A community blighted by rat-runners has installed new “slow down” signs to try to tackle the issue.
Round Hill residents have raised their concerns previously with Brighton and Hove City Council about drivers using the area as a rat-run and asked for action.
Frustrated by the worsening situation, they raised more than £300 to instal seven signs in Prince’s Crescent and Wakefield Road to replace those previously put there by the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership.
Round Hill resident Dominic Furlong said: “Drivers use the route through Round Hill as a rat-run to avoid the junction of Ditchling Road with Upper Lewes Road.
“Drivers exceeding the 20mph speed limit has been an ongoing problem for many years.
“In 2004, the council ran a consultation with the Round Hill community about the introduction of possible measures to tackle the rat-run issue.
“After the consultation, however, no action was taken, and the problem has only worsened over time.
“Recently, the volume and speed of vehicles using the rat-run has been exacerbated by the installation of a new traffic light system at this junction in the spring of 2021 as drivers seek to avoid the longer waiting times.”
In November 2021, Mr Furlong presented a 171-signature petition to councillors calling for action against speeding drivers after a 10-year-old child was knocked down in Prince’s Crescent the previous month.
In 2019, 144 neighbours signed a petition calling on the council to narrow the wide junction of Crescent Road with Prince’s Crescent.
Councillors have promised reports on what needs to be done in response to the petitions but Mr Furlong said that he was aware of the challenges in bringing any reports before the relevant committee.
He said: “The Round Hill rat-run is now being considered under a new strategy by the council, the Better, Safer Streets Programme, which is due to report to the new Transport and Sustainability Committee.
“It is hoped that after four years of trying, the council will finally deliver a report which will lead to actions that match those of the Round Hill community.”
Much sympathy. Problem is the council have no idea how to organise traffic and haven’t for years.
If viaduct road was put back to 2 way I doubt this situation would be happening at all. Same for the other side of ditching road.
Whoever decided it was a good idea to block the main east to west route must have been smoking something that day
Wasn’t the valley and surrounding road scheme designed by someone who doesn’t drive?
It was designed by someone who doesn’t think
not having cars on the road helps fight climate crissis. – read the u.n + w.h.o report.
Good on the residents of Round hill for taking their own action. Here in Hollingdean we have youths on motorbikes riding around with no helmets on day and night . Riding on footpaths,drinking and taking drugs and also supplying drugs.
Was told a few days ago by 2 PCSO,s that police can’t do anything.
They break every traffic law and risk running residents down
Does someone have to be killed before police/council take action.
Could have sworn police were paid to catch criminals which this gang are!!.
As secretary of Hollingdean Residents Association I have had dozens of complaints from residents.. I have even followed this bunch of juvenile delinquents so know where they are based.
Police and council are too underfunded to tackle this mob!!
plus cars are forsed to have lience plates but mopeheads dont allways have them.
i ment licence
This is what happens when you make main roads 20mph as well, people stop paying attention to it and it becomes less effective.
Be interested to see proper evidence of this (rather than anecdotal) as actually the trials suggest the opposite
What trials were these?
my mom attended a safer speed awareness course hosted by sussex poliece + they showed some reports they had done that said 20 miles an hour is a safer speed limet with 20 mph zones.
I did some read on a 202 meta-analysis to gain a broad top level impact on 30mph vs 20mph. It concludes:
“20 mph ‘zones’ are effective in reducing collisions and casualties. However, it provides insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effect of 20 mph ‘zones’ on pollution, inequalities or liveability. For 20 mph ‘limits’ more rigorous evaluations are required in order to draw robust conclusions.”
There’s conflicting information on the very subject of effects of 20 Zones.
Here’s a report from the Driving Organisation The alliance of British drivers dated May 2020
Wide-area 20mph zones are proliferating, despite sound evidence presented to the DfT that these zones do not improve road safety, but can: (1) actually increase fatal and serious injury risk for vulnerable road users, (2) do increase vehicle emissions, (3) do waste valuable productive time by lengthening every previously 30mph journey by up to 50%, and (4) do impede the progress of emergency service vehicles.
Others also state there’s no environmental benefit and mixed statements on road incidents, all tend to state an increase in miner bumps but serious and fatal have remained around the same.
One would expect that a report commissioned by a driving organisation would show conflicting results, yes.
Perhaps a more independent report, or a peer review of that report, would have more trustworthy results?
That’s why we like to use meta analysis, Mart. Generally, it is a better source of information because you’re looking at multiple reports and making a conclusion from that.
We also have to consider the source of the information as well, as we can establish bias in their results, confirmation bias most specifically.
John and Benjamin
With every survey/report you have to consider what bias may be involved and do further research to see what other reports from various sources may say. DfT are are good source of information as is ONS. On the matter of more minor bumps, Crash Map is a good source as is DfT crash data and does show an increase of reported incidents. Just looking at crash map for example shows an increase of slight injuries but KSI remain about the same.
I researched more than one site and came across a report from a University Study, can’t find it at the moment but gave an overall opinion and included cycling and all types of transport.
For example on Cycling, stats showed an increase in reported incidents and injuries for all groups and types of crashes. The increase in their opinion was due to more people cycling during the pandemic while less people were driving their cars so crash numbers involving motor vehicles decreased of course.
Of course, any anti bike group could use that data and say cycling is more dangerous than motoring and show the numbers increasing and omit the pandemic part etc.
Having a mix of reports from non motoring sources as well can help decide what you want to believe.
From what I’ve researched, most state there’s no environmental benefits and it’s actually worse and an avarage number there’s been more miner incidents.
But it’s for us really to decide what we want to go with.
I’m not against 20 Zones by any means, but in the right area’s
not having cars on the road helps fight climate crissis. – read the u.n + w.h.o report.
Prince’s Crescent and Wakefield Road are not main roads.
Regardless, if a driver cannot pay attention to speed limits and effectively control their vehicle within them, then they should not be driving. “Not paying attention” = careless driving, and careless driving causes accidents.
I agree. I mean, there is usually at least several drivers of a shift who fail to notice my battenburg, blue lights and sirens. The only reasonable explanation is that they aren’t paying attention nor using their mirrors, and not listening out for prompts on the road.
I am still of the opinion that people should undertake a mandatory refresher lesson every year or so. Even when I did my CERAD, and I was at what I thought was at my most consciously compentant, my instructor picked up several habits that I’d developed over a short five years.
…needless to say, skill fade is a thing that should be considered in the long-term.
nhsengland says that drivers are spreading pollution sickness. – nhs healthier lungs longer life campain plus there an inependent campain by brighton busses called move4change campain.
the greenparty did that because labourparty said it was safer + the sussex nabourhood watch scheme agreed that it was safer at 20 miles per hour speed limet.
The new traffic light phasing on Ditching Road has been screwed up. Either the council officers are idiots or this has been done deliberately. Reset it to what is was – this might help!
Screwed up in what way, out of curiousity?
Ok ..for example –
When the lights turn green for traffic turning right from Viaduct Road into Ditchling Road, they also used to go green for traffic going into the Upper Lewes Road. They no longer do. There is no reason for this
I think that’s to allow extra time for pedestrians to cross to the island, then they get the green light across Ditchling Road.
That phasing only impacts traffic crossing Ditchling Road to Upper Lewes Road though, it shouldn’t have any impact or be relevant for traffic using Prince’s Crescent as a rat run?
Correct and been the same at Junction of Lewes Road, Union Road and Elm Grove since they were installed by the Greens back in their first disaster.
Been saying for a very long time the traffic light sequences all over the city are in need of re-phasing but given up e-mailing the council and highways departments. Tried DfT who responded I would need to contact local authorities and never received any response from my local MP, LRM.
greenparty said they working to expand green light zones + allow pedstrians extra time to cross the road to improve the citys street safy policy to better fit people walking to help fight the climate crisses.
When the 20 mph limits were put in place in 2013 and 2014 by the Greens, the police told the council that they had to be self-enforcing by use of traffic calming measures.
The council obviously thought road users would just obey, but without enforcement, few ever did – including council vehicles.
Not sure how a few unofficial road signs will make any difference.
brighton city council have hired enviourmental officers to give out fines to speeding cars + litterbugs.
The road I live in was made 20mph supposedly because there’s a school just round the corner. The residents had been keeping speeds down before then because of the school, parked vehicles, etc. but it was, and still is, mainly the parents and through traffic who drive much faster and the 20mph signs are ignored. I haven’t noticed any difference.
I think Peter is correct in his opinion, self-enforcement rarely works in a variety of issues, even beyond driving speeds, in my personal experience. It is one of those issues that the only reliable way to keep speeds down would be physical preventative measures and enforceable punishments. Nothing reduces speed more effectively than a threat of points, a fine, and a loss of license!
When the council introduced these 20 MPH zones, many were not endorsed by the DfT who said they did not meet the criteria, ie, road width, lanes, crash data etc etc and advised not to reduce the limit and also advised by Sussex Police they were unable to police it for the same reasons. The greens went ahead anyway.
Interesting you say threat of points, fines and loss of licences.
There’s ideas filtering through that the points systems is going to be reviewed with scrapping of the points system for miner offences. So someone travelling at 36 in a 30 wouldn’t get 3 points but a hefty fine.
So getting back to the punishments. I agree that rat run roads should be 20, but how are we going to police it, that is the question. We haven’t got the resources to install camera’s in every street in Brighton.
So we need alternatives, road humps and pinch points will go along way to help reduce those rouge drivers.
Indeed, eyes can’t be everywhere, and maybe it should be a case of a piece by piece process, slow and steady, as it were, if you pardon the pun.
Our road has been a 20mph zone for several years although the average speed along it is probably nearly double that ousode the 8am and 5 pm crawl. It’s easy to spot the occasional motorist who adheres to the speed limit as they, invariably, have someone tailgating them and banging on their horn, or even trying to overtake. Without some form of enforcement/preventative measures the 20mph signs are just a complete waste of time and money.
It isn’t just the actual speed which causes a nuisance but the amount of intrusive noise made by ‘boy’ racers tearing along forcing one to have the windows shut even on a warm day..
And before anyone makes an asinine comment about don’t live in a area with traffic then I’ve lived here for nigh on fifty years and don’t see why i should move to accommodate selfish people who can’t follow a simple injunction to ‘keep the speed down’.
When the first Green administration introduced a number of 20mph limits, the Police told them it was unenforceable . But they did it anyway, because they were Green and they knew best
Elm Grove is a good example, 20mph with a school and hospital on it. Didn’t the school maintain their own speed camera that sent a post to Twitter each time a motorist went past over the speed limit?
Hi John,
Yes we had some looney Green councillor and her hubby who invented their own speed gadget trying to convince the world cars were speeding up and down Elm Grove during peak times at over 50 mph.
Yes the school did have a camera and think that is the one I am referring too. The problem with it, it wasn’t officially registered or calibrated and the people using it not qualified to do so, if that makes any sense.
That looney was ex green cllr Elaine Hills, who still thinks her prattling and raving is worth listening to
Oh, I remember her. An interesting character to say the least on a variety of issues.
I remember when they blocked off the top of D’aubigny Rd. Done at the request of mates of Councillor West so the value of their house went up. Trebles all round!
I saw dear old Cllr West at the Tip earlier this week – in his nice non-electric hatchback. One would have thought a cargo bike would have been in order?
Oh well – that’s hypocrisy.
Nah, ad hominems are pretty bottom of barrel, Charlie. Doesn’t really say anything of substance, unfortunately.