Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hewitt Road - oil slick - update
Residents asked me to follow up the issue with the speed hump/service cover and resulting loss of oil from vehicles which (having driven too fast over it) leave a trail of oil.
Here is the response. The replacement cover should fix the issue but of course the larger problem of cars speeding down our roads continues. Its an issue I will continue to address with the council.
----------------------------
Your enquiry about the Statutory Undertakers service cover in Hewitt Road outside no’40 LBH/2953114
Thank you for your enquiry.
A site inspection has confirmed that the speed hump has been constructed to the correct specification and conforms to the Highways (Road Hump) Regulations 1996, which is laid down by the Department for Transport. The speed at which you approach the hump should take account of the roads layout. The Highway Code states that 'the speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds that are inappropriate for the road and traffic conditions can be dangerous'.
However, it would appear that the cause of the problem is likely to be the protruding sewer inspection chamber near the speed hump outside no’40.
We will therefore ascertain who is responsible for this cover and request that they arrange replacement for a more modern style cover that will be flush with the carriageway when installed.
Engineering Projects Team
Project Engineer
Sustainable Transport Group
London Borough of Haringey
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
No: There is no sign for traffic approaching along Turnpike Lane going West. That disappeared well over a year ago.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Ah, apologies. Don't travel that way. As a footnote, the signs for traffic from Endymion Rd onto the south end of Wightman looked OK a few weeks ago on both approaches, but will bear them also in mind next time I pass them.
-
-
-
Update - partial relief.
By today, the eastbound Turnpike Lane signs had been turned round so they're enforceable again. They are (now?) mounted on a lamp post closer to the bridge (I'm off the pace on this, perhaps it happened after the Google car last passed that way?) so they're a bit less un-noticeable to HGV drivers, since they're not hidden behind the Cultural Quarter sign.
Southbound towards Wightman looks ok to me.
Still no sign of the Turnpike Lane westbound sign (I know too much about this junction now, gah...)
And at the south end the Endymion Rd/Alroy Rd/Wightman Rd signs look OK to me, today.
Till the next time.....
-
-
Permalink Reply by Cllr Emina Ibrahim on
-
Hi OAE
Not quite - it was actually on Alan Stanton's suggestion that I emailed Graham Beattie so Alan should take the credit for pointing in the right direction. I terms of requesting timelines well that's a very good way of making sure an issue is not kicked in to the long grass. Residents see everyday how dangerous allowing something like this is if it's prolonged and we should do everything to make sure something as dangerous as regular oil slicks is resolved.
-
-
You know, Cllr Emine, that Alan is not the sort of guy who needs to jump forward to take credit for helping others with advice, whether as a councillor, a citizen or a HOL member.
But you somehow missed my question: who were you contrasting with "residents" in their approach to the problem?
If I were you, I'd be saying something along the lines of: "Many thanks, Karen, for raising the issue in response to residents' concerns back at the beginning of May. I'm glad that some solution now seems to be in sight, and I hope you don't feel that I somewhat ungraciously climbed aboard on your coat-tails, then chose to read you a mini-homily on how to be a councillor."
What you actually wrote, Emine, comes across to me as a snide comment from the new Head Prefect. Careful how you deal with the aftermath of oil-slicks. It can really mess up your new feathers. (Ref. Torrey Canyon; also Alaska)
-
-
Hi OAE
Indeed your characterisation of Alan is correct I totally agree that jumping to claim credit for something is unedifying, hence my response which you can choose to read in to as you see fit. Some grace from all quarters is always welcome I totally agree.
Have a great day
-
-
Indeed.
I'm sure ( yeah right ) that nobody would try to claim credit for the work done by Karen in having the Wightman Camera installed.
I hope OAE forgives the double positive
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Little did I know that Haringey's Sustainable Transport Group would still have some surprises up its sleeve, as they retell the mysterious incident of the Hewitt Road Oil Slick.
But they do. So if you prefer not to get "spoilers" then please shut your eyes and look away. Then read the email to Karen Alexander at the top of this page; and click this link to the WhatDoTheyknow website. (Just in case you've heard the rumours, it wasn't Mrs Peacock in the Mayor's Parlour with an email.)
Still here? OK. Then despite the collaborative, everyone-help-raise-the-barn efforts which succeeded in making Hewitt Road as smooth as spider-silk, the story still has a few loose ends. The main one is why Karen Alexander was told that: "the cause of the problem is likely to be the protruding sewer inspection chamber near the speed hump outside no. 40." And that they would: "... therefore ascertain who is responsible for this cover and request that they arrange replacement by a more modern style cover that will be flush with the carriageway".
In which case, why are they now saying: "it was not considered necessary to contact the utility company"?
Also, having written that there were: "5 reports regarding oil spillage at this location" and "4 complaints regarding the speed hump", and that they inspected the location, they did not give me the dates of their inspections - even though I specifically asked for them.
Never mind. I'm sure the lawyers can sort this out. One sump or two?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan I think we're expected to draw a veil over the performance of the Sustainables' original offered solution. The full answer to your question (7) was:
As the service cover is not defective and the reports/complaints
highlighted a number of factors it was not considered necessary to contact
the utility company.... which isn't in precise conformity with their original, alleged cause of the problem. Unless the centre-line of the road – their responsibility – was lowered in the fix – which is probably what they knew they had to do – there was no need for any replacement of the cover, let alone "a more modern style cover".
I hope the Sustainable Transport Group will exhibit even higher integrity and competence in future.
-
-
OAE I think you are right thanks should go to Karen and David for all their hard. We should acknowledge their work and successes for this ward and hope they continue with their good work.
In view of Emina's comments she must be referring to Gina there is no one else that fits the description.
-
-
Of course you're right, Andy. I had somehow totally forgotten about the ubiquitous, ever-on-the-ball, pan-Ladder covering Gina. Has she, perhaps, been keeping a low profile of late? That would be truly amazing.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
