Signatures 170 total
-
51
Name: Julie Istabritch on Feb 17, 2010Comments: I am worried that these will harm my children and make the air more polluted for them. They cannot play in the garden because of the noise and smells and with cars now being forced to rush between road humps there will be even more smell. I strongly object.Flag
-
52
Name: Derek Potter on Feb 17, 2010Comments: Mini roundabout is overdue. But strongly object to speed cushions. Request speed cameras are installed. Road surface also needs repair. I objectFlag
-
53
Name: Colin Adams on Feb 17, 2010Comments: I travel to Kintbury many times a year and feel I must object to the installation of speed humps, is there any concrete evidence that they are needed, as I have NEVER been aware of any speed problems it the Village, the natural road layout sees to that ! The local home owners will not like the increase in road noise/polution and the reduction in the value of their homes. The speed humps/red warning surfaces will really spoil the wonderful look of this Village PLEASE DON`T INSTALL THEM Colin Adams Northcott DEVONFlag
-
54
Name: Elizabeth Sanders on Feb 17, 2010Comments: Speed humps will spoil the Village, they are un sightly and not the best solution. Liz Sanders West YorkshireFlag
-
55
Name: Neil Newport on Feb 17, 2010Comments: I wish to object to the proposed Road Humps in Kintbury because of the noise and fumes. A speed camera is much fairer as it only affects the guilty.Flag
-
56
Name: Paul Furr on Feb 17, 2010Comments: The brain dead people that break the current 30 limit will also ignore the 20, & will enjoy crashing over the speed bumps while we law abiding villagers continue to have our life blighted by unnecessary rules & signage that slowly turns the village of Kintbury into another suburb of modern BritainFlag
-
57
Name: Michael Osborne on Feb 17, 2010Comments:Flag
-
58
Name: Pete Sandaman on Feb 17, 2010Comments: Road humps do not work. This is window dressing by the council, saying they are doing something when they know it will have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. They need to tackle the problem properly and come up with a proper solution rather than this half-arsed effort. And CONSULT with local residents who know where the problems are. I objectFlag
-
59
Name: Katie Foster on Feb 17, 2010Comments: I hate these things. I suffer with lower spinal arthritis and the constant bumping when my car goes over them causes real pain. I do not want them in my village.Flag
-
60
Name: Mr Tim Perry on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
61
Name: Dr N Harrison on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
62
Name: Mr Stephen Lloyd on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
63
Name: Mike Holdern on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
64
Name: Harry Talby on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
65
Name: Henry Winsley on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
66
Name: George Chalmers (Chairman) on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
67
Name: Paul Souter on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
68
Name: TH Holt on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
69
Name: Mr R Tobias on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As part of the Downlands Vintage Motor Car Club we object to these extra obstacles on the highway in the village of Kintbury. They are designed to punish the law abiding motorist as well as the motorist who may well be determined to break the law regardless of the posted speed limit. This is a hammer to crack a nut and it should be strongly objected to. We need police enforcement if there is a speeding issue, not 'vehicle and suspension destroyers'Flag
-
70
Name: Mr Pete Cross on Feb 17, 2010Comments: As a business owner in Kinbury I am very worried that this ill thought out scheme will scare off my customers as they will not want to come into Kintbury and may move their custom to Hungerford. This safety scheme will be another nail in the coffin for small shops and the Council will be responsible. But it will not help me at all to say "The council are to blame" if I cannot pay my bills. I assume the council or parish council will not compensate me for loss of earnings. Keep the small shops alive. DO NOT BRING IN THIS "SAFETY SCHEME"Flag
-
71
Name: The Christopher Family on Feb 17, 2010Comments: We have moved from a town where these were introduced. They were a nightmare and one reason for moving, as we had one very close to the house. The noise was terrible. Crockery would rattle and we got cracks in the walls. The council said it was nothing to do with them and must be a problem with the structure of the building! I do not want Kintbury to go the same way. The houses in this historic village were not designed to be shaken to bits by passing trucks. The council need to bring in some EXPERTS to design a scheme rather than this pathetic effort. WHAT ARE OUR LOCAL COUNCILLORS DOING ABOUT THIS??! I will be VERY angry if this goes in. I object to this decisionFlag
-
72
Name: Martine Newport on Feb 18, 2010Comments: I wish to object to the proposed road humps throughout Kintbury. I feel that they will destroy the beautiful village, causing increased fumes and noise. Previous experience has found that road humps do not work. Speed cameras would be more effective.Flag
-
73
Name: Ann Fieldhouse on Feb 18, 2010Comments: A speed camera would be more appropriate. Road humps damage cars and especially punish those living in the road when they are not the ones guilty of speeding.Flag
-
74
Name: Anonymous on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As well as the speed humps the no-waiting-at-any-time restrictions are probably a waste of money also. The double yellow lines by the corner stores in Kintbury are often covered by parked cars !! The no-parking yellows are not enforced now so who is going to be there to book motorists parking on the new restricted areas ?!! Also- The people who live opposit Lawrence Mead in The Crescent will have no-where to park except in the Crescent itself so where do those current residence who live in the actual Crescent park ? No doubt on Inkpen Road therefore causing another traffic hazard. I have not heard of 1 serious accident in the village centre in the 10 years I have lived here so why bring these barnpot ideas into force now ?Flag
-
75
Name: Archie McGregor on Feb 18, 2010Comments: This decision has already been made and the road humps are going in. This consultation is a sham and it makes a mockery of what is meant to be a democratic process which is meant to involve local residents. Shame on those Parish Councillors who have agreed to this. I object to this but it probably too late.Flag
-
76
Name: P PEARCEY on Feb 18, 2010Comments: I'm fed up with local government thinking they can force issues through. This is not right for Kintbury and I object.Flag
-
77
Name: Mrs AH Holderley on Feb 18, 2010Comments: Please preserve Kintbury! Do not destroy this wonderful village with your lumps in the road. I object. We need policemen to stop these speeders, not lumps of concrete!Flag
-
78
Name: Wendy Marshall on Feb 18, 2010Comments: Preserve Kintbury! Do not let the council destroy our village. I object to these proposalsFlag
-
79
Name: Harry Norman on Feb 18, 2010Comments: I object to this scheme. It is against best design and will destroy the village character. It will NOT meet the supposed aims of the council in lowering speeds and therefore is a waste of money and resources.Flag
-
80
Name: Peter & Helen Clark on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
81
Name: The Richards Family on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
82
Name: The De Faurs Family on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
83
Name: Mr & Mrs Guilliere on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
84
Name: Mr & Mrs Leesom on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
85
Name: Mr & Mrs Thomas on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
86
Name: Mr & Mrs GH Watson on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
87
Name: Mark Portersley on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
88
Name: Lynda Keighley on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
89
Name: Jasmine Feeley on Feb 18, 2010Comments: As members of CPRE we forcefully object to any measure which will destroy the very nature of the perfectly vibrant rural village of Kintbury. These schemes are for towns NOT villages. Leave rural areas alone! This scheme is inappropriate and should NOT be progressed.Flag
-
90
Name: Sharon Williams on Feb 18, 2010Comments: Waste of money and will cause more harm than good, not in keeping to the village.Flag
-
91
Name: Margaret Newport on Feb 19, 2010Comments: Speed humps will not deter the determined speeder. They are not eco-friendly. They and their accompanying signs, are unsightly and generate noise and fumes. Install discreet, low maintenance, digital cameras and SWITCH THEM ON! Reprimand the guilty and let the law-abiding residents enjoy their very special village in PEACE.Flag
-
92
Name: Anonymous on Feb 19, 2010Comments: It is my opinion that speed reducing humps, along with the other proposed measures, will help improve the village for pedestrians. Speed cameras only 'fine' abusers, some of whom can probably then afford to speed more than others. Speed humps on the other hand are such a pain that speeding up between them, braking etc becomes less desirable than keeping to a steady, slower speed.Flag
-
93
Name: Caroline Moore on Feb 19, 2010Comments:Flag
-
94
Name: Andrew Moore on Feb 19, 2010Comments:Flag
-
95
Name: Ash Singal on Feb 22, 2010Comments: It is my belief that if current laws and speed restrictions in Kinbtbury were properly implemented there would be little problem with speeding motorists. Attempts to reduce speed limits will affect a fairly select few drive at a speed appropriate to the prevailing conditions; of which the legal speed limit presents an absolute maximum. Those who habitually exceed this limit will continue to do so and those who choose to drive consistently below the legal limit regardless of conditions will simply get slower and will thus become a source of frustration. The introduction of road humps will not change any of this. They will increase noise, and wear and tear damage to vehicles regularly using routes through Kintbury. This will have the greatest negative on those living in the village.Flag
-
96
Name: Ann Singal on Feb 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
97
Name: Norma Westcock on Feb 22, 2010Comments: I do not want changes made to Kintbury, be they road humps or parking. Travelling in the village can be a problem sometimes, but that is acceptable if we want to retain our characterFlag
-
98
Name: Steve Jackaman on Feb 22, 2010Comments: Road humps are not welcome and I object to them in Kintbury. I thought they had to be pujt in where street lights were? I certainly do not want street lights and I do not want humps. Leave Kintbury alone.Flag
-
99
Name: EM Marshall on Feb 22, 2010Comments: If street lights are introduced as part of this scheme that is light polution and it will destroy the favourite hobby of my young family. We love the darkness you get in Kintbury as it allows all our family to spend hours with our telescopes watching the stars. Street lights equals deliberate vandalism by the council. If road humps are introduced as part of this scheme that is noise polution and it will destroy the character of the village. We love the peace you get in Kintbury. Road humps equals deliberate vandalism by the council. This proposal is NOT WANTED by residents.Flag
-
100
Name: Kathryn Jolner on Feb 22, 2010Comments: We do not want this scheme to be progressed on our roads. Please re-think this terrible scheme. Better still, get the police to stop speeders - not just rely on road humps. They are proved to damage cars and should not be installed.Flag