Not content with allowing the otherwise attractive cobbled sets forming the crossings on Dunbar’s Historic High Street to fall into disrepair, East Lothian Council have finally decided to remove them. The reasoning is a bit opaque. No doubt\u00a0pedestrians were asked about this in an unrepresentative vox pop survey of resident’s views – would you like the cobbles removed? Option 1: YES Option 2: YES. Or – perhaps it was the quiet lobbying by the local Police, Taxi companies and other clubs who, tacitly supported by the Roads are for Cars Department, and hated the very idea of granite sets all along?<\/p>\n
Just recently, the Roads Department of ELC felt it important that residents of Parsons Pool be consulted on a minor road improvement scheme. I say minor, it was pretty important to the residents, who rolled up their sleeves and got very much involved in redesigning their own street. Top marks to the council and to the residents for bothering. The roads were seemingly in a poor state of repair, and the greens looked like they needed beating up \/ replanting – along with some of the front gardens!<\/p>\n
A few more trees to improve the street scene and an unusually imaginative (yes!) proposal was tabled by ELC. So far so good. All criticism of the Roads department is suspended, at least temporarily. But wait a minute, the streetside greens have now been removed, as have all the street trees and the parking for residents, which was already generous and under utilised, has actually increased! How could this happen? The residents were consulted and they asked for 1) more parking and 2) less green. Can’t blame them for asking and they have got an impressive display of fresh tarmacadam – the only thing about new roads which fills me with nostalgia.<\/p>\n
Residents of the High Street – by contrast – only find out about changes when the diggers come in to disturb the peace and it is too late to do anything, except complain quietly.\u00a0But let’s look at the case for and against the cobbled crossings.<\/p>\n
First the case against. \u00a0Why of course drivers find them inconvenient, that surely is sufficient? \u00a0The knobbly surface interferes with the smooth passage of their delicately tuned driving machines and makes the going, well er … a bit bumpy. But significantly they have now no reason whatsoever to stop at the informal crossings. The ambiguity is gone and clearly drivers have precedence: roads are for cars not pedestrians no? In fact, as the road is now clear of impediments, we may as well step up the speed limit a bit, to say 40 miles an hour, so visitors and locals can spend less time in town and more time on the internet which is full of alluring bargains …<\/p>\n
Next we could reduce the area of pavement, which the good burghers of Dunbar anyway deface with canine excrement, the residues of ice cream, fizzy drinks, spent fags and other detritus.\u00a0We could then have a lot more space for more cars which could double up as shopping trollies and umbrellas?<\/p>\n
The Roads are for Cars department might say the sets are\/were expensive to upkeep, a fair point – but only if they were badly specified and installed in the first instance, which they were, otherwise these surfaces can be very very durable and potentially lasting many hundreds of years. Not far from here I vaguely remember seeing fine examples of cobbles – oh yes, they were underneath the existing ones and possibly date back to the 17th or 18th Century!<\/p>\n
Small children fall over them when traversing with their scooters. We should remove all hills because they too are dangerous.<\/p>\n
The only rational case against, that I can think of, is a quasi legalistic one. The informal crossings were just that, ergo if a pedestrian did cross and the driver failed to stop the law would be on the side of the driver. Now that the cobbles are gone, the law is still on the side of the driver. Except now drivers can go a little bit faster and increase the chances of that accident being a more serious one. The introduction of the belishas (an ugly ugly introduction) could have been avoided quite simply with 3 STOP signs at the entrance to the Westport turning circle (indeed widening the pavements here might have achieved the slow speeds necessary when negotiating the turn).<\/p>\n
The case for. Dunbar is not Musselburgh. It is not a through road to anywhere. Speeds should be low enough in town for people to step out and cross almost anywhere. I’ve tested this at different times of the day and with a few exceptions you can \u00a0walk across the street safely at any angle. Pedestrians should feel that they can cross anywhere, and drivers expected to take a little more care (I hear howls of protest, but the fact is towns are for the convenience of all users not just drivers.)<\/p>\n
The crossings also helped create structure and importantly ambiguity, which make pedestrians and drivers alike more risk aware.\u00a0Subtly defining the high street, they had the potential to enhance the streetscene too. \u00a0Sure they had been badly installed, and badly maintained, but the idea was fundamentally a good one.\u00a0Most old towns and some new ones too have similar cobbled sets and cyclists and scooters \u00a0just dismount when the surface texture becomes difficult (I am sure this is the case even in cycle loving nations).<\/p>\n
I urge the council to bring back back the street cobbles and repair the small sets that decorate our pavements, which are now deteriorating fast.\u00a0In fact, I have an idea. \u00a0Why not create a training scheme – a modern apprenticeship – around their correct installation and maintenance? There would plenty of work in and around East Lothian and I understand these skills are in short supply.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"