On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:46:08 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

As a driver, I destest cul-de-sacking. If a road exists, it should be there
for through traffic to use as well as residential traffic. I'd like to see
more use made of signs such as "this is not the preferred route" to
discourage through traffic, but leaving the road open and free of physical
restrictions so that it can still be used as a fall-back if an exceptional
circumstance (accident, road works) causes jams on the main route.

What I dislike more is the ridiculous situation which is caused by
traffic-calming, and in particular speed bumps.

From my house, the main (residential) route out to the main road is
full of speedbumps and table junctions, mostly so high that they could
be considered to, over time, have a detrimental effect on my
suspension at whatever speed they are taken. There is an alternative
route through tiny back streets which has fewer and less severe bumps.
Guess which way I (and others) go? Were the bumps not present, I
would take the main route without even thinking about it.

There's an interesting twist on the OP's scenario by me, as well. The
road concerned is a through road, but has cul-de-sac signs on it.
Thus, people don't tend to go down there to use it as a through route
(though I do often cut through on my bike). I believe the reason for
it is that, during building work, it was closed off - but the signs
have not for whatever reason been removed.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain