The speed limit on one of the main routes into Wilmslow looks set to be reduced to 30mph in an effort to improve road safety.
The speed limit on a stretch of Altrincham Road was reduced temporarily from 40mph to 30mph in October 2012, for safety reasons whilst a new site access was constructed for the Waters Corporation's headquarters and the road realigned in the area. However, following requests from local residents, Wilmslow Town Council wrote to Cheshire East Council early last year requesting that the temporary 30 zone be made permanent on the A538.
A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said: "This change in the speed limit is part of our ongoing work across the Borough to improve road safety for all users.
"The speed limit is currently being advertised in accordance with Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This requires the Council to advertise a proposal for a minimum of three weeks. In this case, all comments of objection or support have to be submitted to the Council by August 6.
"Should we receive no objections to the scheme, we will aim to have the existing signs removed and the order implemented to revert the road to 30mph before the end of August.
"The speed limit is being changed due to the introduction of the cycleway/footway which, in effect, has 'urbanised' this section of road.
"In order to reduce the risk to all road users (cyclists, pedestrians and motorists) it has been necessary to reduce the speed limit between Mobberley Road and slightly North of Nansmoss Lane."
Cllr Martin Watkins, Chairman of Wilmslow Town Council said "Wilmslow Town Council has campaigned for a permanent reduction in the speed limit on Altrincham Road for some time. The road in this area is arguably the most dangerous in the Wilmslow district. Increased traffic flows to and from the Waters site along with the proposed development at Brymour Kennels together with access to the nearby planning fields means many more vehicles and pedestrians are using this road.
"The permanent reduction of the speed limit to 30 mph sends a clear message: drive carefully, drive safely and arrive alive."
As you can see from the photo above, work has recently started to create a cycle and footpath from Waters headquarters into the town centre which is being funded by 106 money, along with the installation of a crossing.
Section 106 agreements are negotiated between developers and the Council and the money can used to help fund affordable housing, parks, roads, paths etc.
Any representations or objections with respect to the proposal must be made in writing to the Interim Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer, Cheshire East Borough Council, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire, CW11 1HZ by no later than 5pm, 6th August 2014. Please state the grounds upon which any representation or objection is made.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Has the poster above checked the state of the cycle path tunnels under the airport runways? Are they fit for use or covered in broken glass etc? Why would any cyclist otherwise choose to ride in the poorly-lit road tunnels?
I agree that cycling in the tunnels and on the fast sections of the A538 is very dangerous, but the "so called cycle ways" are poor and unfit for purpose in various sections between Wilmslow and the airport. In places too narrow for passing, overgrown, poor track condition and insufficient clear division between pedestrians and cyclists. I hope that the council takes it seriously and makes a proper job of this rather than just a token gesture near Waters.
As someone who regularly tries to get to Handforth from the M56 in the evenings using this route, I look forward to being able to travel at 30mph. 3mph is more usual.
The public bus is regularly used by children and older people in Morley Green who have no other option for transport, and hence rerouting the bus to benefit Waters employees should not even be considered.
So because these clowns cant get round the corner the council feels obliged to shunt the limit down to 30 [nanny state prevails.]
However , because this actually isn't an appropriate speed limit, one finds people are
disregarding it. So we have a situation where cars incoming from the Altrincham direction
used to slow down just before the school [Gorsey Bank] where our children were /are,
now they don’t.
So the result is the exact opposite to that which was the desired, and extending the 30 limit
has in essence , diluted its effect.
If pedestrians need to cross say near the petrol station , put in a Toucan crossing or some such.
As for Waters a cycle path it should have been put in before it opened and their carpark should be available for football children's parents to park in at the weekend instead of being locked up empty , whilst people are forced to park on the main road.
Also the new cycle way needs to be , right off road , so I hope it is, and safe to use.
Which brings me to my next point , who is that twonk cyclist often wearing red [50 ish], who in a morning at just before 7;00 am cycles through the car tunnels under the runways , and then up the
hill on the road , when there is a good off road cycle path right there.
This joker not only puts himself at risk ,but also unsuspecting cars and motorbikes using the
tunnels
As a regular user of Altrincham Road I have lost count of the number of times cars and lorries accelerate to way above 40mph when leaving the town as if they are on a racetrack. Also, the number of lorries hurtling in to town and slamming the brakes on just as they reach the fire station.
I agree with Brian that the speed limit won't make much difference. You just have to watch the speed of vehicles on Knutsford Road and Alderley Road to see a significant number completely ignore the speeds there.
--------------------
“I agree that cycling in the tunnels and on the fast sections of the A538 is very dangerous, but the "so called cycle ways" are poor and unfit for purpose in various sections between Wilmslow and the airport. In places too narrow for passing, overgrown, poor track condition and insufficient clear division between pedestrians and cyclists. “
--------------------
This is what I was alluding to in my earlier post about why cyclists sometimes use the road instead of the cycle path. Elsewhere in Wilmslow (e.g. Kings Arms roundabout) cycle lanes just stop and command 'cyclists dismount' and become pedestrians. If I wanted to be a pedestrian I'd have left my bike at home, so I take my rightful place on the road there (where, it must be remembered, I am legally entitled to be).
A 2ft corrider adjacent to the carriageway edge is a dangerous place for cyclists, motorists & pedestrians due to debris, drain covers and standing water.
Cyclists are entitled to use the carriageway by virtue that they were originally classed as carriages and not 'horseless carriages. Also classifying them as 'non-mechanically propelled'is somewhat dubious IMO
If the '20 is plenty' campaign is adopted across Wilmslow or CEC generally, motorists will be legally restricted to 20 mph. yet cyclists will be exempt from RTA penalty.
Cyclists should be required to pass a practical cycle proficiency test and pass a theory test relating to Highway Code sections relating to cyclists.
A cyclist should face prosecution for causing injury to another road user, esp pedestrians.
Just my opinion, however unpalatable.
But a 30 mph limit on that road would not seem appropriate or logical to motorists because it's not a urban road with schools, pavements, driveways and parked cars, and will most likely not be adhered to. I wonder if we will see a speed camera there soon after?
On a connected note. Who's cockamamie idea was it to install a HIGHLY distracting flashing sign reminding motorists of a 30 limit just before a notorious accident bend and junction when drivers should be focused on negotiating the bend and looking ahead for traffic that might be looking to turn right, across their path? Could be grounds for a case if there ever was another accident there?
-----------------------------------------------
"Where cycle paths exist is should be compulsory to use them"
-----------------------------------------------
Even though they may not be fit for use, Simon?
The roads were built for cars and paid for by car drivers, so is it really too much to ask that their 24/7 needs are given priority over weekend hobby cyclists demands?
All tax payers pay for roads, not just motorists. Those who pay income tax and those who pay council tax are the ones who pay for roads, and that’s not just motorists. And anybody who buys anything in Britain also helps to pay for roads because VAT also contributes to the national coffers. Businesses which pay business rates also contribute into the national coffers. And that’s where the money for roads comes from: the consolidated fund, the treasury’s pot of cash that pays for everything. No taxation in the UK is ring-fenced i.e raised by one set of users, and spent on that set of users. But what about ‘road tax’? Clearly, the name says it all, you might think, it’s a tax that pays for roads! Sorry, no, ‘road tax’ doesn’t actually exist. It was abolished in 1937, along with the ‘road fund licence’. It’s now car tax, a UK tax on tailpipe CO2 emissions above 100gm per km*. It’s not now, and never has been, a fee to use roads.