Ecclesfield Road (Woolley Wood Bottom) speed limit/closures

[DT Ralge]

Which effectively means they don't really give a flying doo-doo about safety of the public, because if they really did they'd find the money to make the changes that WOULD improve safety rather than pretending to care by reducing a speed limit with no enforcement that may well make things more dangerous.

 

I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion from what I wrote.

 

Firstly, it is self-evident that some roads self-regulate speed-wise.

Secondly, you can't expect them to spend an endless lot of money that doesn't exist. Councils work within regulations (some would say they hide behind them but that depends on your view of Councils) and the reg's around solid line systems are quite clear. In any case, no-overtaking lines per se would have little effect on a wide-ish road with sight lines better than 200 metres since a level of compliance can't be taken for granted.

As for them caring about our safety. I happen to think that within the Council there are those that are passionate about road safety (I've met a few) and, working within ever tighter budgets, they have played their part and achieved a great deal over the last decade and more (halving of road deaths).

For those that are interested (and the bigoted walk/drive around with eyes wide shut) Council interventions for road safety add up to far more than a reduction in speed limit. That is not their only tool in the box.

As for the road in question, I can't comment since I haven't driven down there in years. Elsewhere, I spend a lot of time on the roads pointing out to drivers and explaining the nature and extent of their road safety interventions. So, in my view, bashing the Council on this is myopic, if not blind, much as I'd love to join you in bashing them (another, long story, believe me).

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2016 at 06:45 ----------

 

It has never been 70 on Ecclesfield Road (Woolley Wood Bottom) . The National Speed Limit according to Highway Code is the maximum allowed for the type of road and this is also governed by the width of the road and whether it is in a built up area. The only roads designated at 70mph maximum are A roads and motorways.

 

Where should I begin .... ?

However I tart it up, WRONG, WRONG and WRONG again.

 

It may have been "no speed limit" when the NSL sign meant exactly that (1965).

It may then have been 70 when the "derestriction" was lifted and 70 was put it in its place (after 1966).

It will then, presumably, have been NSL from 1976/7.

"Type of road" is the key to what NSL means for different vehicles. For a car, the NSL on a single-carriageway is 60. On a dual-carriageway, for a car NSL is 70. A dual-carriageway is defined by the barrier that separates the two carriageways, hence the term dual-carriageway. The term does not define how many lanes either side of the barrier. The width of the road, "A" classification, or built-up nature of the road are not defining features of the road's speed limit I.e you can't drive down a road and think "this is wide, therefore the speed must be ..."

The only roads where 70 is allowed for some vehicles are NSL dual-carriageways and motorways.

 

Were you trolling?

[denlin]

I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion from what I wrote.

 

Firstly, it is self-evident that some roads self-regulate speed-wise.

Secondly, you can't expect them to spend an endless lot of money that doesn't exist. Councils work within regulations (some would say they hide behind them but that depends on your view of Councils) and the reg's around solid line systems are quite clear. In any case, no-overtaking lines per se would have little effect on a wide-ish road with sight lines better than 200 metres since a level of compliance can't be taken for granted.

As for them caring about our safety. I happen to think that within the Council there are those that are passionate about road safety (I've met a few) and, working within ever tighter budgets, they have played their part and achieved a great deal over the last decade and more (halving of road deaths).

For those that are interested (and the bigoted walk/drive around with eyes wide shut) Council interventions for road safety add up to far more than a reduction in speed limit. That is not their only tool in the box.

As for the road in question, I can't comment since I haven't driven down there in years. Elsewhere, I spend a lot of time on the roads pointing out to drivers and explaining the nature and extent of their road safety interventions. So, in my view, bashing the Council on this is myopic, if not blind, much as I'd love to join you in bashing them (another, long story, believe me).

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2016 at 06:45 ----------

 

 

Where should I begin .... ?

However I tart it up, WRONG, WRONG and WRONG again.

 

It may have been "no speed limit" when the NSL sign meant exactly that (1965).

It may then have been 70 when the "derestriction" was lifted and 70 was put it in its place (after 1966).

It will then, presumably, have been NSL from 1976/7.

"Type of road" is the key to what NSL means for different vehicles. For a car, the NSL on a single-carriageway is 60. On a dual-carriageway, for a car NSL is 70. A dual-carriageway is defined by the barrier that separates the two carriageways, hence the term dual-carriageway. The term does not define how many lanes either side of the barrier. The width of the road, "A" classification, or built-up nature of the road are not defining features of the road's speed limit I.e you can't drive down a road and think "this is wide, therefore the speed must be ..."

The only roads where 70 is allowed for some vehicles are NSL dual-carriageways and motorways.

 

Were you trolling?

 

I have lived in Ecclesfield since 1955 and I can't remember the Wood Bottom ever being 70. Obviously not all A roads are 70 but the ones that aren't have speed limit signs in place and this alsoapplies to dual carriageways. Sections of the A1 are designated as 50MPH as is the M1

[the fonz]

due to driving inappropriately for the conditions rather than as a result of the speed limit.

 

If you are correct, and I have no reason to doubt you, do you think in this situation, if the speed limit was lower the drivers speed would also have been lower and the accident less severe?. Maybe the driver saw the speed limit as a target and was trying hard to hit that target?

 

Its seems, that in this specific situation the deaths prompted a reaction of some kind from the council, and a reduction in speeds may have been the easiest solution. As previously stated there seems to be plenty of support for this reduction, both on here and in terms of the numbers of people who signed the petition, again it maybe a gut reaction to the deaths but its clear that while there are plenty of people happy to whiz along there are also plenty of people who would happily whiz along at a slower speed.

Edited March 31, 2016 by the fonz

[GhostRiders]

If you are correct, and I have no reason to doubt you, do you think in this situation, if the speed limit was lower the drivers speed would also have been lower and the accident less severe?. Maybe the driver saw the speed limit as a target and was trying hard to hit that target?

 

Its seems, that in this specific situation the deaths prompted a reaction of some kind from the council, and a reduction in speeds may have been the easiest solution. As previously stated there seems to be plenty of support for this reduction, both on here and in terms of the numbers of people who signed the petition, again it maybe a gut reaction to the deaths but its clear that while there are plenty of people happy to whiz along there are also plenty of people who would happily whiz along at a slower speed.

 

For the first part, I (and I am only one person so not sure if it's right to use me as a rule of thumb) would find it difficult to drive anywhere close to the nsl on there in really bad weather, although when it's fine I have no trouble easily driving along it at 60, so I can't really answer as to the motives or actions of other drivers.

 

For the second part, I'll return once more to the facts as I know them.

 

The road, on good days was a nsl road, and unless you had difficulty with operating a vehicle (in which case you probably shouldn't be driving anyway) you COULD, regardless of choice, driven at 60 without any fear of it being too fast for the road.

 

Some people do want to drive at lower speeds, but as you've already stated speed limits should be self regulating. If we are to Base speed limits on SOME road users driving more slowly than the safe maximum limit for the road should we not regulate speed limits on what the slowest road users are comfortable with?

 

Using this logic motorways should probably be 40 mph tops, does this make sense?

 

If not why lower the limit on a road that self regulates at 60 because of SOME users being comfortable driving slower than that?

 

Let's use the petition, do you have the figures for it? Let's assume, and be generous, that 20% of the population of North Sheffield signed it, that means 80% are happier with the faster limit.

 

Let's go simply on safety, both myself and other users have noticed more people trying to overtake since the lower limit came in. Surely this alone tells us that the new limit is potentially more dangerous even though it is slower.

 

If I'm flawed in my logic please point it out because I am really, really struggling to see exactly how a 10mph reduction is making this road safer.

[the fonz]

Using this logic motorways should probably be 40 mph tops, does this make sense?.

 

Yes but there is a balance.

 

From the councils point of view you have a road with several casualties on it, what do you do, is just leaving as is really an option?

 

Reducing speed limits are a common reaction to problems with accidents for the reasons stated above.

 

Your post makes sense and I can not argue with your logic but ultimately only measuring accidents in the next few years can prove or disprove your theory.

[GhostRiders]

Yes but there is a balance.

 

From the councils point of view you have a road with several casualties on it, what do you do, is just leaving as is really an option?

 

Reducing speed limits are a common reaction to problems with accidents for the reasons stated above.

 

Your post makes sense and I can not argue with your logic but ultimately only measuring accidents in the next few years can prove or disprove your theory.

 

Well I, for one hope I am wrong.

 

I also hope that the recommended speed limit in bad weather signs (which I completely agree with) and any further measures the council choose to take go towards proving me wrong.

[DT Ralge]

I have lived in Ecclesfield since 1955 and I can't remember the Wood Bottom ever being 70. Obviously not all A roads are 70 but the ones that aren't have speed limit signs in place and this alsoapplies to dual carriageways. Sections of the A1 are designated as 50MPH as is the M1

 

I may be repeating myself (and we may be writing at cross-purposes) but there are now NO single-carriageways that have a 70 limit.

[LOLBROO]

This road has been closed to traffic all day, possibly due to the rain, and not a word of warning to the general public either on here or, unsurprisingly, in the Star

[MEC176]

It seem that may be some one has listened to the on going saga of the B6082 Ecclesfield Road flooding problem and realised that the improvements that have so far been put in place are not working after one night of heavy rain the road again has flooded and, I presume for safety reasons, was closed, the signs were put in place specifically as a warning of the possibility of flash flooding not as some have said just been left there and forgotten about, and how can you give warning of flooding at the rate that water comes off the high banking above Wincobank down on to Ecclesfield Road the road camber on that bend leans back towards the banking and the drains were the water flows from so it will take time to clear.

Edited June 13, 2016 by MEC176

[LOLBROO]

It seem that may be some one has listened to the ongoing saga of B6082 Ecclesfield Road flooding problem and realised that the improvements that have been so far put in place are not working after one night of heavy rain the road again has flooded and, I presume for safety reasons, was closed, the signs were put in place specifically for the reason of the possibility of flash flooding not as some have said just been left there and forgotten about, and how can you give warning of flooding at the rate that water comes off the high banking above Wincobank down on to Ecclesfield Road.

 

I obviously didn't mean warning of flooding. I meant that once the barriers go up the travelling public should be advised of the closure so that alternative routes could be used. It was chaos at Deep Lane/Grange Lane.