Villagers suffer ‘nightmare’ as roadworks start

.

.

First published in News

THE first day of major roadworks along the A420 were described as a ‘nightmare’ by locals in Shrivenham yesterday.

Oxfordshire County Council has closed the Shrivenham bypass for seven weeks meaning up to 20,000 extra vehicles will now pass through the village.

Residents described the road as being blocked solid with traffic while some businesses said that trade had been affected.

Trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes were not supposed to be passing through Shrivenham and instead going along the M4, but some said lorries had been ignoring the diversion.

Earlier this week, the parish council asked motorists to try to avoid the route if possible, but it was busy throughout the day yesterday, with morning and evening rush hour being particularly bad.

Julie Collins, who works at Bloomfields Deli, said: “We were anticipating the extra traffic so I set off for work early but it didn’t make much difference.

“It was a nightmare and the cars were bumper to bumper. The traffic was moving very slowly.

“They’re meant to be stopping lorries which aren’t delivering, but we’ve seen quite a few come though.”

The road is shut from the Bourton Junction up to Watchfield Roundabout.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:53am Thu 24 Jul 14

JanetJ says...

This is a nightmare for Swindon residents working in Oxford - why ever couldn't it have been done in stages? The alternative route suggested (vis M4 Newbury) adds miles to the journey - that will add up over 7 weeks and would significantly add to the congestion already on the A34. Also if the Council plan is that HGV's have to use the alternative route - why aren't they? and whos responsibility is it to make them?
This is a nightmare for Swindon residents working in Oxford - why ever couldn't it have been done in stages? The alternative route suggested (vis M4 Newbury) adds miles to the journey - that will add up over 7 weeks and would significantly add to the congestion already on the A34. Also if the Council plan is that HGV's have to use the alternative route - why aren't they? and whos responsibility is it to make them? JanetJ
  • Score: 4

10:42am Thu 24 Jul 14

Neonlights says...

"Trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes were not supposed to be passing through Shrivenham and instead going along the M4, but some said lorries had been ignoring the diversion. "

Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?

Also, why couldn't the A420 be resurfaced in stages like it was done several years ago instead of completely closing it?
"Trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes were not supposed to be passing through Shrivenham and instead going along the M4, but some said lorries had been ignoring the diversion. " Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs? Also, why couldn't the A420 be resurfaced in stages like it was done several years ago instead of completely closing it? Neonlights
  • Score: 7

12:04pm Thu 24 Jul 14

icba1957 says...

"Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?"

Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try!
"Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?" Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try! icba1957
  • Score: -3

1:30pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Doctor69 says...

to be fair, if it affects people from swindon, or those heading to that dump, it can only be a good thing. OUFC
to be fair, if it affects people from swindon, or those heading to that dump, it can only be a good thing. OUFC Doctor69
  • Score: -4

1:47pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Neonlights says...

icba1957 wrote:
"Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?"

Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try!
Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post?

If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: "Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?" Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try![/p][/quote]Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post? If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them. Neonlights
  • Score: 6

4:32pm Thu 24 Jul 14

icba1957 says...

Neonlights wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
"Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?"

Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try!
Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post?

If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.
Yes I did read your post, but unless there is a (Temporary) Traffic Order in place any signs will only be advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, just like the signs in Abingdon which suggest lorries use the A34/M4.

What do the signs actually say (I assume you have seen them to be such an expert)?
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: "Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?" Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try![/p][/quote]Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post? If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.[/p][/quote]Yes I did read your post, but unless there is a (Temporary) Traffic Order in place any signs will only be advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, just like the signs in Abingdon which suggest lorries use the A34/M4. What do the signs actually say (I assume you have seen them to be such an expert)? icba1957
  • Score: -3

11:00am Fri 25 Jul 14

Neonlights says...

icba1957 wrote:
Neonlights wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
"Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?"

Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try!
Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post?

If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.
Yes I did read your post, but unless there is a (Temporary) Traffic Order in place any signs will only be advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, just like the signs in Abingdon which suggest lorries use the A34/M4.

What do the signs actually say (I assume you have seen them to be such an expert)?
Without checking, I'm assuming there is a weight limit restriction through Shrivenham, hence why trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes are not supposed to be passing through it.

I'm not an expert, but if I were to see a sign suggesting to use an alternate route along with the reasons why, then I'm not daft enough to ignore it.

Have you actually seen the signs yourself?
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: "Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?" Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try![/p][/quote]Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post? If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.[/p][/quote]Yes I did read your post, but unless there is a (Temporary) Traffic Order in place any signs will only be advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, just like the signs in Abingdon which suggest lorries use the A34/M4. What do the signs actually say (I assume you have seen them to be such an expert)?[/p][/quote]Without checking, I'm assuming there is a weight limit restriction through Shrivenham, hence why trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes are not supposed to be passing through it. I'm not an expert, but if I were to see a sign suggesting to use an alternate route along with the reasons why, then I'm not daft enough to ignore it. Have you actually seen the signs yourself? Neonlights
  • Score: 1

11:45am Fri 25 Jul 14

icba1957 says...

Neonlights wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
Neonlights wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
"Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?"

Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try!
Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post?

If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.
Yes I did read your post, but unless there is a (Temporary) Traffic Order in place any signs will only be advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, just like the signs in Abingdon which suggest lorries use the A34/M4.

What do the signs actually say (I assume you have seen them to be such an expert)?
Without checking, I'm assuming there is a weight limit restriction through Shrivenham, hence why trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes are not supposed to be passing through it.

I'm not an expert, but if I were to see a sign suggesting to use an alternate route along with the reasons why, then I'm not daft enough to ignore it.

Have you actually seen the signs yourself?
No, but i drove down the A420 the week before it started, and there were no weight restrictions in place. I'm also assuming that because of the location of the Business Park in Shrivenham there are unlikely to be any.

According to the county council's lorry map, there IS a restriction (7.5t) at Coleshill, so lorries are actually forced to go through Shrivenham!
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: "Lorries in general have always ignored the advice to use the A34 / M4 instead of using the A420 so why should now be any different. Why doesn't someone actually enforce it by stopping and prosecuting the offending drivers, instead of relying on ignored road signs?" Prosecute them for what? Using the public highway? I'd like to see someone try![/p][/quote]Prosecuted for ignoring road signs. Did you not read my post? If I ignored a one way street sign and drove the wrong way down it, or ignored a traffic light when it was red I would be prosecuted. Same should apply to them.[/p][/quote]Yes I did read your post, but unless there is a (Temporary) Traffic Order in place any signs will only be advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, just like the signs in Abingdon which suggest lorries use the A34/M4. What do the signs actually say (I assume you have seen them to be such an expert)?[/p][/quote]Without checking, I'm assuming there is a weight limit restriction through Shrivenham, hence why trucks weighing more than 8.5 tonnes are not supposed to be passing through it. I'm not an expert, but if I were to see a sign suggesting to use an alternate route along with the reasons why, then I'm not daft enough to ignore it. Have you actually seen the signs yourself?[/p][/quote]No, but i drove down the A420 the week before it started, and there were no weight restrictions in place. I'm also assuming that because of the location of the Business Park in Shrivenham there are unlikely to be any. According to the county council's lorry map, there IS a restriction (7.5t) at Coleshill, so lorries are actually forced to go through Shrivenham! icba1957
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree