Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Justin Smith

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Justin Smith

  1. In your opinion. And no it hasn't "been replaced by the internet". You shouldn't generalise, or patronise, many use it for a quick look at the news because the TV is on and they are waiting for the next programme to start. In addition, for those who haven't got / don't want a smart phone, text is very useful for finding out the weather (or whatever) without having to fire up a PC or, if on holiday, having internet access at all.
  2. I can assure the BBC however many complaints they got was less than I was expecting...… I thought they'd get huge numbers of complaints, it surprises me they've waited so long to announce a rethink and even then they haven't cancelled the switch off. The only thing I regret is I didn't get to sign any of the petitions which were apparently handed in.
  3. Emley Moor is going to continue transmitting MUXES 7 and 8 (until about 2022), as are Belmont, Waltham and Bilsdale transmitters. Sheffield transmitter is one of the relatively few to cease broadcasting them early, though there are a significant number of 6 MUX transmitters which have never transmitted 7 and 8, and none of the smaller repeater transmitters (e.g. Stocksbridge, Totley or Oughtibridge) have ever broadcast them either.
  4. Basically they're turning off MUXES 7 and 8 from Sheffield / Crosspool transmitter. These MUXES will be turned off at all transmitters before 2023 anyway, when, one assumes, the channels with the highest audience (and very few channels on MUXES 7 and 8 have a particularly high audience) will be moved to one of the other MUXES. MUX 7 and 8 will continue to be transmitted from Emley Moor, Belmont, Bilsdale and Waltham transmitters : https://www.aerialsandtv.com/knowledge/transmitters/sheffield-crosspool-transmitter#sheffield-transmitter-channel-allocations-table The other MUXES (of which there are 6 and they have far more channels on than 7 and 8) on Sheffield transmitter are not due to move frequency (or be switched off). The MUXES off Emley, Belmont and Waltham transmitters are due to move, but this shouldn't cause a problem, other than yet another retune..... In fact people on Belmont (of which there are fair few around Sheffield) and Waltham will have the opportunity to improve their signal by utilising an A group aerial, though this only applies to those on poor signal areas. These graphs explain it all : Belmont transmitter Waltham transmitter
  5. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick it sounds like a reference to the EU. If so it's typical Brexiteer ignorance of the facts I'm afraid. "We voted leave to take back control (but we can never actually quote anything we want control of which we haven't got at the moment)".
  6. I wonder whether he's a machine politician as well, like all the Labour councillors I've had dealings with this year. Apart from possibly one, Francyne Johnson, though she's too naïve to be leader of the council. These councillors, and indeed most politicians, can come across well, until they're asked to do something which needs them to create waves with anyone, particularly other Labour councillors.
  7. Funnily enough, in my experience, a woman is more likely than a man to admit she might not be the best driver in the world, which, ironically, makes them better drivers. The accident statistics (I'm talking serious accidents here not car park nudges) and the consequent lower insurance they pay, bear me out on that
  8. What I find most significant about this is I reckon the driver is very upset about the whole thing, and had he killed the biker he'd possibly have been distraught. And yet...... I sometimes see people driving like absolute lunatics and endangering other road users, so I gesture for them to slow down. But, almost without exception it's taken very badly by the drivers concerned, and I'd bet good money it would have been taken very badly by that particular driver in his souped up Subaru, right up to the point he had his smash.......
  9. I'd use rather stronger and more negative language about it. After all, cretins like him are putting other people's lives in danger......
  10. But people should not be parking there anyway, quite apart from the safety aspect it's straightforward obstruction and, if they could be arsed, the police could issue them with a ticket If you look at a map of western Oughtibridge you will see there are about 4 roads (with around 150 houses on them) which all have to use that tight left hand turn. I think it almost certain that those wanting the double yellows would outnumber those not wanting them by a factor of 10 to 1, or more. As for the cost, basically the double yellows should have been put in when Bedford Rd was blocked off at the bottom, and the cost accounted for in that scheme. Thus it was bad planning on the part of the council in the first place.
  11. Why do I not find that surprising. Mary Lea is the perfect example of a machine politician, thus she'll probably get the job of leader of the council..... To give her some (minimal) amount of credit, she does at least answer the phone, even if it's just to fob you off. Julie Grocutt also answers the phone and says all the right things, but similarly, when it actually comes down to it, doesn't want to cause any waves. Francyne Johnson and Neil Gibson never answered the phone, it was always straight to voicemail.
  12. I hope they do, as I said in my previous posts Labour have proved to me that they're a load of machine politicians,
  13. I can concur with P1, parking wardens can't do anything and the police (if it's obstruction) can't be arsed, therefore the miscreants will almost never get a ticket. There is an junction in Oughtibridge which shows this better than anything. The top of Bedford road where nearly all the vehicles (from loads of houses) turn sharp left down Cockshutts Lane. All that traffic used to get out at the bottom till they (quite rightly) blocked it off for safety reasons. Unfortunately when that happened the council neglected to paint any double yellows round the aforementioned junction (at the top) which became far busier. Now, if anyone parks near the junction, a relatively frequent occurrence, all the traffic turning left out of Bedford road is having to pull out blind and hope for the best. If they meet another car coming up they then have to reverse back round a blind band, and if there's a car behind them that's also pulled out it's absolute carnage. But the council have never put double yellows round that junction despite residents apparently complaining about it for years. All in all it's a classic example of poor planning because those double yellows should have been put down when Bedford Rd was shut off at the bottom, now it probably has to come out of a different budget and will never get done.
  14. That road is a 60 limit, therefore they were both speeding, thus they were both in the wrong before we go any further. What's interesting is you always get loads of petrol heads on here saying "speed isn't the cause of accidents". It's absolute ****** of course, if that guy who caused the accident had been going 7mph slower he may well have made it round that corner, and, the laws of physics dictate that the consequences of his appalling driving would have been significantly less.
  15. I take quite an interest in politics, and I hear all these political reporters saying they don't like the lack of respect politicians get, "because most / all the politicians they know are in it to make a difference". And I'm sure the politicians themselves would say the same thing. But, after my experience with a number of Labour councillors this year, I would not apply that to any of them. My issue, without going into details, is a proven case of being very badly treated by a linked organisation to the council. The fact is that any of those councillors could have taken the time to let me prove my case to them, then "made some waves". But, with the possible exception of Francyne Johnson, none wanted to do that. They wanted an easy life, not having to risk upsetting senior managers at SIV, or indeed other Labour councillors. As I said before Mary Lea wouldn`t even give me her position in writing ! I do not know whether such attitudes are unique to Labour councillors (I may well find out in the next month or so.....) but at the moment I`m even more cynical than I was before.
  16. If Julie Dore is like the rest of the Labour councillors I know, from my own experience, they're what used to be known as "machine politicians". That is to say they are not in it "to make a difference" and stand up for their constituents, at least not if it means making waves and being put in an awkward position. They just want the power and an easy life. I had/have a very serious issue with SIV ( a major linked organisation to the council who are subsidised by them), but none of the Labour group were interested*, the worst being Mary Lea who actually said to me she wasn't interested in what I could prove and would do nothing about it. Even worse she declined to give me that in writing, such was her confidence in her position. None of them deserve to be in office and I will never vote for them again. * Actually that's not quite true, Francyne Johnson did agree to look into it, but, without going into details, displayed a typical left winger's personality, idealist but naïve. And she was the best of them, which is all you need to know.
  17. It was not "an error of judgement", as in one error of judgement. If he'd been driving like that for a few miles than every corner he went round too quickly, every blind bend he ignored, was an error of judgement, i.e. many errors of judgement. I'd bet pound to pennies that bloke drives like that frequently in his stupid "sports car", and they're all "errors of judgments". It's just this time his luck, ran out. Or, to be more accurate, the person he hit, their luck ran out. The very term "sports car", or "sporty car", is completely inappropriate for any car used on the roads.
  18. There should be some sort of official notices / signs about whether a road is actually private or not and the parking law regarding it. I checked with the council about Arundel Rd, and the residents have no more right to park on it than anyone else, just like a "normal" road. And all those notices like "Number 62 private parking space" are illegal. Saying "Private road no parking" is a lie and the residents concerned should be warned to take down those notices then, if they don't, they should be prosecuted. The reason I checked on this was a friend of mine parked on that road and got a resident giving her a hard time about it. It was confirmed to me that the resident had no right to do that whatsoever, cheeky sod. I wanted to be prepared with an answer if they ever tried it on with me. There are arguments on both sides about whether residents should have a right to park outside their house, but on balance there is no practical way to introduce such a system other than parking permit schemes*, thus everyone should be treated fairly. People can park outside my house (though not across my drive obviously), and I in turn have the right to park outside other people's houses. * which, ironically, not all residents are in favour of because they have to pay for them ! But even a parking permit scheme doesn't give you the right to any particular parking space.
  19. Selfish ignorant git, I hope he never gets his licence back.
  20. Can we just remind everyone, an unadopted road is NOT a private road and residents have no right whatsoever to put up signs saying "NO parking : Residents only" (or whatever) *. Some really cheeky residents go one stage further and even put signs outside their own houses saying, for example, "Parking for number 62 only". We can all empathise with residents who can't find anywhere to park, I used to live near the Wednesday ground so know what it's like. But the fact remains that the only people who have a right to a parking space are those with their own off road parking space. Which are the worst roads in Sheffield for this kind of thing ? I nominate Arundel Road - Chapeltown. * I contacted Sheffield council's "Traffic Regulations Group" and they confirmed everything I have said.
  21. Actually most people couldn`t get to Selby for that price, because most people would also have to pay to get to and from the station at each end..... I strongly disagree with you about people not wanting turn up and go a flexible tickets. I admit most times I make longer journeys by train I buy advance purchase inflexible tickets but they are undeniably less convenient and generate extra stress in case you miss the train or have to delay your journey back. That makes me less likely to go by train in the first place. Classic example, a few years ago we had to fly from Gatwick. Driving there is an absolute pig, so, in theory, getting eth train would work quite well, you just change at St Pancras. However, if the return plane is delayed and you miss your train you`re expected to buy a complete new (very expensive on the day) ticket. Alternatively you`d have to build loads of contingency time in for the return journey to be more certain of getting your train, but we didn't want to do that for obvious reasons. Result ? We drove, even though we'd have rather got the train.
  22. Yes but you have to pay to park in the town centre, that's what people seem to be forgetting, and people don't like doing that, particularly if there are out of town shopping centres where it's free. As an example Fox Valley in Stocksbridge on the day after Boxing day had queues backing out onto the roads. I'll bet it was far busier than town. Another fact which puts me off driving into Sheffield town centre is the road layout which is complicated with loads of one ways no left turns, no right turns etc, it's far more complicated than it used to be, I look at they map and my eyes just glaze over.
  23. Aren't all those tests fairly small conurbations ? I can remember distinctly when Sth Yorks cheap bus fares were abolished and the traffic became significantly worse almost overnight. And that was just cheap fares, not free. I would very much dispute that the cost of parking has minimal effect on whether people use their car to access a particular area, though I'd agree that the absence of parking has an even bigger effect.
  24. There are journeys for which public transport will never be competitive, there are journeys where the time penalty is not severe, and there are journeys (usually over longer distances and involving rail) where public transport is actually faster. You will never get all car drivers to use public transport, possibly not even a majority, even if it were free. But, if it was free and there was a more frequent service (which one assumes would happen as the demand would go up) I think almost certain a significant proportion of car drivers would use it. Trains to Leeds are relatively cheap due to subsidy, you try getting a train (at peak time pay when you turn up) to somewhere that is not subsidised as much, e.g. Selby in Nth Yorkshire. A single fare £15 to £20. Birmingham, for example, is even worse, an "anytime" flexible return is almost £100 !
  25. I remain unconvinced that if public transport was really free that substantial numbers of car drivers would fail to use it. My own research indicates that just a 10 to 20% drop in car use would result in a significant reduction in traffic jams. Your statistics on the cost of car use fail to distinguish between the fixed and opportunity cost of car ownership. Almost all car drivers feel the need to own a car, the only question is how often they use it. The problem is that most of the costs of a car are fixed costs, insurance, servicing, depreciation etc. OK so the last two are affected to a certain extent by mileage, but not by a massive extent. Thus, once one has a car it's the additional cost of a particular journey which is what really counts. As a very rough guide maybe the cost of the fuel plus say 50% for additional depreciation and wear and tear. Using that methodology car use is actually quite cheap compared to bus / tram / train journeys, particularly when there's a few people making the trip. This obviously excludes the cost (and indeed the availability) of parking, and it is this which is often the deciding factor in whether the car is used. However, just making parking more expensive and/or reducing its availability is a very dangerous game to play as many car owners simply change their behaviour and, for example, shop in out of town centres with free parking. We see this all around us, city / town centre shops closing yet out of town centres are packed.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.