Is Eddington Avenue now a bypass from Huntingdon road to M11?

130 views
Skip to first unread message

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 12:47:52 PMJan 11
to
I'd be curious to the views of the group here

It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from Huntingdon road to the M11 - despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally pedestrianised) area.

This is creating quite a few issues - not least large motorway bound vehicles passing a school playground all day, kids unable to cross roads in the area (the school is needing to hire a lolly-pop person no less... as there is no formalised pedestrian crossings in the area) and a bypass through a "sustainable" neighbourhood.

Several near misses with children and vehicles lately. Accident waiting to happen. And then more generally, diesel next to schools is not a good mix.

Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and closure of Storey's Way?

Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 1:26:36 PMJan 11
to
In message <363c9ed7-37f2-465b...@googlegroups.com>, at
09:47:51 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>I'd be curious to the views of the group here
>
>It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
>Huntingdon road to the M11

Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

>- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
>nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
>pedestrianised) area.

I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
good to drive on.

>This is creating quite a few issues - not least large motorway bound
>vehicles passing a school playground all day,

What kinds of vehicles, and where are they originating from?

>kids unable to cross roads in the area (the school is needing to hire a
>lolly-pop person no less... as there is no formalised pedestrian
>crossings in the area) and a bypass through a "sustainable"
>neighbourhood.
>
>Several near misses with children and vehicles lately. Accident waiting
>to happen. And then more generally, diesel next to schools is not a
>good mix.
>
>Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
>connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction
>and closure of Storey's Way?

Large vehicles wouldn't have fitted there anyway. (I didn't know it had
been closed - is this permanent?)

>Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

Can't think of any useful change, short of trying to persuade these
vehicles to use Queen's Road and Barton Road, which has its own
drawbacks.
--
Roland Perry

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 2:42:11 PMJan 11
to
See below!

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:26:36 PM UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <363c9ed7-37f2-465b...@googlegroups.com>, at
> 09:47:51 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
> remarked:
> >I'd be curious to the views of the group here
> >
> >It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
> >Huntingdon road to the M11
> Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
> disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

CORRECT

> >- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
> >nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
> >pedestrianised) area.
> I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
> good to drive on.

Speed bump infested, still a rat run - alternates are going into Cambridge or going along A14. Both longer.


> >This is creating quite a few issues - not least large motorway bound
> >vehicles passing a school playground all day,
> What kinds of vehicles, and where are they originating from?

North Cambridge I assume. Mostly trade and goods vehicles and other obvious motorway traffic (lots of Range Rovers). You can see at junction to South of Eddington - 90% of traffic goes right (west) then left (south onto M11)
It is not construction traffic for Eddington, as that has a separate route from the West of the site.

> >kids unable to cross roads in the area (the school is needing to hire a
> >lolly-pop person no less... as there is no formalised pedestrian
> >crossings in the area) and a bypass through a "sustainable"
> >neighbourhood.
> >
> >Several near misses with children and vehicles lately. Accident waiting
> >to happen. And then more generally, diesel next to schools is not a
> >good mix.
> >
> >Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
> >connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction
> >and closure of Storey's Way?
> Large vehicles wouldn't have fitted there anyway. (I didn't know it had
> been closed - is this permanent?)

COVID closure, no oversight, no analysis. Now school has all the traffic passing instead. Rumour is that the great and the good of Storey's Way made a bargain with planners to stop opposition to Eddington in order to get it, then COVID meant no oversight and a modal filter was put in. Fwiw Storey's Way is just as unsuitable for through traffic as Eddington Way. Though far fewer children under 10 doddering about.


> >Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?
> Can't think of any useful change, short of trying to persuade these
> vehicles to use Queen's Road and Barton Road, which has its own
> drawbacks.

One way in and out would be logical method controlled with ANPR. Stops through traffic but does not stop access to sainsbury's / facilities. The road was not built as through road, so shouldn't be much opposition to closing it. It wasn't even there a few years ago! Cannot argue that "this has been a road since roman times!"


> --
> Roland Perry

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 3:32:26 PMJan 11
to
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 18:24:04 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <363c9ed7-37f2-465b...@googlegroups.com>, at
>09:47:51 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
>remarked:
>>I'd be curious to the views of the group here
>>
>>It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
>>Huntingdon road to the M11
>
>Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
>disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).

I've tested it with four different online map routers, and they all take
you that way. Google Maps, in its notes, explicitly states that it's the
"Fastest route now, avoids road closure on Storey's Way".

>>- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
>>nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
>>pedestrianised) area.
>
>I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
>good to drive on.

As eny fule kno, speed bumps are a sekrit sign meaning "handy short cut
this way".

Mark

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 3:45:51 PMJan 11
to
Er no, in the case of Newmarket, they mean 'this is the one and only
main road out towards Clare, and we will destroy your car if you take
this at more than 15mph, although its a 30mph limit, because we hate you
and your car'. Every single 'road imporovement' made makes things much
much worse...



--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

Theo

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:00:04 PMJan 11
to
Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
> connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
> closure of Storey's Way?

Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
thought process was something like:

'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
opportunity to build one'
'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
bumps'

In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

> Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?

What changes would you suggest?

In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?

Theo

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:13:06 PMJan 11
to
If that's true - why wasn't the road built to a standard of what is a defacto A road (connection between two A roads) and to a motorway?

Also why was it built alongside a school?

Seems like anti-car sustainability has actually created a worse.issue than building a "proper" road north south closer to the M11.... So now Eddington has a traffic problem, kids have a pollution/safety problem...and drivers have a very inconvenient route to the motorway.


My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.


Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:37:54 PMJan 11
to
On 11/01/2022 21:00, Theo wrote:
> Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
>> connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
>> closure of Storey's Way?
>
> Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
> planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
> thought process was something like:
>
> 'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
> 'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
> opportunity to build one'
> 'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
> bumps'
>
> In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
> one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
> rat run, traffic is using it as designed.

Depends who you think designed it, and which version of which document
you're looking at (not all of which you'll be able to find, because
drafts aren't always published somewhere easy to find).

The original concept was to have a wiggly slow incomprehensible local
road so that people who lived there could get out either way - so
wouldn't have to decide on which side of a barrier to buy their house,
constraining on which side everyone in the household would have to work
or go to school forever more - but it would be too much of a pain to use
as a rat run, even if you could find it. The obvious through road had to
be there for decent bus transport but was to have a bus gate so that it
couldn't be used as a rat run.

Every now and then the county council tried to sneak in changes to turn
the wiggly connection into a more useful rat run. We on the joint
committee had, several times IIRC, to remind them of the original design
principles and force them to change it back into a local road less
obviously useful as a rat run.

Since then Storey's Way has been closed (and satnav is now on
everybody's phone rather than just something built into high end cars -
not quite sure of the timescale of that though). A prediction of rat
running through Eddington *should* have been an output from the
modelling of the Storey's Way closure, but I wasn't involved then.

>> Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?
>
> What changes would you suggest?
>
> In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
> if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
> people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?

The motivation behind having two new medium sized supermarkets in the
north of the city, rather than one large one and a corner shop, was the
hope that at least one of them would be taken by someone other than
Tesco, who we felt had enough shops in the city already leaving quite a
few people with not much of a real choice. A preference for particular
tenants couldn't be written into planning policy though, so this was
just a hope.

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:45:03 PMJan 11
to
Thanks for this input Tim. I do not believe there was any modelling re Storey's Way - it was done quickly under covid legislation.
I could not imagine anyone wanting to defend that position of a road alongside a school in a public forum
Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

Do you think there is a chance for Eddington residents to get it changed to same way in and out (from either direction)?

Not to mention the bollards not operational due to "covid"...so now even the pedestrian area is a through route.

It's really poor planning and as I said, an accident waiting to happen.



Theo

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 6:07:39 PMJan 11
to
Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
> through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
> problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
parcel, continue on with delivery round.

Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
to evidence why you had to go there.

In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

Theo

Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 6:19:19 PMJan 11
to
On 11/01/2022 23:07, Theo wrote:
>
> Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
> - staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
> authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
> have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
> everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard
> to evidence why you had to go there.
>
> In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
> think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way to work)
> to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some commuters, but
> not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).

I've also seen it claimed that it works at Addenbrookes by assuming that
if you take a while to transit you probably stopped off for a real
reason. I have entered the site from one side, collected a patient, and
left from the other side, and nobody asked me to justify what I was doing.

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 12:25:52 AMJan 12
to
Minimum 20 minutes in Eddington would do the trick. Everyone in Eddington recognises the need for cars - but the road was not designed as an M11 bypass. That's the core issue.

Regarding road next to school - key difference is that this is a new road and a new school. I'd like to see a planner stand up and say an effective A-road (connecting two A-roads and a motorway junction) is best placed next to a school....

I suspect, sadly, it will take an incident with a motorway bound truck for this to be recognised

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 1:48:20 AMJan 12
to
In message <vvprtg5l99qa2nict...@4ax.com>, at 20:32:19 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 18:24:04 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <363c9ed7-37f2-465b...@googlegroups.com>, at
>>09:47:51 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
>>remarked:
>>>I'd be curious to the views of the group here
>>>
>>>It appears that Eddington Avenue is now a de-facto bypass from
>>>Huntingdon road to the M11
>>
>>Presumably to be going southbound on the M11, which is a function of the
>>disastrous A1307 layout (only north-facing).
>
>I've tested it with four different online map routers, and they all take
>you that way. Google Maps, in its notes, explicitly states that it's the
>"Fastest route now, avoids road closure on Storey's Way".

Starting where though? By the time you get to Histon Road corridor (or
any further west) it'd be quicker to go up to the A14.

And wasn't there supposed to be a new road from NIAB to Orchard Park?

>>>- despite being a small road with 20mph limits going past a school a
>>>nursery and a heavily pedestrianised (though I note, not formally
>>>pedestrianised) area.
>>
>>I thought it was infested with speed bumps, which doesn't make it very
>>good to drive on.
>
>As eny fule kno, speed bumps are a sekrit sign meaning "handy short cut
>this way".
>
>Mark

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 1:48:20 AMJan 12
to
In message <srktbf$a5e$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:37:51 on Tue, 11 Jan
2022, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>The motivation behind having two new medium sized supermarkets in the
>north of the city, rather than one large one and a corner shop, was the
>hope that at least one of them would be taken by someone other than Tesco

What's the other one? Aldi perhaps.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 1:48:20 AMJan 12
to
In message <1e53e3ba-a1bb-46a3...@googlegroups.com>, at
13:13:05 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:00:04 PM UTC, Theo wrote:
>> Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Was this intended? Or a by-product of poor planning and a lack of
>> > connectivity between North/North-West Cambridge and the M11 junction and
>> > closure of Storey's Way?

>> Tim might be able to shed light, since understand he was closer to the
>> planning process at the time, but from what he said I think the general
>> thought process was something like:
>>
>> 'We need a connection between Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road'
>> 'We're building Eddington which is going to need roads, so that's a good
>> opportunity to build one'

>> 'We don't want it to have fast traffic, so we'll make it curvy and fit speed
>> bumps'
>>
>> In other words I got the impression it was an intended to do two functions -
>> one as connectivity and one as local road for Eddington. And so it's not a
>> rat run, traffic is using it as designed.
>> > Any thoughts on the chances it will be recognised and changed, somehow?
>> What changes would you suggest?
>>
>> In particular, given Sainsbury's has a big catchment to the north and west,
>> if you tried to block it up, how would you do that while still allowing
>> people to access Sainsbury's car park from both sides?
>
>If that's true - why wasn't the road built to a standard of what is a
>defacto A road (connection between two A roads) and to a motorway?
>
>Also why was it built alongside a school?

A bit like "why did they build Windsor Castle under the Heathrow
flight-path, perhaps the school should have been further away from the
through route, or have a car park or something so children don't have to
mix with traffic. Local pedestrian children (are there any? I thought it
was one-year foreign students living there mainly) could have a grade
separated route.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 2:08:20 AMJan 12
to
In message <e4ad826d-5d04-42a6...@googlegroups.com>, at
13:45:02 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:

> I could not imagine anyone wanting to defend that position of a road
>alongside a school in a public forum

>Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
>traffic past a school is potentially illegal?

This is the part which was puzzling me, because the school(s) appear to
be on the no-through-route part anyway.

>Do you think there is a chance for Eddington residents to get it changed
>to same way in and out (from either direction)?

They tried that at Addenbrookes, but the application of TROs to enforce
it was controversial. I'm not even sure they did eventually implement
it. Indeed, it would be very unfair on patients/staff and their "taxi
dads" if they did, because I often find it convenient to enter on th
West side (to avoid getting stuck in jams on the Ring Road, but then
exit towards the City to do some errands, while my patient [who isn't
allowed to be accompanied indoors at the moment] kicks their heels at a
typically one-hour-late-running clinic.

>Not to mention the bollards not operational due to "covid"...so now even
>the pedestrian area is a through route.

I see, so it might change back quite soon. JOOI, in what way does
disabling the bollards reduce the spread of disease?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 2:08:21 AMJan 12
to
In message <srl39l$frb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:19:17 on Tue, 11 Jan
2022, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
I suppose they could ANPR cars seen in the vicinity of Outpatients (the
road which then goes past A&E to the main car park) and delete them from
the list of "offenders".

I'm annoyed by the speed-control signage on Mary Archer way (which is
still largely unbuilt-upon) that flashes eg <<25, SLOW DOWN>> when it's
a 30mph limit. If I were her I'd try to get it fixed, because some of
the mud sticks!
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 2:08:21 AMJan 12
to
In message <BBe*Tn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:07:35 on Tue,
11 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
>> through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
>> problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.
>
>I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
>through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
>from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
>parcel, continue on with delivery round.
>
>Addenbrookes do it,

Do they? I've done many through-trips [always with one stop usually at
the outpatients or Rosie entrance/exit] and never got a ticket.

>but there the number of uses are a bit more constrained
>- staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
>authorities, patients have a paper trail,

Barely, appointments are often done by SMS these days.

>deliveries usually do, visitors have a named patient who has a paper
>trail. Unless the ANPR requires everyone to take and keep a receipt
>when they buy a pint of milk, it's hard to evidence why you had to go
>there.
>
>In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders,

Do you mean "almost daily" offenders?

> because I think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on
>the way to work) to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might
>catch some commuters, but not randoms (although dropping it from satnav
>might filter those).
>
>Theo

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 2:18:21 AMJan 12
to
In message <ab6236f0-193f-4654...@googlegroups.com>, at
21:25:51 on Tue, 11 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:19:19 PM UTC, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 11/01/2022 23:07, Theo wrote:
>> >
>> > Addenbrookes do it, but there the number of uses are a bit more
>> >constrained
>> > - staff, patients, visitors or deliveries. Staff are known to the
>> > authorities, patients have a paper trail, deliveries usually do, visitors
>> > have a named patient who has a paper trail. Unless the ANPR requires
>> > everyone to take and keep a receipt when they buy a pint of milk,
>> >it's hard
>> > to evidence why you had to go there.
>> >
>> > In reality I think Addenbrookes only pursue repeat offenders, because I
>> > think there's too much noise (eg dropping off a patient on the way
>> >to work)
>> > to catch everyone. And so ANPR at Eddington might catch some
>> >commuters, but
>> > not randoms (although dropping it from satnav might filter those).
>> I've also seen it claimed that it works at Addenbrookes by assuming that
>> if you take a while to transit you probably stopped off for a real
>> reason. I have entered the site from one side, collected a patient, and
>> left from the other side, and nobody asked me to justify what I was doing.
>
>Minimum 20 minutes in Eddington would do the trick.

Can you find the approved sign for that in the Traffic Manual? It's a
bit like the Ely station underpass, and the lack of a sign which says
"private cars only". [Yes, I know such signs exist at Regents Park in
London, but that's got very special rules]

>Everyone in Eddington recognises the need for cars - but the road was
>not designed as an M11 bypass. That's the core issue.

I think just as important a core issue is the lack of at slip road at
Girton Interchange for northbound local traffic to turn towards London.

>Regarding road next to school - key difference is that this is a new
>road and a new school. I'd like to see a planner stand up and say an
>effective A-road (connecting two A-roads and a motorway junction) is
>best placed next to a school....
>
>I suspect, sadly, it will take an incident with a motorway bound truck
>for this to be recognised

How about a 7.5 ton weight limit [except for loading]? Now there *is* a
sign for that. The central core of Ely is protected in that way and I
have almost never seen an HGV infringe it.
--
Roland Perry

Andrew

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 2:57:36 AMJan 12
to
On 11/01/2022 21:13, Owen Scarrott wrote:

> My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.
>
>
So how would you then get from say, Girton to the M11 south?

The options seem to be rat-run through Storeys Way (if it was open).
Rat-run through Eddington or rat-run through Madingley. Other options
are to join all the traffic trying to get in to Cambridge on Huntingdon
Road to go through Shelly Row, rat-run through Oxford Road and out on
Histon Road to the A14 or join the A14 going North all the way to Bar
Hill, turn around and come back again.

None are ideal.

ianb

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:05:40 AMJan 12
to
On 11/01/2022 23:33, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0800 (PST)
> Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
>> traffic past a school is potentially illegal?
>
> There are many schools with roads running past them, so I can't see how
> that could be the case.
>

The main entrance to the school,and where the parents park their cars
is not on the rat run but on the direct route before the bus stop.
Closing the rat run would not improve safety or air quality at the front
of the school, and the playground is at the back on the west side

ian


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:31:41 AMJan 12
to
On 12/01/2022 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> I'm annoyed by the speed-control signage on Mary Archer way (which is
> still largely unbuilt-upon) that flashes eg <<25, SLOW DOWN>> when it's
> a 30mph limit. If I were her I'd try to get it fixed, because some of
> the mud sticks!

Used to attend meetings with her, which would have been an appropriate
forum in which to make such a suggestion.

Main thing I remember about her is that she doesn't take someone else
doing the chairing - if she's in a meeting she's in charge.

Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:34:31 AMJan 12
to
On 12/01/2022 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> JOOI, in what way does disabling the bollards reduce the spread of
> disease?

Just a guess: makes it easier for people to use cars, thus reducing
infections taking place in buses and taxis?

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:50:44 AMJan 12
to
The main area of playground runs parallel to Eddington Avenue.
The bollarded/supposedly pedestrian area (no longer operational, now the through cut - with COVID and staff working remotely being the reasoning, since Feb 2020) is infront of the main entrance.
Reducing traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles on diesel, would improve air quality.

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:51:43 AMJan 12
to
There is no such second derivative thinking. It was/is because the bollards need someone onsite (apparently) because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard. Given the Transport staff of Eddington work remotely, therefore they cannot operate the bollards.

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:54:27 AMJan 12
to
Agree - the difference is that the planners had (and still do, phase II could resolve this) an opportunity to plan holistically with Eddington and an opportunity to put a connecting road parallel to M11, likely paid for by the developer.... Instead, Eddington Ave becoming the new rat run is incomprehensibly poor planning - next to a school, in a highly densely populated "sustainable" area, with bikes paths which require the crossing of roads... and no formalised pedestrian crossings!

Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:54:41 AMJan 12
to
On 12/01/2022 08:51, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>
> because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard

If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
have chosen to create?

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 4:00:19 AMJan 12
to
Honestly, the mind boggles.

It has created quite an unsafe situation as pedestrians think they have right of way, but any car can also go through. Sticky tape has crossed out the "no access for vehicles other than taxis / buses 7-7" - but as I understand when the local councillor asked about it, they received a "non-response"

Alan

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 4:48:48 AMJan 12
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:54:41 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12/01/2022 08:51, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>> because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard
>
> If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
> their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
> have chosen to create?
>

And if the driver's insurer takes a week to agree to sort it out, what
happens to the authorised ( and presumably emergency ) vehicles that
cannot get through in that time?

Better to have someone "official" to do it, and then follow up with the
driver afterwards.

--
Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:26:16 AMJan 12
to
In message <srm3lb$bpa$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:31:40 on Wed, 12 Jan
2022, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
In all the meetings with big-wigs I've attended the chair is supposed to
be (and generally is) impartial. More of a referee. I suppose the
Commons Speaker is the extreme example.

Therefore if that model applied (I'm not saying it didn't) how would she
ever be able to attend a meeting and give an opinion about anything?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:36:16 AMJan 12
to
In message <srm1lf$1q8$1...@dont-email.me>, at 07:57:33 on Wed, 12 Jan
2022, Andrew <andrew...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>On 11/01/2022 21:13, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>
>> My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't
>>have through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves
>>the problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily
>>do it.
>>
>So how would you then get from say, Girton to the M11 south?

Where in Girton are all these HGVs coming from? Is there a stealth
industrial park, or something?

>The options seem to be rat-run through Storeys Way (if it was open).
>Rat-run through Eddington or rat-run through Madingley. Other options
>are to join all the traffic trying to get in to Cambridge on Huntingdon
>Road to go through Shelly Row, rat-run through Oxford Road and out on
>Histon Road to the A14 or join the A14 going North all the way to Bar
>Hill, turn around and come back again.
>
>None are ideal.

Having a fiddle with Google Maps, the "flipping point" is the junction
of Storeys Way and Huntingdon Road. North of there it says Eddington,
south of there the Mount Pleasant one-way system and Madingley Road.

On the other hand it you set a destination of Churchill College, the top
route is always Mount Pleasant, although if you are sufficiently far up
Huntingdon Road it offers Eddington as second-best.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:36:16 AMJan 12
to
In message <d00d2292-55c9-4eba...@googlegroups.com>, at
00:50:43 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:05:40 AM UTC, ianb wrote:
>> On 11/01/2022 23:33, Brian Morrison wrote:
>> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0800 (PST)
>> > Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you think there is a legal argument that effectively re routing
>> >> traffic past a school is potentially illegal?
>> >
>> > There are many schools with roads running past them, so I can't see how
>> > that could be the case.
>>
>> The main entrance to the school,and where the parents park their cars
>> is not on the rat run but on the direct route before the bus stop.
>> Closing the rat run would not improve safety or air quality at the front
>> of the school, and the playground is at the back on the west side
>
>The main area of playground runs parallel to Eddington Avenue.
>The bollarded/supposedly pedestrian area (no longer operational, now
>the through cut - with COVID and staff working remotely being the
>reasoning, since Feb 2020) is infront of the main entrance.
>Reducing traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles on diesel, would
>improve air quality.

Perhaps you could jot down the branding of some of these HGVs, because
I'm still unsighted as to where they are starting from, such that they
need to be going through Eddington at all (rather than for example via
the Histon intersection on the A14).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:36:17 AMJan 12
to
In message <64c20a0a-d8e3-40a2...@googlegroups.com>, at
00:51:42 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:34:31 AM UTC, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 12/01/2022 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>> >
>> > JOOI, in what way does disabling the bollards reduce the spread of
>> > disease?
>> Just a guess: makes it easier for people to use cars, thus reducing
>> infections taking place in buses and taxis?
>> --
>> Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
>> www.brettward.co.uk
>
>There is no such second derivative thinking. It was/is because the
>bollards need someone onsite (apparently) because an UBER once was
>stuck on a raised bollard.

Boo Hoo. They can wait until someone comes to rescue them.

>Given the Transport staff of Eddington work remotely, therefore they
>cannot operate the bollards.

Working from home has always been something you do "if possible". There
are plenty of "boots on the ground" jobs you can't.

If having left the bollards permanently open, a pedestrian is struck by
a car, do the emergency services work from home?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:56:17 AMJan 12
to
In message <op.1fvmvmbal776by@alansdell>, at 09:48:47 on Wed, 12 Jan
2022, Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:54:41 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2022 08:51, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>>> because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard
>>
>> If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it
>>be their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the
>>mess they have chosen to create?
>
>And if the driver's insurer takes a week to agree to sort it out, what
>happens to the authorised ( and presumably emergency ) vehicles that
>cannot get through in that time?

There are commercial recovery services which will attend somewhere like
that in half an hour. Emergency vehicles (how many dozen a day of
those?) can take the rat-run, if the road really is temporarily
completely impassable (which sounds like more poor design).

>Better to have someone "official" to do it, and then follow up with the
>driver afterwards.

So these are private recovery services? A typical "can't do that from
home".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:56:17 AMJan 12
to
In message <40f74c8e-707d-40f7...@googlegroups.com>, at
01:00:17 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:54:41 AM UTC, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 12/01/2022 08:51, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>> >
>> > because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard
>> If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
>> their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
>> have chosen to create?
>
>Honestly, the mind boggles.
>
>It has created quite an unsafe situation as pedestrians think they have
>right of way,

You think(sic) by now they'd have realised they don't!

>but any car can also go through. Sticky tape has crossed out the "no
>access for vehicles other than taxis / buses 7-7"

In my experience as a pedestrian, areas with just taxis and buses are
often more dangerous than with regular traffic. The drivers are more
self-entitled, and because of the low traffic levels, travelling faster.

>- but as I understand when the local councillor asked about it, they
>received a "non-response"

They gave up rather easily it seems.
--
Roland Perry

Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 7:56:59 AMJan 12
to
On 12/01/2022 10:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> Main thing I remember about her is that she doesn't take someone else
>> doing the chairing - if she's in a meeting she's in charge.
>
> In all the meetings with big-wigs I've attended the chair is supposed to
> be (and generally is) impartial. More of a referee. I suppose the
> Commons Speaker is the extreme example.
>
> Therefore if that model applied (I'm not saying it didn't) how would she
> ever be able to attend a meeting and give an opinion about anything?

This was a city council (and maybe some other councils, don't remember)
<-> Addenbrooke's liaison meeting. The chair rotated. She always acted
as if she was in charge regardless of whether she was the chair on that
occasion. I decided it was least trouble to just let her get on with it
when I was nominally chairing - it wasn't a formal legal decision making
body, so there was no significant risk.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 8:54:21 AMJan 12
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:54:41 +0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 12/01/2022 08:51, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>>
>> because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard
>
>If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
>their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
>have chosen to create?

It depends on the location. If the bollards protect a bus route, then,
for the sake of the bus operators and their customers, the bollards must
be cleared as soon as possible if blocked (or fixed as soon as possible,
including manually lowering them pending repair, if they go wrong).
Similarly if the bollards control a route that is likely to be used by
emergency vehicles.

If the damage or blockage is due to an unauthorised user coming into
contact with the bollards, then they can be billed for that
retrospectively, but you can't wait for them to clear up themselves, you
need to get them out of the way first. In practice, that often requires
staff either on site or on call at a convenient location nearby.

If the bollards merely protect a pedestrian area, where the only valid
users during their hours of operation are service vehicles (and
emergency vehicles have a suitable alternative route), then it's a lot
less urgent. In which case, remote monitoring and simply adding them to
the "needs a fix" list in case of damage or failure is acceptable.

Mark

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 9:06:57 AMJan 12
to
In message <9pmttg1qmg08o97jl...@4ax.com>, at 13:54:14 on
Wed, 12 Jan 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:54:41 +0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 12/01/2022 08:51, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>>>
>>> because an UBER once was stuck on a raised bollard
>>
>>If someone unauthorised decides to drive into bollards shouldn't it be
>>their responsibility to find, and pay for, someone to fix the mess they
>>have chosen to create?
>
>It depends on the location. If the bollards protect a bus route, then,
>for the sake of the bus operators and their customers, the bollards must
>be cleared as soon as possible if blocked (or fixed as soon as possible,
>including manually lowering them pending repair, if they go wrong).
>Similarly if the bollards control a route that is likely to be used by
>emergency vehicles.
>
>If the damage or blockage is due to an unauthorised user coming into
>contact with the bollards, then they can be billed for that
>retrospectively, but you can't wait for them to clear up themselves, you
>need to get them out of the way first. In practice, that often requires
>staff either on site or on call at a convenient location nearby.
>
>If the bollards merely protect a pedestrian area, where the only valid
>users during their hours of operation are service vehicles (and

There's an "if" missing here

>emergency vehicles have a suitable alternative route),

Although of course a lot of places with bollards have such alternative
routes, including Eddington!

>then it's a lot less urgent. In which case, remote monitoring and
>simply adding them to the "needs a fix" list in case of damage or
>failure is acceptable.

--
Roland Perry

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 7:43:52 PMJan 12
to
Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <BBe*Tn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:07:35 on Tue,
> 11 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
>>> through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
>>> problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.

I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
(etc.) route to their destination.

I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

>>I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
>>through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
>>from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
>>parcel, continue on with delivery round.
>>
>>Addenbrookes do it,
>
> Do they? I've done many through-trips [always with one stop usually at
> the outpatients or Rosie entrance/exit] and never got a ticket.

Well that's the point, isn't it? You've stopped for a valid reason
so you're not a rat-runner.

I assume that the system works on some sort of minimum transit time.

I have no idea what their cut-off time is - and one would
hope that in the event that you do a lightning-quick drop-off
you'd be able to appeal the ticket with evidence of an appointment.

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 2:59:13 AMJan 13
to
In message <srnsk6$mpv$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:43:50 on Thu, 13 Jan
2022, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <BBe*Tn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:07:35 on Tue,
>> 11 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> My suggestion would be to make it a same way in as out - so you don't have
>>>> through traffic but people can access from either side. Solves the
>>>> problem of motorway traffic and allows access. ANPR could easily do it.
>
>I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
>parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
>allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
>(etc.) route to their destination.
>
>I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
>Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.

But their Plan A was to have a TRO applied to those private roads, which
may or may not hold water. If they are relying upon the signage at the
entry points forming a contract with drivers, where they can apply
penalties (a bit like private car parks) if not followed to the letter,
I think it might make an interesting[tm] court case one day.

Let alone a public body like a Hospital Trust making itself potentially
inaccessible to people as a result of making all the access over private
roads.

>>>I'm not sure that would be that practical, because people are often making
>>>through journeys. eg drive to school, drop child off, drive to work. Drive
>>>from home to Sainsbury's, buy pint of milk, drive to destination. Drop off
>>>parcel, continue on with delivery round.
>>>
>>>Addenbrookes do it,
>>
>> Do they? I've done many through-trips [always with one stop usually at
>> the outpatients or Rosie entrance/exit] and never got a ticket.
>
>Well that's the point, isn't it? You've stopped for a valid reason
>so you're not a rat-runner.
>
>I assume that the system works on some sort of minimum transit time.
>
>I have no idea what their cut-off time is - and one would
>hope that in the event that you do a lightning-quick drop-off
>you'd be able to appeal the ticket with evidence of an appointment.

The hospital already has the evidence of any appointment - in the
records of the patient. I wonder if "because of GDPR" they could access
that data if I simply nominated the patient I was allegedly ferrying?

There's no particular reason the patient kept their appointment letter,
assuming it ever arrived. Quite a lot is done by website/SMS nowadays.
And most (but not all) A&E patients don't have "appointments".

Although of course, I haven't just ferried patients, also members of
staff [both clinical and non-clinical], and not just to the hospital -
there are other facilities/ organisations within the site.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Bird

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 7:26:19 AMJan 13
to
On 13/01/2022 00:43, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
<snip>
> I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
> parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
> allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
> (etc.) route to their destination.
>
> I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
> Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.
>
<snip>

Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.

Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
counties they operate.

PB

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 8:35:16 AMJan 13
to
In message <srp5pa$s1f$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:26:18 on Thu, 13 Jan
2022, Paul Bird <pa...@nospamcamtutor.co.uk> remarked:
Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.
--
Roland Perry

Owen Scarrott

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 11:07:25 AMJan 13
to
Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto main routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has used this extensively.

Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions - city council?
a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis of the impact on alternate routes, particularly running next to a school and through the centre of town?
b. Planning Eddington Ave as a thoroughfare with no thought as to the consequence of it being used as an effective A-road, but not built to the standards of an A-road?

And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It seems extremely well informed!

Thanks again for the input / thoughts / views.

Tim Ward

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 11:59:50 AMJan 13
to
On 13/01/2022 16:07, Owen Scarrott wrote:
>
> Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto
> main routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has
> used this extensively.
>
> Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions -
> city council? a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis
> of the impact on alternate routes, particularly running next to a
> school and through the centre of town? b. Planning Eddington Ave as a
> thoroughfare with no thought as to the consequence of it being used
> as an effective A-road, but not built to the standards of an A-road?

Went through the joint committee previously mentioned for the overall
original planning. Any more recent changes to transport arrangements are
vastly more likely to have been the county council than the city council.

> And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It
> seems extremely well informed!

Are you asking "what is news:cam.misc"? - that's either a short answer -
"it's not usenet" - or a long answer - which I think is on a web page
somewhere, but I can't remember where.

Roland Perry

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 12:09:43 PMJan 13
to
In message <fc08049c-7649-4908...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:07:23 on Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Owen Scarrott <owen.s...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:35:16 PM UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <srp5pa$s1f$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:26:18 on Thu, 13 Jan
>> 2022, Paul Bird <pa...@nospamcamtutor.co.uk> remarked:
>> >On 13/01/2022 00:43, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> I met some county council bods at a meeting regarding residential
>> >> parking. I raised ANPR as a way of preventing rat-running, but
>> >> allowing residents to choose the quickest and least-polluting
>> >> (etc.) route to their destination.
>>
>> >> I was informed that it was not legally possible on public roads;
>>
>> >> Addenbrooke's can do it because it's private land.
>> >>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Doesn't seem to bother the police who have a UK wide network of ANPR
>> >cameras, never mind the specialist networks to protect parts of London.
>> >
>> >Perhaps they operate under different rules from the councils in whose
>> >counties they operate.

>> Last time I looked, Addenbrookes was a hospital trust, not a county
>> council. And while the police have various valid reasons for using ANPR,
>> it won't include preventing rat-running - which probably isn't a crime.
>
>Interesting thoughts. London councils use ANPR to keep people onto main
>routes rather than "rat runs". Hammersmith in particularly has used
>this extensively.

Can you post a streetview[tm] of one of the signs?

>Back to the original query - who would have made these decisions - city
>council?

>a. To close Storey's way (permanently) without analysis of the impact
>on alternate routes, particularly running next to a school and through
>the centre of town?

No idea. Highways are usually a County matter.

>b. Planning Eddington Ave as a thoroughfare with no thought as to the
>consequence of it being used as an effective A-road, but not built to
>the standards of an A-road?

I think Tim has explained most of that.

>And may I ask what is this forum that I stumbled upon (exactly)? It
>seems extremely well informed!

It's Usenet geeks from the 1990's who live in Cambridge.
--
Roland Perry

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 1:23:31 PMJan 13
to
On 13/01/2022 16:07, Owen Scarrott wrote:
Cambridge Usenetters

Google Usenet and then dont use 'google groups' which are in the end a
copyright infringement of the One True Usenet, Wot Invented Trolls,
Flame Wars and Kill Files'


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 1:24:06 PMJan 13