THE question: When is a crossing not a crossing? The answer: When it is in Alcester High Street.

If there were a Gobbledygook Olympics, the official utterances on this subject appearing on the front page of the Alcester Chronicle (February 22) would surely take the gold medal.

If a piece of road that has been made pointlessly decorative at great expense is to be crossed only as a friendly act of courtesy between motorist and pedestrian, how does it differ from any other point along any road except in the eyes of the muddleheads who contrived the idea.

What is the legal case if some motorist fails to stop for a pedestrian who thinks he will, or some pedestrian does not pause when the motorist thinks he will? Is it jay walking or careless driving?

The argument could keep lawyers in food and drink for years, which sadly appears to be the point of much of the law.

However, this one isn't even law. Can anyone turn up legislation governing a crossing that has no legal existence?

Only the likes of those who have contributed to the above said article would attempt such a ludicrous exercise, from the point of view they are inextricably implicated and must get their excuses in first.

Would it really have mattered if a properly constituted crossing had lost a few parking spaces?

This loss of parking would represent the clear approach distance a pedestrian crossing features by law, so these two, supposedly soon to become three bits of road (I decline to call them crossings) do not even enjoy that much safety.

The final nail in the coffin is surely the statement from Warwickshire County Council that no obligation on motorists exists.

But then the spokesman takes a hedging bet with his rider that these places do at least indicate to motorists where most pedestrians will cross.

Both parts of this composite bit of nonsense are wrong.

There is no special significance to any motorist other than by the spread of smoke signal-style messages within the community - not exactly best practice - and pedestrians will cross where convenient to their next port of call.

Additionally, is the "indicated place" on the bend by the church particularly sensible unless it is for those scurrying into the building to give thanks for a safe crossing and pray for deliverance on the next occasion?

I trust any insurance company unfortunate enough to become tangled in this fiasco will sue those responsible for creating a hazard where none existed and I offer what would have been a far better scheme, probably much less costly but having the drawback of being so mundane that no preening of feathers could possibly attach to it.

If the High Street were made a one-way street with vehicles entering from School Road and exiting into Swan Street, it would solve the problems of congestion in the High Street, the narrowness of Henley Street and the blind spots around the town hall.

I can see the counter arguments lining up already but unless I have missed something, they are all of the parochial, self-interest kind.

Meantime, it is to be hoped the police and others in authority will see and digest the comments sufficiently to understand the dangers that have been created and get something done about it.

JOHN GAYFER

Poplar Close

Alcester