we try hard to be fair and not insist on our right to cross when the drivers have been waiting a long time. We look in shop windows so that it doesn't appear we are about to cross - or attempt to wave drivers on, although this doesn't always work and poses a danger from misunderstanding.

We have spoken to a number of people, including non-drivers, who are similarly embarrassed by this situation. We regret the intrusion of more traffic signals in the town centre but, for all the reasons above, are strongly in favour of the proposed puffin crossings.

Irene and John Flood

38 Kings Road,

Ilkley.

Sensible plan

SIR, - Bradford's Highway Design Unit proposals to replace the zebra crossing at the south end of Brook Street and on Station Road with signal controlled crossings appear to be eminently sensible.

As a regular car user on Station Road the lights on the present zebra crossing are deplorably faint. At night, drivers not familiar with Ilkley tend to be distracted by the stronger lights further along the Grove and are on to the zebra before being aware of its existence. At the time of writing this letter one of the zebra lights has been inoperative for two weeks making the zebra crossing even more hazardous.

As a regular pedestrian user of the Station Road crossing I never ceased to be amazed by the kamikaze stupidity of some pedestrians of all ages who come down Wells Road and, without looking left or right, proceed along the zebra. Sooner or later a disaster will occur.

I read in the Gazette that pedestrian crossing proposals have been condemned by road safety campaigners. On what grounds? Just get them to stand around the present crossings and see the intolerable present behaviour of some pedestrians and some motorists disputing rights of passage.

With panda lights there would be more control and both pedestrians and cardrivers would know where they stand. As reported in the Gazette I am surprised at the opposition of the parish council, the civic society and the Design Statement Group to what at the end of the day will be a major benefit to the greater safety of Ilkley's citizens.

I also know that the above mentioned bodies have far more important things to tackle around Ilkley than orchestrating opposition to a panda crossing.

From one of, until today, the silent majority,

Keith G Hartley

Hangingstone,

Hangingstone Road,

Ilkley.

Lights backed

SIR, - I am amazed to read that there is opposition to the proposed puffin crossing in Brook Street on the grounds of safety. I can only assume that this opinion is conceived through ignorance of the regulations relating to the zebra crossings.

As a regular user of the Brook Street crossing, both as a pedestrian and a motorist, I cannot conceive of a situation more dangerous than the current crossing.

Twice in recent months, I have had to do an emergency stop at this crossing whilst driving towards Leeds Road i.e. downhill because a lady (a different one each time) who was walking down the pavement suddenly, without even looking to her right, stepped on to the crossing as though she had the right to do so.

Lady, you DID NOT. The regulations make it quite clear that a pedestrian on the crossing has right of way over a vehicle. However, a vehicle within the limits of the crossing (denoted by zigzag lines) has a right of way over the pedestrians. It is the latter point wherein lies the other way to danger on this crossing because the pedestrians, nine times out of ten, believes it to be the other way round and continue to pour over the crossing.

Zebra crossings were not designed to cope with, and cannot cope with the volume of pedestrians using this crossing at peak times. The only safe solution is to have a crossing which gives, by means of a light signal, a clearly defined period purely for pedestrians and a likewise period purely for motorists. It is true that it might take the pedestrian a little longer to cross than now but, at the moment, the vehicular traffic is given no chance at peak times and, as a result a gridlock situation develops when vehicles back up well into Springs Lane, in one direction and into Leeds Road in the other. Vehicles have started using Chantry Drive and Wells Promenade as a rat run to avoid the snarl up. Can anybody tell me this is a safe practice?

Peter Miller

4 Ferndale Court,

Parish Ghyll Drive,

Ilkley.

Existing together

SIR, - Following the consultation process for the proposed puffin crossings at the top of Brook Street, in order to achieve a balanced view the parish council and the district councillors would appreciate receiving all comments on the proposed change.

It is acknowledged that Saturday is a problem day but the issue also exists on each day of the week at the start and end of the business day.

It would be helpful if drivers were a little more patient and likewise the pedestrians took the existing crossing as four separate sections, and accepted the island between the two parts of the crossing was not part of the crossing and stopped before setting off again. There would then be fewer hold-ups and we could all exist together.

The proposals is open to consultation, however, if the drivers, who were pedestrians at the time, would consider the cars and the car drivers would consider the pedestrians then there would be little to complain about.

After all we are mainly all drivers and pedestrians at one time or another.

Councillor Martin Smith

District Councillor,

102 King's Road,

Ilkley.

Serial spendthrift

SIR, - Now we know why our local taxes are set to rise by record amounts in April. Our Tory and Lib-Dem partnership that rules us from Bradford is a serial spendthrift.

Not content with pouring millions of pounds into consultancies, they ignore the careful research and analyses, and waste taxpayers' money anyway. The Ilkley traffic consultants rejected the use of traffic lights to control the flows of pedestrians across Brook Street.

Now Tory Councillors want to spend more than £100,000 of our money to ensure that our money is truly wasted. It is perverse Tory decisions like these that are causing our local taxes to rise so fast.

A third of our Ilkley population is retired and mostly with incomes that barely keep up with the retail price index. None of us can afford profligate increases in Council Tax - plus the parish precept - to pay for unnecessary traffic lights.

Ilkley is represented exclusively by 15 Tory councillors. There is not one that has a contrary view from any other persuasion. It's time for a change.

Andrew Dundas

2 Pines Cottages,

Parish Ghyll Drive,

Ilkley.