Battle-Scarred-Lamp Likely to be Moved

	The lampost and below the scars

A police spokesman told the “Echo” that this was the second time a vehicle had hit the lamppost that he knew of. But he could not accept that it was a hazard or danger. There had been no complaints about the standard and it was sited off the road.

No Reason

The “Echo” agrees. There is no apparent reason why anybody should hit the lamp standard, which stands about 14 inches back from the kerb, but the fact remains that it has been hit, not twice, but at least five times in recent months, and in daylight as well as at night.

Why? Surely there comes a time when a coincidence becomes a doubt, and a road safety doubt, no matter how small, should be investigated.

Mr. O. P. Smith, deputy surveyor to the urban council, said investigations would be carried out to see if it was possible to move the post to the back of the footpath.

He said the council would investigate any lamp standard which was hit more than once, even if a long period covered the two accidents. In fact, they were also investigating a lamppost in Wymington Road which had been hit twice.

Five Vehicles

Mr. Albert Harrington, proprietor of the Bedford Way Garage, which is quite near the lamppost, said five vehicles had hit it in the past 12 months or so.

Two cars hit it soon after each other, another car hit it about three months ago and there was Sunday’s accident. He could also remember a lorry hitting it so hard the glass was shaken loose and shattered on the ground. Mr. Harrington said the driver obviously did not even know he had hit it because he carried on.

The numerous grooves and grazes on the concrete post seemed to indicate that numerous other high vehicles have done the same. About two feet from the ground there is a round ring where smashed headlamps have left their impression.

Mr. George Willmott, of Manor Farm, Bedford Road, said he could also remember several vehicles hitting the post and his wife having to telephone for the ambulance.

Fortunately, although people have been injured and vehicles damaged, so far nobody has been killed, but they could be.

If moving a lamppost a couple of feet could prevent this surely it is worth doing, no matter whether it is a coincidence, an optical illusion or momentary lack of concentration which causes the accidents.

Footnote: Although there have been more than two accidents involving this post the police would not necessarily know of them all. If no other vehicle is involved and there is no injury it is not always necessary to report an accident to the police. They say they will investigate the position of the lamp.

Authorities must act on dangerous junction
by Mister Cobbler

Since I commented about the dangers of nosing out into Wellingborough Road opposite the Lightstrung, because of buses parking along Skinners Hill and opposite the junction with St. Mary’s Avenue, an additional hazard has appeared to the left of the junction.

Major pipe laying operations are being carried out and only half of St. Mary’s Avenue can be used on the approach to Wellingborough Road. We all appreciate that this work is necessary and the hazard is only a temporary one, but I hope it will help to highlight the extreme accident potential at this dangerous junction even under normal conditions.

A Hall Avenue driver who uses this junction a great deal took the time to write to me this week about my previous comments.

He says: “Bravo! At long last someone has publicly made a complaint about the dangerous situation at the bottom of St. Mary’s Avenue caused by United Counties Buses parking near the junction.”

He adds: “I, too, use that junction a great deal and agree with all the points made by you. Perhaps now the proper authorities will take some notice and do something about it.

“The United Counties have a perfectly good depot a little further along Skinner’s Hill which, incidentally, never seems to be used by them nowadays. Surely this could be utilised to make a first-class bus terminus for the Northampton, Kettering and town bus routes.

“I do very much hope that through your column some positive steps will be taken by Rushden Urban Council or the road safety people to stop this highly dangerous situation before a serious accident occurs.”

Well, I would like to take credit for being the first to publicly denounce the junction as dangerous, but that would not only be unfair, it would be untrue. This question has been raised in open council at Rushden.

I would also like to think that my column carried enough weight to get something done, but bitter experience has shown me that putting something right because it is basically wrong is usually not sufficient grounds for getting the job done . . . if you can follow what I mean.

Bus company depot - too small

He said that the depot at Skinner’s Hill was not large enough for a bus terminus. It was all right for buses to back onto if they had to park for long periods, but not as a general terminus for through buses.

I then asked Mr. Morris about the general question of road safety, and stressed that buses parked within a yard of the St. Mary’s junction and without any doubt did obstruct the view.

I thought that Mr. Morris’ answer was more than reasonable; he said if the question of road safety was raised on this point by any of the appropriate authorities they, as a company, would be prepared to look into it.

He said that bus stop bays were constructed after consultation with the highways authorities and the police.

Fair enough, I say this road hazard has been with us long enough and it’s time one of the “appropriate authorities” took some action and passed on their views to the company. It is never too late to put right a bloomer.

Mothers Safety Petition Brings Notice

School warning signs have been erected at all the approaches to Tennyson Road Infant School, Rushden, following a petition to Rushden Urban Council signed by 67 mothers of children attending the school.

The petition was started after the death of three-year-old Stewart Seabrook, son of Mr. and Mrs. David Seabrook, of Highfield Road, who died in a tragic road accident outside the school on September 4.

Worried parents concerned about the increased road traffic and parked car hazards on Tennyson Road, signed a petition advocating a number of safety measures.

Copies of the petition were sent to Northamptonshire County Council’s education committee, Rushden Urban Council’s highways committee, Rushden police, and Mr. Harry Howarth, MP for the Wellingborough Division, amongst others.

Suggestions

Kay Perkins looks at the new sign

On receiving the petition highways committee moved swiftly. They placed four school warning signs at the entrance to roads approaching the infants school and asked the surveyor to discuss with the police and report back further on the suggestion about the making of a ‘no waiting’ order.

Northamptonshire County Council’s education committee, who are responsible for providing the school crossing patrol or “lollipop” man, reluctantly declined to authorise one on Tennyson Road.

In a letter to the petitioners, the chief education officer, said that the road in question was not a main road and traffic is comparatively light.

Only a small number of children have to cross the road to attend the school. He felt to agree to a patrol at this point would mean that there would be a case for a similar appointment in hundreds of other cases throughout the county.

Mr. Graham Penness, a spokesman for the parents, said that while they were disappointed regarding the lollipop man, they were reasonably satisfied.

School warning signs had gone up and now the highways committee were discussing the “no waiting” order suggestion with the police.

He said, however, that they were rather annoyed over the business of the safety barrier.

The highways committee of Rushden Urban Council have referred the matter at the County Council’s education committee, but in a letter to the petitioners the chief education officer pointed out that this was a matter for the urban council.

Whose responsibility is it?

A Rushden Urban Council spokesman told the “Echo” that while the school signs and the no waiting orders were their “pigeon,” the safety barrier was definitely the responsibility of the County Council.

Last Word

Last words with Mr. David Seabrook, who so tragically lost his son Stewart in an accident outside the school in September.

“The school warning signs and the safety barrier make common sense. However as far as the lollipop man is concerned I think the petitioners are petitioning against themselves.

“It is a perfectly straight road. The hazard is caused by parked cars, and the parked cars belong to the mothers who bring their children to school and are now petitioning the council.”

Anger over no action on safety petition

Mr. Graham Penness is grossly disappointed and to a certain extent very annoyed at the lack of action from Rushden Urban and Northamptonshire County Councils on the four point safety petition which he organised on behalf of worried parents of children who attend Rushden Tennyson Road Infants’ School.

“Look at the national anger and reaction over school times this winter since a child was killed in Derby. Now the whole question of deferring school opening time because of darkness in the mornings is a national controversy.

“Our petition, which asked for four safety points to be introduced at Tennyson Road School was organised after a child had been killed. But what is the reaction? Practically nothing.

“We asked for a school crossing patrol, school signs in the road, a safety barrier outside the school gates and a no waiting area.

“Every suggestion has been turned aside as unjustifiable with one exception – the school signs.

‘Obvious’

“They were put up before the council even met. No discussion was needed on that because it was obvious they should have been there all the time anyway,” said an angry Mr. Penness.

“I have already written to the council expressing my disappointment – a disappointment that I am sure is shared by every parent who signed the petition, and there are over sixty of them.

“But what really annoys me is that there were some councillors who basically supported some of our suggestions when the item was brought up at the first council meeting.

“What happened at the second meeting when each suggestion was pushed aside for one reason or another? Nobody commented. What happened to those who supported us at the first meeting?”

Mr. Penness a former Rushden Urban councillor himself said he was sure there was little or nothing he or other worried parents could do about the matter now.

“Now that it has been passed by without comment nobody will really bother about it – that is what my experience on the council tells me. That is unless another child is injured or, God forbid, killed. And that – the one point that could get some action again – is the very thing we are trying so desperately hard to avoid,” he said.

The petition and the four suggested safety points was reported on by the highways and planning committee at the last council meeting after the chief education officer, the police and county surveyor had met on the site near the Tennyson Road school.

It was felt the appointment of a school crossing patrol was not justified because only a small number of children had to cross the road.

It was felt no useful purpose would be served with a safety barrier because the gates to the school were fixed in a half shut position and only one child at a time could get by.

It was felt a ‘no waiting’ order was not supported because parents with cars would still be able to stop to allow their children in and out, or they might park on the other side of the road which could be even more dangerous.

However, it was thought a suggestion that “school entrance” signs should be painted on the road outside the school gates would be a good idea. And the education officer has been asked to think of a way of advising parents not to stop their cars outside the gates, or on the other side of the road.

Mr. Penness admitted that the request for a school crossing patrol had been made more in hope than anticipation. He also admitted that the gates were in a half shut position.

“But they can be opened. And I think they have missed an important point. The path is about 18ft. wide and a crash barrier would prevent the children running on the road.

“The important distance is from the edge of the road to the pavement, not from the pavement to the school gates,” he said.

“As for the no waiting, it is true some parents might stop near the gates. But at the moment I know that there are several cars parked outside the school all during school hours. What about them?”

“I just hope nothing happens to a child that could have been prevented if our suggestions had been acted on. I wouldn’t want it on my conscience.”

Crossing Risk on Road Averted

Fears that Rushden schoolchildren might have faced a dual hazard when they restarted after the Christmas break are likely to be dispelled this week.

On top of the dark mornings controversy South End infant and junior children were confronted with the additional hazard of having the cross the busy A6 road without the invaluable assistance of a patrolman.

However, an ex-policeman, who read the potentially dangerous situation in the “Evening Telegraph,” was being interviewed this week by Mr. D. Perkins, clerk to Rushden Primary School managers.

The situation has arisen through the retirement of Mr. Ralph Wood, who had done this very important job for the past three years.

Mr Wood on duty at the crossing

Mrs. Pat Catlin, headmistress of the infants’ school, has searched desperately for the past three weeks without the hoped-for response.

She explained why a patrolman was so necessary for her particular school and what the job entailed.

Mrs. Catlin said: “The A6 must be one of the busiest roads in the county and a patrolman is most essential for the safety of the children.

Duty Hours

“He is required to be on duty in the morning between 8.30 and 9.00. Twice at lunchtime and again after 3.20 in the afternoon.

“For protection during the cold months, he is provided with a heavy mackintosh and a waterproof cap.”

Mr. Wood, who was presented with a cheque from the children of the infant and junior schools on his retirement, gave us his views on the job.

Whoever takes this job on must remember to be firm but not nasty with the children.”

Excitement

Helping these children, whose ages range from 5-11, has given him a great deal of satisfaction. “You feel a lot of affection towards them,” said 73-year-old Mr. Wood.

He was not nearly as happy about British Standard Time. “It’s made my job much harder. What people don’t realise is that the children aren’t really awake. Some of them just dream across the road.”

At this time of the year the patrolman’s responsibilities are more exciting. Conditions on January 6, the start of the new term, can almost be guaranteed to be pretty treacherous.

According to Mrs. Catlin, the applicant’s chances of getting the job are quite good, which should be comforting news to many Rushden parents.

Let Mr. Wood have the final word – it sums up just how important the lollipop man is – “In my three years’ service there has not been one accident here.”

Evening Telegraph 21 August 1975

Town’s new traffic signs lead to row

New traffic signs at busy town centre cross roads have been criticised as “confusing” by an amenities society leader. Mr. Arthur George, chairman of Rushden Amenities Society said that the new Pelican pedestrian crossing and right-of-way road marking could confuse newcomers to the town.

He plans to raise the subject at his organisation’s next meeting.

He said “A newcomer to the town comes on the traffic signal at the crossing in Church Street. The green light will give him right of way but then he has to give way to traffic coming downhill from Newton Road.”

Mr. George believes the line-markings should be altered to give the Church Street traffic priority.

“It is recognised that drivers travelling downhill usually give way to uphill traffic,” Mr. George said.

He is to include the subject on the amenities society meeting agenda for September.

A spokesman for Northamptonshire County Council said that the siting of the crossing was the responsibility of the Department of the Environment although there have been consultations with the county authorities. “The matter was looked into very carefully and it was felt in general terms that this could be the answer to what was a very difficult pedestrian problem” the spokesman added.

Evening Telegraph 21 August 1975

Pelicans are no puzzle – police.

Motorists and pedestrians do understand the pelican crossing signals, says a county council spokesman.

A Department of Environment move to stop publicity of the pelican crossings, one of which opened in Rushden last week, has come under fire from the Road Haulage Association. The association claims that there is considerable congestion in busy urban centres because motorists don’t understand they are entitled to pass the yellow flashing light. It claims there should be more rather than less publicity of the pelican crossing signals.

A county council spokesman explained that a lot of time and effort had been put into publicising pelican crossings. The spokesman said “We’re confident the publicity has been a success and that motorists and pedestrians know how to use the crossing.”

He said that over a considerable period talks had been given to schools and there was a special mobile pelican unit available to illustrate road safety talks.

“Traffic wardens and the police always keep an eye on there crossings and if people are in difficulty there is usually someone on hand to help.”

A spokesman in the police traffic management department said he felt pelican crossings had been a part of the highway scene long enough for motorists and pedestrians to understand them.

“There is still a little confusion over the flashing orange light but on the whole pedestrians seem happier on the pelican crossing than on the old pedestrian crossings.”