damageandy

reopened and back to normal, people still going through on very late amber/red.

The closure is having a bad impact on all traffic in the area. Thousands of people inconvenienced day after day because some idiot thinks its ok to run a red lights.

The ones i remember where on Anns road next to Heeley City farm. They were to stop rat runners but let the bus through, this was before the road was made into a dead end.

Sheffield did have some of those for a while.

I use this junction daily and you've guessed it i witness motorists using it dangerously daily, pretty much without fail. 

Almost as bad as the next junction/tram crossing on Woodbourn Road where you will see 3,4 or even 5 cars  from Worthing Road going through on a red light.

Only one day a year so not really a massive drama.

I managed to get from Hillsborough to B&Q on queens road then to Norton Lees with out a great deal of delay, took a similar time as it would have in rush hour. I set off about 30 mins into the game i have a feeling i might just have missed the worst of it.

The main congestion that i saw was stemming from St Mary's Gate/Bramhall lane roundabout, with people wanting to go all the way around the roundabout but not been able to turn onto Bramhall lane. Also Ecclesall road looked very busy and people were at a standstill trying to get on to it

One up at Redmires reservoir this morning.

One outside Decathlon with no seat on it. Ive seen a good few been used today, great option for bus/train users if they work a decent walk away from the stops/station.

Albert Road in Meersbrook ?

 

If so, not the first time somebody’s skidded the car into another person’s front room. It happened a couple of years back; it was in the star.

 

Edit:

 

Was Argyle Road, not Albert Road in January 2015

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/we-were-so-lucky-say-sheffield-s-house-snow-crash-family-1-7064419

 

 

Edit 2:

Now I remember why this story made the headlines; a similar incident happened a month later at almost exactly the same spot. Look at the picture of the second incident and you can see the house damaged in the first!

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/safety-pleas-after-second-crash-on-sheffield-road-where-car-ploughed-into-house-1-7094104/amp

Yes, hit the wall/tree opposite the bus stop, they will have been coming down Upper Albert Road, it was not a slow impact with the damage sustained to the car.

I remember both of those, why anyone would think its at all safe to attempt to drive down Bishops Court road in those conditions i could not guess, its the kind of poor judgement that should have ones privilege to drive removed.

They were closed because of accidents.

Was another car embedded in a wall/tree on Albert Road, you'd think people would have some common sense not to try and drive down very steep roads covered with snow.

Your post #44, first time PCSOs are ever mentioned, I ignored that reference because it's irrelevant

No i mentioned them in post 42, when i said i was incorrect about these private companies been allowed to detain and that it was only PSCO's that could.

Also your own post 38 said "I'd be fascinated to see what legal powers give them the right to detain someone.

I didn't realise we'd passed laws allowing for civilian police forces to be formed, and a citizens arrest can only be used in very clear circumstances (which don't include littering)."

PSCO's are civilian Police - you were them showed the relevant information showing you they could detain.

I'd be fascinated to see what legal powers give them the right to detain someone.

I didn't realise we'd passed laws allowing for civilian police forces to be formed, and a citizens arrest can only be used in very clear circumstances (which don't include littering).

I was wrong about the detaining part, that only applies if it's a PCSO, everything else i said is correct. It is an offence to not provide or give false details to an authorised officer.

---------- Post added 14-12-2017 at 21:55 ----------

Does this not open up a can of worms in regards to "official fine" vs "Private Invoice"?

 

As in....Are the company issuing legally binding fines on behalf of the council? Or are they merely issuing a non-enforceable invoice?

 

I am totally anti littering, I think it is both lazy and filthy. But the expense of recruiting a third party to come and hand out non-enforceable invoices would be nothing but counter productive and a waste of money.

They are completely enforceable and legally binding.

How would they enforce the fines ? People can just give them any old name and address . Also private companies cannot "fine" people.

Every point you have made is incorrect.

These private companies have been given appropriate authority to do this job.

So they can enforce the exactly the same way as the council themselves would do. If you refuse to give them your details or believe you have provides false details they have the power to detain you until the police arrive, they will then have your details. Yes private companies can "fine" people with the appropriate authority.

In reply to the first post, i believe it is a good idea as long as the powers are not abused, litterers are simply just dirty little scrubbers.

It's great news for Sheffield , the mardy bums will always find something to moan about.

The only way that could happen is if a new connecting road was built that would bypass the low single lane bridge on Douglass road and the narrow restricted road access there is now. It would need a proper road connecting to Neepsend lane which would cost a sizeable chunk of that £22M. Just have a look on google street view or maps to see how far away it is from any main road.

 

A good idea but for what is proposed £22M is not much.

There is only one small plot of land between Oakham Drive and Vale road, so its not very complicated.

How on earth can we have laws around careless driving and driving without due care and attention, specific laws on mobile phone usage as it's deemed distracting, but yet have bloody great big massive bright coloured LED adverts that have the sole purpose of making you look at them (other a pretty pointless advert...) so therefore MUST be distracting.

 

Money, perhaps?

I drive past them everyday and while i don't like them(ugly and gives a crappy impression of the city), the ones on Park Square roundabout are not distracting at all, thankfully they are not like the ones on the parkway that used to be so bright they dazzled you when it was dark.

Also i think 95% of drivers are too busy looking at the lights, waiting for them to change than to give a toss about looking at a sign.

Im just going from the google streetview images, where the lines looks brand new, but i don't think they have changed since?

Id imagine most drivers using the outside lane of Rutland would automatically go straight into the outside lane on Penistone whatever the road markings said because they either are turning off or because its the 'fast' lane. Ive certainly never seen any near misses or people doing anything else and i used to use that junction multiple times a day for a few months(inside to inside lane as i was nearly always turning off).

But everyone, including you, has been talking about lanes 1 and 2. We all know that there are 3 lanes at that point on Penistone Road. The principle of "stay in lane in the absence of any other instruction" seems sound, and the least likely to cause accidents, which is surely the point.

I totally understand the point, however the road markings show that going from lane 1 on Rutland road to lane 2 on Penistone road is in fact staying in lane.

The principle of "stay in lane in the absence of any other instruction" seems sound - yes it would be sound if it was not for the presence of the road markings giving you the instruction that you were allowed to do so.

If the lane markings on Pensitone road were not missing and were the same length as the ones separating the middle and outside lanes, then that would make the reply you got actually make sense.

Here's the response from SCC's Transport Planning people:

 

Morning Bob

 

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the junction of Rutland Road/Penistone Road.

 

We have checked this junction and have notified Streetsahead to assess the maintenance levels as we believe that some road markings have suffered from fading and need relining.

 

It is apparent that lane 3 (offside) on Penistone Road is for the right turn to Infirmary Road and that the lane marking between this and lane 2 (centre lane) should extend back into the junction, such that any vehicle emerging from lane 2 (offside lane) of Rutland Road would have to cross this lane line to enter lane 3 of Penistone Road.

 

Both lanes on Rutland Road are clearly marked as left hand lanes and any driver emerging should be aware that they might be turning left alongside another vehicle. In the absence of contrary information, a driver should keep to the same traffic lane as they are in, so lane 1 to lane 1 and lane 2 to lane 2. People in lane 2 then have the option to move to lane 3.

 

We are aware that there is a heavy left turn traffic movement from Penistone Road into Rutland Road. Also that a lot of drivers, travelling ahead, change from lane 2 to lane 1 as they leave the junction and this is responsible for the lane markings being constantly worn.

 

We do not have any plans to install additional road markings at this junction but as above will ask Streetsahead to maintain existing lines as soon as possible.

Id be happy to be proved wrong however that answer doesn't really make any sense, simple fact is for drivers emerging from Rutland road they are only two marked lanes not three.

If you had never seen the junction before and were driving it for the first time the road markings show what lanes drivers can use.

This is best view i can get, just before the white lines separating lane 1 and 2 start again.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3910867,-1.4801839,3a,75y,325.7h,59.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Pz3Ku-T9RPIiA8TVSp_0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

White line is purposefully missing separating lane one and two, so joining traffic should in effect treat it as two lanes, meaning outside lane on Rutland must joining the outside lane on Penistone.

If Traffic in the outside lane of Rutland Road were supposed to go into either lane 2 or 3 then the markings would be the other way around, ie no white lines between lane 2 and 3.

Its a 2 lane junction meeting a 3 lane road so one lane must go into two lanes, it may not be as clear to see in person, looking at streetview makes it pretty clear.

If you look on google maps, there are two trucks stopped at those lights - as there are no lane markings on the road in front of them, by the same principle could they both not cut each other up on the basis that it's one big lane?

Well anyone could cut anyone up if they choose to road markings or not. Its only a short break in road markings for a junction which is pretty common, and for drivers on Penistone Road the road layout is not changing, it was already 3 lanes and continues to be three lanes - nothing to cause any confusion there.

Markings aren't there on Google Maps, have they been painted recently?

Squiggs beat me to it but yes the markings are on Penistone road and yes you can see them on google streetview.

I am surprised that a few white dashes have not been put down to show drivers on Rutland Road where they can go, then again some people would ignore them anyway/not understand what they mean and then still argue they were correct when its pointed out to them.

Do you say that because the line separating lanes 1 & 2 is absent at the junction?

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 19:03 ----------

 

 

I think part of the issue is that people in the left lane on Rutland Road take the corner too fast and realise they can't hold it in the left lane so drift into the middle lane. It's tighter than it looks.

Yes, at that part on Penistone road lane one and two are not seperated by markings, where as lane 3 is marked. so in effect for people joining from Rutland road there is only two marked lanes. So drivers on Rutland road in the outside lane must go to the outside lane on Penistone Road and those in the inside lane of Rutland Road can go anywhere except the outside lane.

Plus its a major busy road junction if it was designed to work the way you suggest the majority of drivers would need to be in the outside lane of Rutland road, which is only a short section of double lane road, this would reduce traffic flow and the available road space causing further tailbacks up Rutland Road.

Where is PLanner1 when you need him:)

Why? How can picking whichever lane you fancy be right? The left lane on Rutland Road is for the left lane on Penistone Road, the right lane on Rutland Road is for the middle lane on Penistone Road. If you want to take the right turn from the third lane on Penistone Road, get in the right hand lane on Rutland Road, join the middle lane on Penistone Road and then indicate to move the third lane. Too many people veer from the left hand lane on Rutland Road, without indicating, into the middle lane on Penistone Road - if you hit someone who has gone from the right hand lane on Rutland Road to the middle lane on Penistone Road by changing lanes, your insurance company will find against you as they consider the person changing lanes as usually at fault.

See the next post i made, that will tell you why, its because the road markings say so.

Spot on bob.

The road markings on Penistone Road disagree.

There's no markings or signs to indicate who has priority over which lane, so don't drive like a pillock and use caution.

 

A simple sign would sort it all out.

The road markings on Penistone Road show that the inside and middle lane should be treated as one for traffic joining from the inside lane of Rutland Road.

However you can't see them too easily from the junction, they should put a few white lines down.

So you think it is ok to change lanes driving through a junction because the lane you've chosen to head towards goes in a different direction than you want, much further down the road. There are at least two other turn offs before it as well.

 

Don't let the extra third lane confuse you, unless your turning back on yourself at the next two available right hand opportunities, it's only use would be for overtaking.

The road markings on Penistone Road show that if joining from the inside lane of Rutland road then either the inside or middle lane of Pensitone Road are to be used - note the missing white line dividing lane one and two, yet it is present for lane three - for the dimwitted this means outside lane is for joining lane three only.

99% of driver realise this and ive never seen anyone doing anything else, maybe they need some definite lane markings to help incompetent 1%.

If you need the second lane on Penistone road then be in the second lane as you approach it.

 

Why do you think being in the first/left hand lane gives you priority to change lanes whilst going through a junction?

 

If you were sat at the same junction, at lights but going straight ahead, would you assume the same? Why does going around a corner make a difference?

 

Not being snarky, genuinely curious as to why people think this is ok.

 

ETA: The basic principle of driving in the UK is to Keep Left, on all roads, including motorways (which is a prime example, you stay in the left hand lane unless you need to overtake)

Because the road joining it (Rutland Road) is 2 lanes which joins a road which is 3 lanes with the inside lane Of Pensitone Road becoming an exit only lane.

So inside lane on Rutland Road is for joining the inside and middle lane, the outside lane of Rutland Road is for joining the outside lane of Penistone Road.

It would be exactly the same if it was a straight junction. People don't think it is ok, they know it is ok as that is how you are supposed to use the junction.

It's not a grey area but it is not a yes or no answer.

It depends on the insurance company and what is in your insurance policies terms and conditions.

All policies will say the vehicle has to be in a road worthy condition some will state they also need a current MOT and even tax too.

So yes it MAY invalidate your insurance but it MAY NOT.

Insurance companies and the police know that in reality a valid MOT means absolutely nothing about the vehicles road worthiness.

If the police wanted to they could charge anyone for having invalid insurance for having a headlight, brake light, number plate light, bald tyre etc etc because that vehicle is not in a road worthy condition and almost defiantly violates your insurance companies cover conditions.

Its pretty much what they do to the boy racers who do not declare modifications to the insurer.