Has anyone else noticed the traffic around city centre getting worse?

[mattleonard 10]

It's almost like by removing the lights people take responsibility for their own progress and driving.

 

Mmm... not sure I'd trust a lot of people with that responsibility.

[Cyclone 10]

It's what we do at millions of junctions all over the country.

[Cyclone 10]

What you are saying is basically not true.

 

There are locations in the city where, when signals go off, there ARE invatiably collisions. Glossop Rd / Hanover Way, Saville St / Sutherland St to name but two. These collisions can have very serious consequences due to the speed of vehicles on the main roads.

 

You are basing your observations on what happens when lights are out for a couple of hours, that is not a sound basis to make decisions. Also, what you are failing to recognise is that many junctions nowadays have pedestrian crossings around them, which have special facilities for blind people. Pedestrians need safe crossing places, so, in many places, you cannot simply remove the signals.

 

The cities that are trialling removing traffic lights obviously don't agree with your assessment of the danger.

Your argument about pedestrians is valid, if you ignore the possibilities of not trying to mix high speed vehicles and squishy humans by using bridges (with ramps if stair access is a problem). But even so, pedestrian operated lights, with a minimum delay between triggerings would be far less intrusive than the current situation.

[Planner1 428]

The cities that are trialling removing traffic lights obviously don't agree with your assessment of the danger.

Your argument about pedestrians is valid, if you ignore the possibilities of not trying to mix high speed vehicles and squishy humans by using bridges (with ramps if stair access is a problem). But even so, pedestrian operated lights, with a minimum delay between triggerings would be far less intrusive than the current situation.

 

Yes, they are TRIALLING it at SELECTED locations.

 

Have you noticed that at many busy junctions, there are pedestrian crossings across all or most legs of the junction? Basicaly that means you need a traffic signal junction at many places anyway if you want to encourage pedestrians to get around safely. Bridges and subways are for the most part viewed as an impediment to pedestrians using a route, so will not be a viable option in most locations.

[Cyclone 10]

Well, the nature of a trial is that you have to SELECT a location, otherwise it's just an IMPLEMENTATION.

 

Viewed by whom? I'm quite happy to use a bridge or subway to get around as a pedestrian. I don't have any mobility problems admittedly, but a ramp or worst case a powered lift (maybe with a radar tag to activate it?) obviates that problem.

[Paul2412 10]

Well, the nature of a trial is that you have to SELECT a location, otherwise it's just an IMPLEMENTATION.

 

Viewed by whom? I'm quite happy to use a bridge or subway to get around as a pedestrian. I don't have any mobility problems admittedly, but a ramp or worst case a powered lift (maybe with a radar tag to activate it?) obviates that problem.

 

I'm not sure building a bridge or subway at every junction is a cost effective way of reducing traffic congestion.

[Planner1 428]

Viewed by whom? I'm quite happy to use a bridge or subway to get around as a pedestrian. I don't have any mobility problems admittedly, but a ramp or worst case a powered lift (maybe with a radar tag to activate it?) obviates that problem.

 

That view is held by most people who do not subscribe to the opinion that motorists should have absolute priority over everyone and everything.

 

You appear to hold the view that it's better to separate pedestrians and traffic, which was a popular approach about 30-50 years ago, but is now widely held to have failed, by creating barriers to accessibility and leaving us with many unpopular places and spaces that people find intimidating and too difficult to use. That leads to a wide range of people feeling excluded from accessing opportunities and activities that others perhaps take for granted.

[Longcol 594]

I'm sure that the lights to Penistone road have failed before, at off peak times turning right onto it isn't a problem at all, at peak times I can see that it could be, although not impossible as every junction has room for a car in the middle between the two lanes of traffic.

 

Turning right onto Sheffield's second busiest dual carriageway would be a breeze off peak without lights

 

There's enough room for a car to get clipped on the nose and the boot. You'd get, let's see - about a car a minute at best through at peak times. Traffic would tail back up Crookesmoor Road

[mac61178 10]

.....................

[Squiggs 11]

Not really I see it every morning, big que of traffic, cyclist then decides to goto the front of the que(this is if they dont just go straight through the red) lights change, cyclist decides to take the whole lane up, 10mph crawl and about 2 ppl through the lights and there back on red and the process repeats.

 

Then after you finally manage to get through the lights you approach a hill where said cyclists are wobbling and struggling to climb thus slowing traffic down even more.

 

All this often happens due to their being a really nervous driver in a ford ka, 106, C1, mini or some other small car who daren't overtake even though the opposite side of the road is clear.

 

So you said it yourself, it's cars holding other cars up.

 

Glad you cleared that one up

[Cyclone 10]

Turning right onto Sheffield's second busiest dual carriageway would be a breeze off peak without lights

 

There's enough room for a car to get clipped on the nose and the boot. You'd get, let's see - about a car a minute at best through at peak times. Traffic would tail back up Crookesmoor Road

 

You managed to change "not impossible" to "a breeze". Are you sure that your paraphrasing is accurate?

[Cyclone 10]

That view is held by most people who do not subscribe to the opinion that motorists should have absolute priority over everyone and everything.

Providing a separate route for pedestrians over which they have absolute priority is not a car centric view, you could just as easily then claim that it's an opinion which proscribes absolute priority to pedestrians.

 

You appear to hold the view that it's better to separate pedestrians and traffic, which was a popular approach about 30-50 years ago, but is now widely held to have failed, by creating barriers to accessibility and leaving us with many unpopular places and spaces that people find intimidating and too difficult to use. That leads to a wide range of people feeling excluded from accessing opportunities and activities that others perhaps take for granted.

That sounds like it 'failed' because it was badly implemented, not because there's anything inherently wrong in separating traffic and people.

Obviously impossible, but if the cars could all disappear underground into tunnels and the surface space became completely pedestrianised then the separation would have been achieved, but I doubt that anyone would feel intimidated or excluded.