Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - J (25th Apr 2022 - 17:04:30) The roadworks on Haslemere Road continue. The diversion is marked and is along Highfield Lane and Midhurst Road. I am probably wasting my time to say this but: Devil's Lane is a single track unclassified lane with hardly any passing places. It is well used by local walkers, horses and as an access for the residents who live there. As such it is adequate but should not be used as a diversion route, if it was deemed suitable as such it would have been signposted but it is not. Whilst walking along it today I was subjected to severe verbal abuse by at least five cars and vans who were obviously using it as a diversion. Where I could I let the vehicles pass by squeezing onto the bank I did, but as locals will know on some stretches this is impossible. What sad times we live in that some people think they have a right to drive wherever and however they want and that anyone in their way is in the wrong and can be intimidated.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Grape (25th Apr 2022 - 19:20:22) Sad times indeed. No behavioural morals, no infrastructure upkeep, no law enforcement and no consequence for misbehaviour.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - D (25th Apr 2022 - 19:38:35) I share your chagrin, I used to walk the lane frequently. But to be fair it is a public mettled road and motorised vehicular traffic are not breaking any laws.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Anne (26th Apr 2022 - 00:15:16) Sad times we live in that we have to read moans without rights, a public road is a public road if all of Hampshire want to drive up it they are welcome to, without posts of misery and baseless ownership of said public road. Your post is no different than one from a driver moaning about you walking along it and slowing them down

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Ian (26th Apr 2022 - 07:17:00) J - it’s a public highway for goodness sake! Too many people nowadays have an over developed sense of self entitlement. It’s the same as those residents who don’t like motorists parking outside their homes even when the motorists are entitled to do so. No doubt someone will start bleating on about the new pedestrian rights!

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Jen (26th Apr 2022 - 08:10:38) Ian, I think you missed the point of the OP. People should be able to walk along a country lane without being subjected to verbal abuse from other road users. There are many extremely narrow lanes in this area that are barely wide enough for a car and not wide enough for a car to pass a pedestrian or cyclist. The only option, if one finds oneself behind a pedestrian on such a narrow road, is to slow down to a walking pace and wait until there is a suitable place for the pedestrian to move into so that the car can pass. Shouting abuse at a pedestrian in these circumstances serves no purpose other than to harass. If the road is too narrow then it's too narrow and drivers just have to wait.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Helen (26th Apr 2022 - 09:14:09) I think that Devils lane is clearly not a footpath it is a road. If there are circumstances where there are many more cars than usual in a country lane I would choose the footpath when walking.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - D (26th Apr 2022 - 10:07:43) I have not seen (or heard) horses on Devils Lane for decades. Whenever I've encountered a vehicle any exchange between myself and the driver has always been polite and courteous. I can't imagine what someone would have to do to cause five drivers in a row to shout abuse at them.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - er (26th Apr 2022 - 12:25:18) Devils Lane is both Helen, there is no pavement as OP said and for most of it, beyond the bridge, in my opinion a car cannot pass a pedestrian safely, so the cars should slow down without hassling the pedestrian, then I would expect a car to pass only if you can wave them through, because with the pedestrian squeezing into the bushes (if they can) probably uncomfortably and off balance a small car will have inches of clearance and should pass at walking pace and so should politely thank the pedestrian for their kindness! Alternatively they should only overtake if they can find a metre clearance (which they can't for much of it, unless the pedestrian squuezes into the thick bushes or clambers up a steep bank), also IMHO their speed should not safely exceed 10-20mph at most parts regardless of whether the National Speed Limit applies. I've found most cars are fairly reasonable with one or two through drivers using it as a rat run and they tend to be the self entitled ones rushing along, hopefully someone one day will get them on camera, because Devil's Lane is too good a walk to give up to Mr (or Mrs) Toad!

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Helen (26th Apr 2022 - 14:09:16) E R I meant footpath in the sense of those found in the OS maps, clearly separate from a road, which maybe may not have a pavement but it does not therefore turn a road into an official footpath. I have noticed though that the verges in country areas are encroaching so far in some places that this does make them narrower than they need be.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Anon (26th Apr 2022 - 16:02:19) I’ve ridden it a couple of times but not for years, cars got stuck behind and the horses got scared going over the railway bridge! I’m a fan of wandering country lanes, we have some lovely ones around here, straight out of wind in the willows! If cars are giving you grief then I highly recommend the authority stick, never fails…..!

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - dave (26th Apr 2022 - 16:29:50) I remember using the lane for a cut through a few years ago and being one of about eight cars either way being completely logjammed, reluctant to use it since. That being said I have walked it a number of times and encountered nasty dogs. Best to avoid altogether although I expect there is the obtuse pedestrian who will go out of their way to be awkward for any unfortunate motorist who has been sent along by SatNav. LOVE, PEACE & TOLERANCE everyone

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Jen (26th Apr 2022 - 17:11:31) Helen - A road does not have to be "an official footpath" for people to be permitted to walk along it. Cars (and indeed bikes and horses) are not permitted on public footpaths, but pedestrians, cyclists and horses (as well as motor vehicles) are permitted on public roads. With the exception of motorways, public roads are rights of way for pedestrians and do not have to be specially marked as such.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - D (26th Apr 2022 - 19:11:34) Does anyone know how it became Devils? I seem to remember reading something about someone called "DeVille." I know the reason for most of the road names found here but this one has always alluded me.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Helen (26th Apr 2022 - 21:31:25) I think you will find that pedestrians are not allowed to walk up and down A roads.

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - Jen (26th Apr 2022 - 23:11:36) Helen, pedestrians do have the right to walk on any road except for motorways and motorway slip roads. If there's a footpath or pavement, then they should use it. But if there's no pavement, they can walk in the road, usually on the right hand side, thus facing the oncoming traffic - obviously if it's a busy main road then they should walk close to the edge of the road and of course pay close attention to the oncoming traffic. If they're sensible, they will also make themselves visible by wearing hi-viz and/or reflective clothing. Personally, I would only walk along a main road if I had to and there was no other route available. It's not a very pleasant experience!

Re: Devil's Lane is not the diversion route! - J (27th Apr 2022 - 10:39:38) Thanks to those posters who saw my point of view on my original post. I did not say no cars should be using it but as it's so narrow drivers should be prepared to wait if there is nowhere to pass. And definitely no need for abuse, walkers have the same rights as vehicles, it is an unclassified road with no footpath. To the poster who said I should be using public footpaths, this is actually my route to these!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home