ptigga

Are you stupid?

No.

The M1 isnt a machine not is the drivers who use it!

Pardon?

Just avoiding it arnt you?

Avoiding what?

The road WILL not flow perfectly at 50mph,you know it,i know it,so how will reducing the speed limit to 50 help?

Firstly this is not about purely about traffic flow. It's about emissions. Reducing speed is the most effective way to reduce emissions.

Secondly reducing the speed to 50 MPH generally improves the flow of traffic because all traffic on the motorway (HGVs and cars) travels at roughly the same speed. There are much fewer changes of speed as vehicles aren't slowing down and speeding back up as much as they would if they were all travelling at different speeds.

What is your proposed solution?

But if you go slower you are in the area a longer time. SOmehow I really doubt the council has done an objective analysis weighing these two (and any other factors) to come to a reasoned conclusion. More likely, which is typical of politicians, is they started with a conclusion that we should have a 50 mph limit and then cherry picked the facts to make it appear it is supported by some sort of valid reasoning.

I'll give you an objective analysis. Lets do some mathematics!

Assume that length of affected stretch of road is 5 miles

Time taken to drive 5 miles at 70 MPH = 4 and 20 seconds (260 seconds)

Time taken to drive 5 miles at 50 MPH = 6 minutes (360 seconds)

Fuel usage to overcome air resistance is proportional to the square of the speed. Air pollution is (obviously) directonally proportional to fuel usage. It doesn't matter what the units are for the purposes of this exercise.

70 x 70 = 4900 units of air pollution emitted by vehicle travelling at 70 MPH

50 x 50 = 2500 units of air pollution emitted by vehicle travelling at 50 MPH

4900 * 260 seconds = 1 274 000 units of air pollution emitted over a 5 mile stretch by vehicle travelling at 70MPH

2500 * 360 seconds = 900 000 units of air pollution emitted over a 5 mile stetch by vehicle travelling at 50MPH

900 000/1 274 000 = 0.7

So, as a result of valid mathematical reasoning I conclude that reducing the speed to 50MPH does reduce the air pollution significantly.

Can't quite believe the amount of conspiracy theories here. The speed limit of 50MPH is purely to reduce the air pollution in the Tinsley area, which due to various factors, including the profile of the viaduct, has some of the worst air pollution problems in Europe. The concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide in the area is well above the maximum limit set for public health.

Fuel usage to overcome air resistance is proportional to the square of the speed, so at 70MPH a vehicle will emit 4900 units of air pollution. If speed is reduced to 50MPH the the same vehicle wil emit only 2500 units of air pollution. That's almost half the amount of pollution. It will certainly make the atmosphere much safer for people living in the area. What's the alternative? Evacuate Tinsley and displace the population to somewhere with an atmosphere that doesn't breach public health limits?

Vote UKIP....

For what reason?

I wondered what that was. I could hear it up in Walkley. I had assumed it was a siren from one of the factories on the Don.

and what to my mind is highly relevant is this --what does the treasury actually do for this income??-- that is apart from just sitting there watching the shekels roll in.

Well there's the sanitation and the roads the primary schools and the coastguards and the hospitals and the gp surgeries and the motorways and the royal family and the government funded research and the secondary schools and the parliament and the street lighting and the health and safety regulations and the emergency response teams and the fire service and the universities and the air traffic controllers and the justice system and the prisons and the national parks and the social services and the massive subsidies to the defence industry and the ordnance survey and the house of commons wine cellar and the sizeable subsidies paid to the privatised rail industry and the museums and Scotland and foreign aid and the crossrail project and the Sheffield trams and some subsidised bus routes and the border controls and the subsidies for having solar panels on your roof and the libraries and the army and the disability benefits and the Royal navy and the serious organised crime agency and grants to small businesses and Peter Mandelson's expenses and the government communication headquarters in Cheltenham and the upkeep of historic buildings and the royal wedding and the further education colleges and the environment agency and the democratic system that allows you to get involved and make changes.

I'm wary of devlopments like Sevenstone because they transform public spaces into privately owned enclosed spaces patrolled and policed by private security guards.

Freedom of expression is no-longer permitted if the land-owner doesn't like what you've got to say. Streets that were once public are gated and shut off outside of opening hours (much like Orchard Square is now) and public assemblies or protests can't take place on that land. What benefit are Sevenstone going to provide that will make it worthwhile?

Aye, that'd be fun when the food market is on!

There are often markets on Barkers Pool as well. People cycle considerately and at appropriate speeds. It works.

It's all a bit hodge-podge in the pedestrianised areas. You can cycle up Charles street, you can cycle across Barker's pool. You can't cycle on Fargate or the Moor but you can cycle across the back of the Peace gardens.

I say open it all up to cyclists. It works well on Barkers Pool so it should work on Fargate as well.

so making cyclist conform to wearing lets say a helmet and a hi vis jacket well thats bound to save lives in the long run.

It's been tried in Australia. It had the opposite effect. The number of people cycling dropped and the death rate from obesity linked causes such as heart attacks increased.

I'd prefer to see policies introduced on the basis of sound data rather than on the basis of anecdotal evidence about polystyrene hats.

My shops always open in fact its open from 7am to 5pm if you must know

Which one is your shop Craig?

The pedestrian crossings are located where pedestrians want to cross in order to get where they are going. If you move the crossings out of their line of travel then they won't get used as much and pedestrians will cross the road where there are no crossings.

One possible solution I've thought of is to dig out the entire footprint of the roundabout and rebuild the roundabout and entrances/exits on stilts, leaving a separate area for pedestrians, some cyclists and trams underneath. Pedestrians and some cyclists can cross directly underneath the roundabout taking the shortest route. The space underneath is open, instead of being enclosed like a subway. Steps and circuitous ramps are avoided by landscaping the space to achieve changes in height with gradual inclines. I imagine that this would be similar to the pedestrian space underneath the Western bank dual carriageway in-front of the Student Union.

Traffic exiting the roundabout will not be held up by pedestrian crossings and this will make the roundabout easier to negotiate however speeds on the roundabout should still be manageable because of the shape of the roundabout and because (as Planner1 says) the congestion is caused by the amount of traffic converging and not the queues at the exits. Relatively slow speeds (15-25 MPH) mean that the roundabout will still be fairly safe for the cyclists that use the road instead of the pedestrian space, depending on their particular journey.

Extensive landscaping would be required and I have no idea how traffic could be accommodated during construction. However if those problems could be overcome then I believe the result would be excellent for all users.

There's a website I've recently become aware of that shows all of the road casualties in the UK between 2000 and 2010 on a map.

I've had a look at this location on Halifax road and it shows a cluster of serious injuries and minor injuries on the cross roads by the cameras. A female vehicle occupant was also killed just downhill from that spot in 2010. See http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-uk#lat=53.4242327760155&lon=-1.4929561181882651&zoom=16

Every serious injury on that map will have been a life changing event for person who suffered. It seems perfectly reasonable to take measures to enforce the speed limit in that area to reduce the risk.

Yep - definitely miss them. They were an iconic landmark. I used to be able to see them from the top of Crookes on a clear day.

You won't believe what happened to me the other day.

I was on my bike, happily cycling along at a decent speed when I came across stationary traffic. I made my way along the inside of the cars as there was plenty of room.

Anyway, I come across a car indicating to turn left but by the time I noticed I was side by side. So the idiot waited, stopped his manouvre to give way to me. To top it all off waved me on and smiled...unbelievable!!!

Great to hear that some drivers do remember to check their nearside wing mirrors when they are turning left at the head of a queue of traffic. It doesn't always work that well.

When I'm cycling in queued traffic I filter up through the queue, but I stop behind the first car in the queue. This is something I've picked up through experience. There's always a chance of conflict if you're on the left hand side of the first car in the queue and you don't know when he's going to move or what he's going to do.

This also allows you to position yourself in the middle of the lane and establish eye contact with the second car in the queue so that they don't try to turn left through you. It's a technique that works well for me and I would recommend it to other cyclists.

all i am saying about cyclists is stop thinking your so hard done by...you enjoy cycling and its costs you nothing,you get some abuse and it can be dangerous.

 

i enjoy driving my car...it costs me a hell lot more than you and us motorists also get abuse from other motorists and its also dangerous for us.

The difference is that cyclists are much more vulnerable and more likely to be intimidated and/or physically hurt as result. Car drivers are always protected by their lockable metal box.

Your advice seems to be to just put up with the abuse, but this approach doesn't appeal to me. I don't think it should be tolerated at all. We've managed to change society's attitude towards other forms of abuse, prejudice and persecution, so we should be able to do something about this.

 

as for cyclists on the road,i think they should pay towards the road like drivers do.cost me so much a month just to be on the road with insurance and tax.If its possible to kill someone riding a bike on the pavement then its also possible to do damage to a car on the road.cyclists shoiuld deffo contribute something.the money must come from somewere when bike lanes are beeing made etc.and ive seen a few cyclists completely ignore red lights.not that motorists dont but the law does all it can to hand fines out to disobeying motorists,but not cyclists.

It's not road tax Jeweller. It's vehicle excise duty - it's a tax for using the vehicle, not for using the road. You get to use the road for free, but if your chosen vehicle has emissions above a certain level then you're required to pay the duty.

The amount of duty you pay is based on emissions. Vehicles with very low emissions pay zero tax. Are you suggesting introducing a system of documents and tax discs and all that bureaucracy just so that cyclists can have a tax disc to show that they've paid their £0 tax?

Seems a bit daft to me.

Vehicle Excise Duty isn't ring-fenced for road maintenance, nor does it raise enough money to pay for road maintenance. The money for road maintenance comes out of general taxation, which we all pay for whether we own a car or not.

no its not broken or special an no if i go 20mph in 5th or 4th it judders,i took a look around shiregreen today an NOBODY STICKS TO THE LIMET ov 20mph not even the bus drivers !!!!!

Have you tried third?

ITS NOT HARD DRIVING IN 2ND GEAR BUT POINT IS PETROL IS ON THE UP AN WE ARE USING MORE TRAVLING SLOWER 1111:rant:

What grade did you get in GCSE/O-Level physics?

Apparently there's a burst pipe on Springvale Road.

Today I saw some children outside! Outside! What were their parents thinking? Outside where they could get hurt! Why weren't they kept inside where its nice and safe? When they're outside they could get run-over or trip over a kerb and gash their knee, or be injured by a falling scaffolding pole. It's not safe! I think that any parent who lets their child go outside is irresponsible. There's no reason for your child to go outside - keep them inside for safety's sake.

(Tongue firmly in cheek).

The benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. Cycling in Sheffield is definitely on the increase, and the more cyclists there are in general, the safer individual cyclists are.

Different people have different attitudes to risk - some wrap themselves and their families in cotton wool to shield them from the big bad world, and some let their families experience the world. None of them are 'wrong', they're just different. It takes all sorts to make a world.

I think the way it works (although I dont think they would admit to this) is this;

 

On the motorway the limit is 70 (for cars) but the averge is about 78.

If the limit is 30 then people drive at about 35 on average but,

If the limit is 20 then people drive at about 30 on average.

I guess if the limit was 15 then people would drive at about 20.

 

So in a way it is sort of 30, it's just that it makes more people drive slower than they did before.

This is pretty much exactly how it works. If you look at any consultation documents for proposed speed limit changes then you'll see that they will measure the average speed of traffic under the current speed limit and then give estimates for the average speeds of traffic with the proposed new speed limits. The average speeds are almost always higher than the speed limits. Any risk assessments for junction remodelling, lines of sight etc have to take into account what the average speed is likely to be under the new limit.

A few tips for keeping rats out of a compost pile:

http://organicgardening.about.com/od/pestcontrol/a/ratsincompost.htm

Also, if you disturb the compost once a fortnight with a big garden fork then the rats won't be able to use it for shelter.

We used to get the odd rat in our heap. I started attacking the heap with a fork every so often and I haven't seen a rat near it since.

well im voting labour because clegg is the bigger prat

These are local council elections, not parliamentary elections. Nick Clegg isn't standing for a seat on the council. Why not look at what the individual councillors are doing in your ward and make your decision based on local and not national issues. That way you're more likely to get (or at least vote for) the changes that you want to see locally.

There's a Dyson repair shop on Sharrow vale Road that I've got spare parts from in the past.

Ciy Vac Centre

358 Sharrow Vale road, Sharrow Vale, Sheffield, S11

Phone: (0114) 268 5885