News RSS Feed


Bypass footbridge petition

10:12am Wednesday 30th April 2008

comment Comments (9)   Have your say »


Grieving mum Kathryn George-Harries has launched a petition to get a footbridge over Cardigan bypass where her young son was tragically killed 18 months ago.

Little Freddie Litten-James, aged six, was kiled while trying to cross the road with his mother and elder sister in September 2006.

Ms George-Harries is now calling for highways authorities to build a bridge over the busy road.

"There is a real need for a footbridge," she said.

"Traffic on the road has increased over the past two years. A footbridge would be for everyone's benefit."

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourTivyside Advertiser

bobsouthey, penparc says...
7:45am Thu 1 May 08

A footbridge is the ideal solution, it should have been built at the same time as the bypass. Build it now in conjunction with getting the Tesco junction open.

Report this post »

mike allen, aberporth says...
1:39pm Thu 1 May 08

Whilst i agree it is a great tragedy that this little boy lost his life, i do not see how "A footbridge would be for everyone's benefit."
As far as i can see, the only benefit would be to the couple of properties on the oposite side of the bypass to the rest of town.
As the road is a clearway, no one should be stopping on it to drop off or pick up, so the general public have no need to cross.
The issue is one of speed through the area.
The best way to control this would be to install a 40MPH speed limit, enforced by speed cameras, with the income from the fines going into local coffers to boost the projects in the localle which WOULD "be for everyone's benefit."
As cameras would be enforcing the law, no-one could complain about being fined and any further accidents would be at a lower speed giving a higher survival rate.
Also speed related incidents could be penalised more heavilly due to the lower limit.

Report this post »

daniel burton, london says...
3:06am Fri 2 May 08

Who's ever heard of a footbridge over a 2 lane road? It's not even a busy road. And who the hell needs to cross it? In any case, if you do there's a seperate foot path, with a waiting island in between the two lanes. i.e. look one way, cross, look the other, cross. And as for a 40mph speed limit, that's just do good rubbish, it's a bypass, it's for cars, and 60mph isn't fast. And as for no-one being able to complain, I think that's already the case with ALL speed cameras in this country, so I don't see what your trying to get at.

Report this post »

Guto Evans, Cardigan says...
11:15pm Fri 2 May 08

bobsouthey is on the ball but mike allen and daniel burton are well out of touch! Mike says that
the only benefit would be to a couple of properties
 and that
the general public have no need to cross
 ! Unbelievable! Well Mike I need to cross it and I don't live anywhere near the bypass. I do however walk to Parc Teifi and also to Llangoedmor and Llechryd or is it now illegal to walk? Friends of mine who don't drive are asking how you suggest they get to the above mentioned places or are you going to offer to drive them there!
Daniel asks
who's ever heard of a footbridge over a 2 lane road?
 There are hundreds all over the country if you care to look and you state your location as London!? He also asks
who the hell needs to cross it?
 Well I've answered that above. It is not an easy road to cross especially if you're elderly or disabled in any way and why shouldn't people be allowed to cross to where they wish to get to without risking life or limb. Are you suggesting pedestrians should be prisoners in their own town? Such lack of empathy beggars belief!!

Report this post »

daniel burton, london says...
3:21pm Sat 3 May 08

You and your friends discuss comments on the tivyside website?

Report this post »

CSH, Aberteifi says...
5:29pm Sat 3 May 08

Whilst, in theory, a foot bridge would seem to be a good idea, the question arises, where ought it to be put? The problem is that, wherever it were put, people would still cross the by-pass elsewhere, were it to be more convenient for them. This fact is illustrated by the tragic Freddie Litton-James case, where the family were not crossing at the recognized Feidr Henffordd crossing point, but further down the by-pass.

It seems to me that we should seek to minimise the need for pedestrians to cross the by-pass at all, by not siting public facilities on the opposite side of the by-pass to the town. With regard to a footbridge, or even a pedestrian subway, a thorough study should be made to find the best location, and to identify any supporting infrastructure that would need to be associated with it. For example, it would seem sensible for a footpath to be installed on the town side of the by-pass, linked to the bridge/subway, to enable easy access between Tesco and the site of the present Hospital and Finch's Square, as pedestrians may not wish to walk the extra distance needed to make this journey through the town.

Report this post »

Mike Allen, Aberporth says...
8:50am Wed 7 May 08

WRT Mr Evans' comments,
As a pedestrian also, i appreciate your sentiment and commend your strenth of feeling, but i was attempting to get across the point that any additional crossing for the bypass would be of benefit to the few, rather than to eceryone as initially suggested.
What i could have said is that there is a wonderful thing called the green cross code which you have the great opertunity to put into practice and cross the road safely.
I also use the bypass as a pedestrian whislt running to and from work and whilst doing so, i use those marvelous items called eyes and ears to ensure that the road is safe to cross, try it sometime, you might be suprised.
As for offering to be a private bus service for you and your mates, i would love to, but unfortunately, i do not have the spare funds to do so, as i am being asked to pay for things which are of little use to me and no benefit to the community in general, for example, footbridges (and if you can not see the humour intended in that last comment, i dispair)

Report this post »

Tim Jones, Cardigan says...
12:33pm Wed 7 May 08

I fully agree with Mike Allen. Even if we did have a bridge the accident would still have occured as the mother chose not to use the safer official footpath crossing. Sad but true. A shortcut was chosen and that would not have been over a bridge.

Report this post »

Guto Evans, Cardigan says...
10:56pm Fri 9 May 08

Hello Mike, I do use and have been using the Green Cross code in conjunction with my ears and eyes for as long as I remember. Our eyes and ears might be fine although mine are certainly not as good as they used to be. And this is the point, crossing such a dangerous road should not be an execise only for the fit and able, fully aware adult who is swift of foot. What happens when your eyes and ears are not so good or you can't move quickly enough. Why don't more drivers use their eyes and ears and slow down when someone is already crossing the road as is their duty as written in the Highway Code? You seem to place all the onus on the pedestrian, but the pedestrian pays the ultimate price not the driver. When I drive I see it as my duty to respect vunerable road users and I can see from your comments in the latter half of your original comment that you feel the same way. I feel strongly because despite having my wits about me and being a very experienced pedestrian I see so many irresponsible drivers who just shoudn't be allowed behind the wheel and their number seem to be increasing year on year.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »