Ecclesfield Road (Woolley Wood Bottom) speed limit/closures

[GhostRiders]

Totally agree with you. I honestly think some people are incapable of logical and rational thought when it comes to speed limits. They refuse to accept human nature that some people will speed and will potentially cause more accidents by attempting to overtake simply because they now regard the speed limit as too low. A far more evidence based holistic view needs to be taken, and people need to stop assuming that because some people are against lowering the speed limit based on a hunch that somehow we are the awful drivers who speed and so on or that we condone the killing of children by speeding cars and other such rubbish.

 

Exactly. I've been saying throughout this thread that I agree with making the road safer.

 

Double white lines as a deterrent to overtaking, suggested maximum speed limit signs for when the weather is bad are both, to my mind, good ideas (although as I understand it not both implementable)

 

I'm also completely in agreement with any action the council takes to sort out the very real and dangerous issue of the road flooding, which very often leads to it being closed.

 

This however, does not alter the fact that this road, where it has been reduced to 50 really shouldn't have been. It is quite safe and usable at 60 mph, there is absolutely no reason for that speed limit to have changed.

 

I think it ludicrous that the speed limit on here has been reduced when other roads remain nsl, the example I used earlier in the thread was the road going from Upper to lower Bradfield which is short, steep and downright idiotic being 60 mph.

[Allen]

Again, yet another driver trying to get rules changed to suit them when the issue is entirely with them or their vehicle. If your rear view mirrors aren't good enough then a) get off the road and stay off it or b) get better rear view mirrors.

There is nothing wrong with my rear view mirrors. I have a perfect view down both sides of the vehicle, quite adequate for normal driving.

I have installed a rear view camera for use when reversing.

 

You will often see (if you look) vehicles displaying a sign reading " If you can't see my mirrors I can't see you".

It's nothing unusual.

 

Oh, and to repeat myself again.....

I have not tried to get any rules changed. I have not contacted the council.

I have simply contributed to this discussion with my views.

 

For those not happy with the changes, I ask, why not contact the council and ask why the changes have been made?

[DT Ralge]

Exactly. I've been saying throughout this thread that I agree with making the road safer.

 

Double white lines as a deterrent to overtaking, suggested maximum speed limit signs for when the weather is bad are both, to my mind, good ideas (although as I understand it not both implementable)

 

I'm also completely in agreement with any action the council takes to sort out the very real and dangerous issue of the road flooding, which very often leads to it being closed.

 

This however, does not alter the fact that this road, where it has been reduced to 50 really shouldn't have been. It is quite safe and usable at 60 mph, there is absolutely no reason for that speed limit to have changed.

 

I think it ludicrous that the speed limit on here has been reduced when other roads remain nsl, the example I used earlier in the thread was the road going from Upper to lower Bradfield which is short, steep and downright idiotic being 60 mph.

 

Some roads self-regulate I.e. Speeds close to the limit have not been the cause of incidents and it would take a special type of idiot to try 60 down them, hence no pressing need to reduce the speed limit.

 

Solid white line systems are only put in (by default) where vision (from either or both directions) is limited to below 200 metres. Councils can apply for special dispensation from this but, of course, it costs them money so that bars "out of scope" interventions.

Edited March 30, 2016 by DT Ralge

[sgtkate]

Some roads self-regulate I.e. Speeds close to the limit have not been the cause of incidents and it would take a special type of idiot to try 60 down them, hence no pressing need to reduce the speed limit.

 

Solid white line systems are only put in (by default) where vision (from either or both directions) is limited to below 200 metres. Councils can apply for special dispensation from this but, of course, it costs them money so that bars "out of scope" interventions.

 

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.

[GhostRiders]

 

For those not happy with the changes, I ask, why not contact the council and ask why the changes have been made?

 

I'd rather ask you why you think a 50mph speed limit is safer. A question I've asked you twice and a question you've avoided twice.

 

I'm fully aware of why the council have made their decision, it's because people like you (note, I'm not insinuating you personally have contacted them) have badgered them to lower it for reasons that suit yourself under the guise of 'safety' when it has absolutely nothing to do with making the road safer.

 

People, in general, don't go asking to keep the road the same limit as it is. People do however jump on the bandwagon without thinking about things properly when someone is lobbying for change, whether that be for self motivated reasons or because they genuinely believe that it will make a difference.

 

I saw a petition for the lowering of the speed limit (I'm not sure if it was the same one that prompted the change), I have no doubt that many people signed it because they genuinely felt compassion without really thinking about what they were signing. It takes two minutes to sign an E petition. I wonder how many signatures it would have had if it was required to personally visit the council with a reasoned argument? I'm guessing not many.

 

Now, rather than constantly popping up with 'you're opinion', why not actually give, as I have, an actual reasoned argument as to why you believe the limit is safer at 50.

 

We've established that you think it benefits you, but my discussion has been about the safety of the road as a whole, thinking about the difficulty of the affected stretch of road as a whole.

 

You've neither backed up your own position or countered mine. We've heard your opinion, if that's all you wanted to give there is no need to comment further. If you want to actually discuss the issue let's do so.

[the fonz]

I'd rather ask you why you think a 50mph speed limit is safer.

 

For people who speed the speed limit is somewhat academic so it doesnt matter if its 50, 60 or 70.

 

For those who keep to the limit the 50mph is safer in the sense that if there is an accident, the reduced speed will reduce the severity of the accident.

[Hambeast]

For people who speed the speed limit is somewhat academic so it doesnt matter if its 50, 60 or 70.

 

For those who keep to the limit the 50mph is safer in the sense that if there is an accident, the reduced speed will reduce the severity of the accident.

 

Do you have the data on how many accidents there have been on that road where the culprit was doing 50mph or below?

[the fonz]

Do you have the data on how many accidents there have been on that road where the culprit was doing 50mph or below?

 

No, the only data I can find is more general.

 

Do you have any data on accidents on that road?

[grand]

been along twice today and was behind about ten cars as some numpty must think its been reduced to 40mph i wont give it 6 months before someone is killed with all the over taking on there now

[Hambeast]

No, the only data I can find is more general.

 

Do you have any data on accidents on that road?

 

Not at all, but isnt the onus on you to show that reducing the limit to 50 will reduce accidents?