Jump to content

Justin Smith

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Justin Smith

  1. 20 hours ago, makapaka said:

    Teletext has been replaced by the internet.


    zero need to keep it.

    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    And no it hasn't "been replaced by the internet".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. 7 hours ago, Baron99 said:

    The BBC's Teletext service has been given a reprieve until at least the Spring, while the powers that be consider all the objections to closing the service. 


    Apparently they've received a larger number of complaints than they were expecting, especially from pensioner groups & those without access to the Internet for their news services. 

    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. 12 hours ago, glitterballs said:

    Having looked at this it seems I'm going to loose those channels and Quest HD and I get my signal from Emley Moor!

    Its getting to the point where I can't watch some SD channels as the compression is so bad and as usual they told us going digital would be better 😂

    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 :



    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. 20 hours ago, makapaka said:

    What rules have been taken from us preventing this persons proper punishment in your eyes?

    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. 6 hours ago, Ms Macbeth said:

    The Star has announced some front runners for the leadership.  I only know one of them, Bob Johnson, he regularly turns up to Hillsborough Area Forum meetings, and he comes across as a moderniser with a decent brain.  We'll just have to wait and see.

    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. 16 hours ago, geared said:

    No-one is ever in the wrong when they're behind the wheel.

    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. 20 minutes ago, Blue Day said:

    I’ll hazard a guess - he installed front and rear cameras so as to show off to his friends his driving ‘skills’. 




    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. 2 hours ago, geared said:


    He'd installed front and rear cameras, clearly thinking it was other people he needed to worry about and not himself.

    You would have thought if they like to engage in some spirited driving and speed limit breaking the last thing they'd do is record it!

    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. 3 hours ago, Planner1 said:

    The council tend to not put in restrictions in locations like that if they can avoid it. 

    Any loss of parking can be very controversial in residential locations like that. Often just as many people are against the imposition of restrictions as are asking for them.


    They do get a huge number of requests for waiting restrictions and the budget is small. Yellow lines can be a lot more costly than many people think, as they have to be backed up by a legal order which can cost several thousand pounds to advertise and process.

    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. 16 hours ago, linaker said:

    I agree. Time and again, they pass the buck to the officers or blame the "cuts" rather than actually get off their backsides and try to make a difference. I too have seen correspondence between a friend and Mary Lea and her lack of interest was stunning. Some of them are well intentioned, but under Julie Dore's uninspiring leadership, most just see it as a sinecure. 

    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. 18 hours ago, Planner1 said:

    That would be the Police.


    The council's civil enforcement officers can only enforce if there is  a restriction in place like a single or double yellow line.

    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.

  13. 1 hour ago, muddywolf said:

    The GPS recorded the first car approaching that corner at 67MPH, the car following was going just as fast as it was keeping up with it.   The fact one took the corner fine and the other crashed was nothing more than luck / chance imo.  Anyone taking blind 90 degree bend at anywhere like those speeds is a total idiot regardless if they happen to crash or not.

    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.

  14. 58 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

    [machine politicians]

    I don't believe that is true. I think they mostly do it because they want to make a difference. Some are better than others, but that's the case in all walks of life / professions.


    I'll give you Jack Scott as an example of someone who I believe genuinely wants to get things done and make a difference.

    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.


  15. 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.

  16. 3 hours ago, Blue Day said:

    In no way am I defending the driver here, but throwing away the key for an error of judgement like that? Yes he was wrong, yes he’s paid a penalty - maybe 16 months wasn’t long enough but still........

    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.

  17. 14 hours ago, andysm said:

    Depends. If the road has been designated a highway then you are correct. If it is not a designated highway I think it is up to the owner to decide who can park there (being unadopted doesn't mean it does not have an owner). Also it is possible the residents have an easement that allows residents to use the road. The situation isn't quite as simple as you think it is.

    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.

  18. 18 hours ago, muddywolf said:

    Just saw this posted by SY police from April last year, lesson for anyone who enjoys a country lane blast even in good conditions rallying around at excess speed will result in a crash sooner or later.


    Does anyone know if the victim, is he/she on the way to recovery?



    Fancy heading into that bend at 60mph, the idiot following was just as bad.

    Selfish ignorant git, I hope he never gets his licence back.

  19. 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.

  20. On ‎06‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 12:52, Bargepole23 said:

    Ok. I could get to Selby today or tomorrow for 13 quid by train. 


    There are few circumstances where the general public require an anytime return. I use the train quite a bit for business travel, and would either buy a single each way as and when I needed it, or if I was certain of my travel times, like the majority of commuters, would buy a fixed time ticket.

    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.

  21. 22 minutes ago, ads36 said:



    You have to park outside. You have to walk in. Anything you buy you have to carry out.


    If we suggest that people could do the same thing in the city centre, their heads explode.

    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. 

  22. 1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

    Many commentators put the reduction in peak hour traffic during the school summer holidays as being perhaps a quarter to a third. I think most people would view the difference at that time as being "substantial".


    I'd think a 10% reduction might make a bit of difference, you'd probably notice it, but it wouldn't' be huge.


    There are some interesting articles about the impact of free public transport. This one reckons that car use decreased by 10% in Aubagne in France (Population 100k).


    Apparently Hassfelt in Belgium had free public transport for a good number of years but had to start charging as it was no longer economically viable.


    In this article, researchers from Delft university looked into the impact of the free public transport scheme in Tallin and found the number of people swapping from car use to public transport was 8%, but average length of car trips went up by 31% and there were more cars on the road (perhaps due to changes in shopping and leisure habits). Interestingly the researchers thought that making motoring more expensive, such as by increased parking fees, might be more effective in reducing car trips. They also found "mixed evidence" on whether the scheme had improved mobility and accessibility of low income and unemployed residents and no evidence that employment opportunities increased as a result of the policy (so it didn't attract new jobs to the area). They concluded that free public transport wasn't the "no brainer" that everyone might initially think it to be.  

    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.

    58 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

    most commentators have the view that whether or not people come to a particular town / city / district to shop is more dependant on the overall "offer" of the place rather than the cost of parking.


    The decline in town centre retail is mostly put down to changes in the way we shop and spend our leisure time, not parking charges.


    Retailers sometimes have a skewed view about parking charges, because they incorrectly think the majority of customers come to them by car.


    If you ask a typical retailer (in a town or district shopping area) they will say maybe 60% of customers come to them by car, and 40% by public transport or other means. The reality is absolutely the opposite as shown in this Sustrans study, which I had replicated in a South Yorkshire town when I worked there and got very much the same result.


    This research suggested that over a period of a month, people who walked and cycled actually spent more in shops than car drivers (who spent more per visit, but visited less).

    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.

  23. On ‎04‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 18:57, dave_the_m said:

    My morning commute takes 15 minutes door to door by car, or about 45 mins by buses, or 55 mins by foot. If buses were free, I'd probably still choose to drive.

    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.

    On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 09:19, Bargepole23 said:

    Hard to compare public transport costs between countries, but I can get a bus ticket to get into town from Ecclesall for £1.80. A single ticket in Switzerland, about £2. I could catch a train from Sheffield to Leeds, about an hour, for about a tenner, a train from Bern to Zurich, about an hour, about twenty quid. I appreciate that reliability and quality of transport are not comparable.


    The council have very little money after years of central government cuts, and as you know there would be uproar if council tax was raised by any significant amount to provide funding for transport schemes. We want great infrastructure but few want to pay for 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 !

  24. On ‎04‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 15:55, Planner1 said:

    The studies I saw said the majority of car drivers said they wouldn't use public transport if it were free. Whether that would be the reality is a matter for conjecture. You'd need to reduce the number of cars on the road by maybe a quarter to a third if you wanted to achieve the same traffic conditions we see during the school summer holidays.


    Also, evidence suggests that any increases in bus use tend to come from those who already travel by "sustainable" modes, like walking, cycling, light rail, not from car drivers. The only public transport which takes mode share away from car use is the tram.


    Another issue would be where to find the money from. Most of the money given by government to local authorities for highways / transport projects is "capital" money and can only be used for building things / providing assets. It can't be used for "revenue" purposes, which is what would be needed for subsidising operational costs of bus fleets. So, you can't just use the money which would otherwise be spent on transport capital projects, because it's not eligible spend.


    Public transport expensive? So is motoring. Motoring organisations put the cost of running a car at circa £3.5k a year. You could buy around three annual public transport passes for South Yorkshire for that: https://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/SYConnectplusAnnual/ So, a small family could use public transport for a similar cost to running a car.

    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.