Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Howard on September 25, 2020, 01:50:37 PM
-
https://assets.ctfassets.net/ii3xdrqc6nfw/6CLFlVa8DqiXDmNec46xrw/d6616edc55fea9df6fff201e67348c50/Safer_streets_in_Marple_district_centre.pdf
Options are 20mph signs replacing 30mph signs plus speed bumps and road narrowing. Proposed locations:
Along Stockport Road from the Church Lane/Station Road junction up to the Cinema
Union Road next to the pool
Hibbert Lane by Priory House
Hollins Lane close to Fern Lane
-
It would be interesting to know who hates Marple so much that they came up with this.
-
It would be interesting to know who hates Marple so much that they came up with this.
Yes I can see how making people in the town centre safer for people on foot equates to hating Marple.
Seriously, a 20mph speed limit area like that is not going to make the world of difference to most motorists.
-
I would have thought anything that alters the balance between pedestrians/cyclists and and motor vehicles will be generally welcomed. A schemes which makes people safer and more comfortable can only be welcomed not only by those pedestrians and cyclists but by local traders as shopping becomes a safer experience.
A Poynton type town centre scheme seems to me what Stockport Rd has been crying out for for a long time.
-
My guess is that the average speed up Stockport Road when most pedestrians are around is less than 20mph anyway. I'm in favour of these proposals.
However, I'd also like to see better speed reduction on Church Lane, particularly the part from Littlewoods up to Ridge Road. I have seen high-powered cars doing utterly insane speeds up there. There would be no chance whatsoever if a pedestrian or an animal tried to cross the road at the same time.
-
Yes I can see how making people in the town centre safer for people on foot equates to hating Marple.
Seriously, a 20mph speed limit area like that is not going to make the world of difference to most motorists.
If the proposals were actually about making the town centre safer for people on foot, then fair enough. I don't think they are. It's all about appearing to do something currently fashionable. I use Marple centre a lot on foot and I would say it is very pedestrian friendly.
What proposals like this actually do is say to people "go away; we don't want you here, even if you are spending money here".
I agree that a 20mph limit will not make much difference in most cases, as traffic is normally slower than that anyway, but imposing one is very much a message that drivers are not welcome in Marple.
Personally, I could easily bypass the proposed measures, but they would have a major impact on the economy of Marple.
Places that have campaigned for measures like this and got them, will soon be complaining that their town is dying for lack of people visiting. I do not want to see Marple die in that manner.
-
What proposals like this actually do is say to people "go away; we don't want you here, even if you are spending money here".
Nope. Sorry. Don't get why a 20mph zone would stop people driving to Marple for shopping. Not at all.
There are many reasons you may not want to shop in Marple. The range of shops available probably being the most important one. 20mph limit in the town centre? Nope. Can't see it
Let's say you have two choices for what you want to buy. 1) Marple which is nearer to you, 2) Stockport which is further away, or 3) the Trafford Centre which is much farther away. Marple having a 20mph limit really isn't going to be your deciding factor in my mind
But clearly is in yours. So please explain why it would stop you shopping in Marple.
I can see several reasons why you may choose Stockport or the Trafford Centre over Marple. But a small 20mph zone isn't one of them.
-
Totally agree Andrew.
Also I'm not sure I totally agree with those who say that a 20 mph zone would make little difference as the traffic moves slowly in any event. The might be the case in during certainly parts of the day but in the early evening cars regularly exceed the speed limit or jump the lights at the Stockport Rd/Stat ion Rd junction. It's not also just about speed it's but saying that this space should be shared equally between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle users. We need to changin people's mindset so that pedestrians are seen as the top of the pyramid not car users.
-
Although I agree with these proposals and what they are trying to achieve, I'm relieved to see I won't encounter any new humps on my regular route to the park!
-
Nope. Sorry. Don't get why a 20mph zone would stop people driving to Marple for shopping. Not at all.
There are many reasons you may not want to shop in Marple. The range of shops available probably being the most important one. 20mph limit in the town centre? Nope. Can't see it
Let's say you have two choices for what you want to buy. 1) Marple which is nearer to you, 2) Stockport which is further away, or 3) the Trafford Centre which is much farther away. Marple having a 20mph limit really isn't going to be your deciding factor in my mind
But clearly is in yours. So please explain why it would stop you shopping in Marple.
I can see several reasons why you may choose Stockport or the Trafford Centre over Marple. But a small 20mph zone isn't one of them.
Given the choice between a nearby place which has 20mph limits and traffic calming and one further away which doesn't, I'd always choose the one further away if I need to drive. Having a 20mph limit and speed bumps is very much an indicator to stay away from a place.
If this proposal goes ahead, I will still do shopping in Marple when I can do so by walking (as I usually do), but will go further afield when I need to drive to carry what I have bought, or if I need to drive for some other reason (as I did after my wife had her hip operation).
Like a very large number of people, I will not go near places with 20mph limits (even when I don't drive that fast there anyway) and especially traffic calming measures (most of which ought to be illegal). Marple will not miss my visits, as it will only be a few that I won't do, but it will miss the many people who boycott places with this sort of measure.
-
I have no objection to a 20mph limit in a small area where there are lots of pedestrians - it will make only a small difference to your journey time. I think many narrow residential roads should be 20mph by default. I do object to traffic calming measures - like the "pillows" on Hibbert Lane where your concentration is focussed on straddling them, or the humps on Church Lane where many drivers swerve towards the pavement to miss them. The braking / acceleration they can encourage increases pollution.
Here's a radical thought - how about enforcing the speed limits we have? Policing of road traffic is a joke. As has been noted, some drivers routinely drive way over the speed limit, and mobile phone use while driving is increasing. Can the police be persuaded / funded to do some actual policing?
-
I have no objection to a 20mph limit in a small area where there are lots of pedestrians - it will make only a small difference to your journey time. I think many narrow residential roads should be 20mph by default. I do object to traffic calming measures - like the "pillows" on Hibbert Lane where your concentration is focussed on straddling them, or the humps on Church Lane where many drivers swerve towards the pavement to miss them. The braking / acceleration they can encourage increases pollution.
Here's a radical thought - how about enforcing the speed limits we have? Policing of road traffic is a joke. As has been noted, some drivers routinely drive way over the speed limit, and mobile phone use while driving is increasing. Can the police be persuaded / funded to do some actual policing?
I think I did see a police officer in Marple once. Can't remember when.
-
Surely it is up to everyone who drives to enforce the speed limit by not breaking the law. To date I've managed not to mug anyone, assault someone or shoplift. Why is speeding any different?
I'm not convinced by speed bumps, lots of LAs are abandoning them in favour of other methods such as planters, width restrictions or chicanes. These all require drivers to maintain better concentration to reduce speed and increase awareness - how many times have you been caught out by a speed bump. It didn't achieve its aim if you have.
I think the 20mph limit will make a difference. If (when actually, there is one child fatality and 37 serious injuries each week), a child is struck by a car they are much more likely to survive at 20 mph than 30. Condate, if it means you drive slowly through the 20mph limit and then slightly quicker to another destination to shop then, as a parent, I'm happy. As a cycling lowering the differential between car and bike is also great for safety and perception of safety, many E-Bikes can get someone to 15 MPH easily.
Interestingly there has been loads in the press recently about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the positive impact they are having in places. There are a number of reasons we need to re think our approach to roads, traffic and speed. One that I found interesting is the dominance of SatNav and Google Maps routing people through residential streets where prior to this people planned their own route and stuck to the main roads. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-apps (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-apps) another interesting fact from the DfT is that in 1990 there were 20 million registered vehicles on our roads. This year that figure stands at 38.5 Million, nearly double. It is no wonder streets are choked. Doubling the space dedicated to cars isn't an option so we have to move people out of them and onto other means of transport.
One final point is this and it relates to Covid. In Marple the only bottlenecks I have seen are when lots of people gather for the Pedestrian Crossings. Surely we should be prioritising the flow of people to minimise these groupings than prioritising those who are in a safe metal bubble. I'd suggest that having to stand in the rain waiting to cross a road to reach the shops is a greater barrier to shopping locally than driving a few miles and hour slower to reach them in the first place.
-
One final point is this and it relates to Covid. In Marple the only bottlenecks I have seen are when lots of people gather for the Pedestrian Crossings. Surely we should be prioritising the flow of people to minimise these groupings than prioritising those who are in a safe metal bubble. I'd suggest that having to stand in the rain waiting to cross a road to reach the shops is a greater barrier to shopping locally than driving a few miles and hour slower to reach them in the first place.
Interestingly I read last week that Transport for London are re-programming a small number of their pedestrian crossings to default to red for traffic, green for pedestrians, rather than the other way round. If a car comes near, then it changes.
I presume it was just standalone crossings, rather than junctions - and most of Marple's crossings are junctions. But interesting to see how they're trying to rebalance away from the car.
Another thing they've done in London is get rid of the metal fences at crossings (like the ones at the Co-op/petrol station junction) on account as they're more dangerous than actually not having them. Most people think they're crash barriers, but they're not. Indeed they crumple very quickly in a crash scenario, and there have been cases of cyclists getting crushed between the fence and a vehicle. Those barriers exist purely to keep pedestrians "in their place". I mention that as one of the more difficult places I've found for distancing is the island in the middle of that junction, purely because you're being hemmed in and whilst there is more space that could be used, you're prevented from using it by the barriers.
-
Sadly I think most of the next decade's transport issues will be centred around Covid, or to be more precise, the fall-out from it.
The recent Rose Hill affair will be just one of many.
The government has made a startling success of dissuading people from using public transport, particularly the railways.
I expect roads to be just as busy as they were before, maybe busier, despite more people working from home.
-
The "Traffic Calming" humps have arrived in both Marple & Romiley, what a pointless waste of council resources.
They do slow down traffic, but they haven't solved the grid lock traffic on Dan Bank or anywhere else.
If anything the traffic has got worse, standing traffic up to the petrol station wasting fuel vs putting up with the speed humps and going via Romiley!.
Or the Otterspool Road footpath, which due to a lack of kerb drainage, turned the road into the closest thing we have to a swimming pool yesterday.
-
Try driving through Romiley now. Although the road humps do not look very high, unless you place your car in exactly the right position, the violent sideways tipping motion is not just uncomfortable but for anyone feeling frail it can be really unpleasant, enough to consider not going to Romiley at all. Even if you do decide to drive through the added concentration needed to get the car precisely the right means you are not concentrating on the possibility of a predestrian stepping into the road without looking. The road humps have made Romilley far more dangerous now. Furthermore the 20mph signs that have been put up, although they may be to Government guidelines, are too small and one is even partly hidden by leaves.
Once again Stockport's Transport Department has shown its total lack understanding how more enlightened countries are catering for their pedestrians and for their shopping areas where the shoppers should take priotity.
-
Once again Stockport's Transport Department has shown its total lack understanding how more enlightened countries are catering for their pedestrians and for their shopping areas where the shoppers should take priotity.
Stockport's highways team have proven themselves to be wholly unfit for purpose and incompetent yet again.... Bravo.
Can our local councillors please not step in and have these speed humps removed.
-
Stockport's highways team have proven themselves to be wholly unfit for purpose and incompetent yet again.... Bravo.
Can our local councillors please not step in and have these speed humps removed.
Have you contacted your local councillors directly rather than complaining about it on an Internet forum?
-
Been over these new humps today. Wish they had used these on Windlhurst as they are so much better than the ones on route to High Lane. Going to High Lane in our smallish Bmax is horrendous but these were no problem in the same vehicle.
-
Have you contacted your local councillors directly rather than complaining about it on an Internet forum?
That is what we should all be doing. At least these things look like they can be easily removed (I mean the humps, but the councillors too if they don't oppose this bizarre scheme).
-
Have you contacted your local councillors directly rather than complaining about it on an Internet forum?
... yes, ref below to Cllr's Gribbon and McCallister
Steve/Colin.
I see now the invasion of speed humps on our roads has extended to Marple centre. Whilst there is a general acceptance that speeding itself is a potential issue, it also seems a widely shared opinion amongst residents of Marple that speed humps are not the solution. I know you share this opinion Colin and indeed, one of your election pledges was to address the unnecessary overuse of them on Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane. I note this argument seems to have gone quiet of late.To see them now appear in Marple itself, temporary or otherwise and seemingly without any consultation to the wider populus, I regard as unacceptable. Can I therefore ask that you firstly canvas that wider populus (rather than a minority of supporters) and measure the level of support for these measures but also that you revisit any formal decision taken to install these additional speed measures and demonstrate that it was taken democratically and with an adequate degree of consultation.
-
... yes, ref below to Cllr's Gribbon and McCallister
Steve/Colin.
I see now the invasion of speed humps on our roads has extended to Marple centre. Whilst there is a general acceptance that speeding itself is a potential issue, it also seems a widely shared opinion amongst residents of Marple that speed humps are not the solution. I know you share this opinion Colin and indeed, one of your election pledges was to address the unnecessary overuse of them on Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane. I note this argument seems to have gone quiet of late.To see them now appear in Marple itself, temporary or otherwise and seemingly without any consultation to the wider populus, I regard as unacceptable. Can I therefore ask that you firstly canvas that wider populus (rather than a minority of supporters) and measure the level of support for these measures but also that you revisit any formal decision taken to install these additional speed measures and demonstrate that it was taken democratically and with an adequate degree of consultation.
It was discussed at the recent Marple Area Committee and Councillors complained about the lack of consultation that took place.
I seem to recall some reasons were offered around the money not being available for long enough to do that. You can watch back here:
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=27219&EVT=105 (http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=27219&EVT=105)
I can't remember exactly where it was mentioned (may have been Chair's announcements / Public Questions and possibly later on too) but don't have time to trawl through looking.
-
... yes, ref below to Cllr's Gribbon and McCallister
Steve/Colin.
I see now the invasion of speed humps on our roads has extended to Marple centre. Whilst there is a general acceptance that speeding itself is a potential issue, it also seems a widely shared opinion amongst residents of Marple that speed humps are not the solution. I know you share this opinion Colin and indeed, one of your election pledges was to address the unnecessary overuse of them on Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane. I note this argument seems to have gone quiet of late.To see them now appear in Marple itself, temporary or otherwise and seemingly without any consultation to the wider populus, I regard as unacceptable. Can I therefore ask that you firstly canvas that wider populus (rather than a minority of supporters) and measure the level of support for these measures but also that you revisit any formal decision taken to install these additional speed measures and demonstrate that it was taken democratically and with an adequate degree of consultation.
Watch are commitee meetings before you comment on cllrs .not doing anything .
-
Watch are commitee meetings before you comment on cllrs .not doing anything .
Where have I intimated that they haven't done anything Amazon?
-
Where have I intimated that they haven't done anything Amazon?
you havent
-
it also seems a widely shared opinion amongst residents of Marple that speed humps are not the solution.
Care to provide any evidence for this statement?
-
it also seems a widely shared opinion amongst residents of Marple that speed humps are not the solution.
Care to provide any evidence for this statement?
Well I think it's an incredibly silly and ill thought out idea. Since there has been no consultation, we can only guess. I think the majority of people in Marple can use their common sense, unlike it would appear the people who made the ridiculous decision. Time will tell, as any candidate at the next election who fails to propose the removal of these absurd monstrosities will discover.
-
As a resident in Marple and and parent of toddler who I take for walks most days, I fully support the Council in trying to reduce the speeds of cars on the local roads. And when I'm driving, it really isn't a significant inconvenience to slow from 30mph to 15mph for a short stretch of road with speed bumps.
-
it also seems a widely shared opinion amongst residents of Marple that speed humps are not the solution.
Care to provide any evidence for this statement?
endless comments to threads on social media (FB), primarily SK6 Traffic watch and What's on in Marple as a result of our "new arrivals" in Marple
plus studies that clearly document that speed humps cause environmental damage (noise and air pollution), damage vehicles, create issues for emergency services but don't effectively prevent speeding
-
Please make sure you make your views formal on the Marple Lib Dems website in regard to Stockport's Safe Streets recent bumpy additions in Marple.
https://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=1205#page-content
and also on the email address Cllr Gribbon has set up
marpletraffic@gmail.com
-
Please make sure you make your views formal on the Marple Lib Dems website in regard to Stockport's Safe Streets recent bumpy additions in Marple.
https://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=1205#page-content
and also on the email address Cllr Gribbon has set up
marpletraffic@gmail.com
Thanks for the link. I have made my views known there.
-
A resounding vote AGAINST speed humps in Marple from "several hundred" repsondents
18% for
68% against
14% alternative measures.
20mph in Marple Centre is a great idea but clearly not with humps.
Based on these results, surely now is the time to address the same problems we have on Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane. It's a 30mph limit and a primary route into and out of Marple and doesn't warrant humps. Lets all press our local councillors to take this swell of opinion to the wider issue of all speed humps in the area. My favourite comment made very eloquently on the Marple Lib dems website...
https://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=1205#page-content
"Speed bumps are a ridiculous concept and a characteristically blunt instrument employed by myopic and obsessive local authorities"
Please Please Please can we now do something about our own myopic and obsessive Stockport Highways team.
-
I don't really care about the speed bumps on Windlehurst Road and Upper Hibbert Lane, and I use both regularly. The speed bumps on Stockport Road are quite horrible though due to their design. There seems to be no way to drive over them without a big bump. Unless you are a bus. Buses can just drive over them.
They're clearly temporary but they are most uncomfortable to drive on
I have no issues with a 20mph zone.
-
A resounding vote AGAINST speed humps in Marple from "several hundred" repsondents
18% for
68% against
14% alternative measures.
20mph in Marple Centre is a great idea but clearly not with humps.
Based on these results, surely now is the time to address the same problems we have on Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane. It's a 30mph limit and a primary route into and out of Marple and doesn't warrant humps. Lets all press our local councillors to take this swell of opinion to the wider issue of all speed humps in the area. My favourite comment made very eloquently on the Marple Lib dems website...
https://marple.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=1205#page-content
"Speed bumps are a ridiculous concept and a characteristically blunt instrument employed by myopic and obsessive local authorities"
Please Please Please can we now do something about our own myopic and obsessive Stockport Highways team.
SOwhat are the alternative me measures .
-
In town centres, 20mph zones, road narrowings and signage. The shared space model works but only where through traffic is minimised by alternative routes being made available. So in the case of Poynton, they're in the process of getting a bypass which will massively improve their shared-space model. That wouldn't work for Marple without some kind of bypass.
On incoming roads, a strategically placed speed camera or average speed cameras. (a thoughtfully placed static speed camera lower down on Stockport Road towards Dan Bank perhaps and Strines, and on Windlehurst and Hibbert lane either average speed cameras or a static camera).
this way, only the offenders are affected and the majority of law-abiding citizens are not.
but what will all this cost I hear....?
Marple's newest bumpy addition cost over £25,000. that's for a handful of signs and some plastic speed humps. God only knows what Windlehurst and Hibbert lane has cost in terms of installation and the constant need to repair the speed cushions and tables. Sadly though, a strong business case for change seems beyond our blinkered Stockport Highways team, but perhaps public opinion and persuation might do the trick instead.
-
I don't really care about the speed bumps on Windlehurst Road and Upper Hibbert Lane, and I use both regularly. The speed bumps on Stockport Road are quite horrible though due to their design. There seems to be no way to drive over them without a big bump. Unless you are a bus. Buses can just drive over them.
They're clearly temporary but they are most uncomfortable to drive on
I have no issues with a 20mph zone.
Go over those bumps on Windlehurst/UH lane in a BMW with runflat tyres/wheels, horrendous and i suspect i annoy everyone behind me with the speed i go.
-
20mph zones, road narrowings and signage
They might slow law-abiding citizens but they won't stop people who willfully speed. Speed bumps effectively slow down all traffic. That's why they're preferred as a safety measure.
-
Speed bumps effectively slow down all traffic. That's why they're preferred as a safety measure.
Why should all traffic have to slow down when 99% of it is law abiding citizens who'd rather not have their vehicles damaged, have to brake and cause polution and reduce their fuel efficiency?
-
Why should all traffic have to slow down
To prevent accidents. It's not difficult to comprehend.
-
To prevent accidents. It's not difficult to comprehend.
So, with that logical, lets reduce the motorway speed to 20mph then.
Where are the stats that back up this speed reduction on that stretch of road, how many killed or injured in the last 5 years, how many complaints that pedestrians cant cross the road ?
-
So, with that logical, lets reduce the motorway speed to 20mph then
Except for the logical fact that there aren't pedestrians crossing motorways every few minutes.
-
During the last 50 years I can only recall one accident of a car hitting a pedestrian ( in the 1970s ) and that was on a crossing, I have never had any trouble crossing Stockport Road if its busy I use the nearest crossing, but maybe that’s the problem perhaps people will not wait for a gap in the traffic to cross or walk to the crossing and press the button, what I have seen many times is people crossing the road when the crossing is showing red for pedestrians, it’s a road, have you forgotten what it said on the back of your exercise books at school ?.
-
During the last 50 years I can only recall one accident of a car hitting a pedestrian ( in the 1970s ) and that was on a crossing, I have never had any trouble crossing Stockport Road if its busy I use the nearest crossing, but maybe that’s the problem perhaps people will not wait for a gap in the traffic to cross or walk to the crossing and press the button, what I have seen many times is people crossing the road when the crossing is showing red for pedestrians, it’s a road, have you forgotten what it said on the back of your exercise books at school ?.
I limited my search to the past month, pedestrians being hit by cars on Stockport Road in Marple. Still found one piece in the news though. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/woman-seriously-injured-after-being-19138968
Plus my daughter was hit by a car while crossing Stockport Road earlier this year. That, doubtless like many similar incidents, didn't make the news though.
-
I limited my search to the past month, pedestrians being hit by cars on Stockport Road in Marple. Still found one piece in the news though. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/woman-seriously-injured-after-being-19138968
Plus my daughter was hit by a car while crossing Stockport Road earlier this year. That, doubtless like many similar incidents, didn't make the news though.
Still waiting for someone to say how to solve , ,,,
-
Simple, look before crossing the road or “use” the crossing.
-
Simple, look before crossing the road or “use” the crossing.
Does that stop speeding .
-
Simple, look before crossing the road or “use” the crossing.
Exactly so.
-
Why should all traffic have to slow down when 99% of it is law abiding citizens who'd rather not have their vehicles damaged, have to brake and cause polution and reduce their fuel efficiency?
Last year 2.3 million speeding tickets were issued across the UK. Over 6,300 per day. This was met with the headline "Fury as record 2.3 million fines dished out' in one of our most popular newspapers (bet you can't guess which one).
What is the message that we apparently take from this? According to the paper it should be, 'how dare they catch us breaking the law and doing something demonstrably dangerous'. And lets be honest, the number of actual (unrecorded) speeding offences committed is probably hundreds of times that number - which is a bit scary.
This is why Councils and communities end up having to implement physical measures to try to slow people down. Because people do, constantly, break the speed limit. Meaningfully or not. And the consequences can be grim.
Please, lets not pretend 99% of drivers are angels, they absolutely are not. Indeed, very few are. Most need to be dragged kicking and screaming to change their ingrained bad practices.
BTW I'm not claiming to be holier than thou on this, its all to easy to speed, especially in urban areas - unfortunately the very location where it can potentially do the most damage.
All that said, I'm also not a fan of the Stockport Road humps. I'm particularly unconvinced that humps represent a realistic solution on distributor roads, where traffic volumes are already substantial. Indeed, the current scheme smells of a quick fix, stimulated by the opportunity to spend some free government cash, rather than a targetted response to an obvious problem. There are better ways to try to reduce speeds and make drivers more cognisant of their behaviour, but they are often treated with suspicion or bemusement by the average motorist - as they are a 'change to the norm'.
-
Please, lets not pretend 99% of drivers are angels, they absolutely are not. Indeed, very few are. Most need to be dragged kicking and screaming to change their ingrained bad practices.
All that said, I'm also not a fan of the Stockport Road humps. I'm particularly unconvinced that humps represent a realistic solution on distributor roads, where traffic volumes are already substantial. Indeed, the current scheme smells of a quick fix, stimulated by the opportunity to spend some free government cash, rather than a targetted response to an obvious problem. There are better ways to try to reduce speeds and make drivers more cognisant of their behaviour, but they are often treated with suspicion or bemusement by the average motorist - as they are a 'change to the norm'.
Nowhere Belly have I said that 99% of drivers are angels, but you're effectively saying here that 99% of drivers intentionally break the law but you provide no evidence to back this up. There is a lot of bad and dangerous driving where speed plays no part. One only has to see the number of posts on local social media of the number of bumps and scrapes in Asda's car park. Whilst this isn't likely to cause injury, it's bad driving nontheless and clearly shows there are a lot of people who shouldn't be in charge of a tonne of moving metal. This isn't about breaking the law or being an angel, it's about driving behaviours and education.
I feel this entire subject matter needs wider consideration and thought, rather than as has been previously stated, the miopic and obsessive methods used by Stockport's highways team in their use of speed humps and "free goverenment money".... no money is free; one way or another it's ours that has been given to either central government or the local authority to spend (hopefully wisely) on our behalf.
Your earlier paragraphs seem to intimate that people take umbrage at the potential to being caught speeding. I personally take umbrage to expensive resource being used in this way, when cases of knife crime, criminal damage, car thefts etc continue to rise locally, and there is no resource available to even attempt to tackle this. Careful and considered road scheme design which doesn't damage vehicles or the environment isn't actually that difficult but is something sadly lacking from our friends in Stockport Highways team. If effective, it frees up precious policing resource, leaving it free to deal with what I would regard as malicious criminal activity.
Your closing paragraph seems to contradict your earlier ones but I very much concurr with it. Our council officers and indeed the government need to think a little bit harder and more radically about how they deal with this issue.
-
when cases of knife crime, criminal damage, car thefts etc continue to rise locally,
Can you direct me to your source for the above. I've looked on various sites and am unable to confirm your statement and we don't want to be making decisions just on the basis of unconfirmed statements do we?
-
Recorded crime stats can be found on police.uk
This is the data for Marple Bridge
https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/greater-manchester-police/marple-bridge/?tab=Statistics
For Marple North
https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/greater-manchester-police/marple-north/?tab=Statistics
For Marple South
https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/greater-manchester-police/marple-south/?tab=Statistics
Recorded crime round here is extremely low.
-
Can you direct me to your source for the above. I've looked on various sites and am unable to confirm your statement and we don't want to be making decisions just on the basis of unconfirmed statements do we?
A coach broken in to, criminally damaged and used as a temporary drug den at Smiths of Marple and someone assaulted when they approached the individuals concerned.
Bargain Booze robbed at knife point in the last week.
Car and bike thefts being reported regularly on local social media
Caravan stolen on 5th November
I'm sure I could trawl back through more posts, but the above are recent examples.
-
A coach broken in to, criminally damaged and used as a temporary drug den at Smiths of Marple and someone assaulted when they approached the individuals concerned.
Bargain Booze robbed at knife point in the last week.
Car and bike thefts being reported regularly on local social media
Caravan stolen on 5th November
I'm sure I could trawl back through more posts, but the above are recent examples.
So you haven't got a source all you have is your gossip and social media chat. Whereas if you check out the link Andrew provided they don't bear out your statement.
-
So you haven't got a source all you have is your gossip and social media chat. Whereas if you check out the link Andrew provided they don't bear out your statement.
Of course recorded crime stats for October have yet to be published, so it's quite possible that there has been an absolutely massive increase in crime in the last month. That Marple North has gone from 5 recorded crimes in the last 12 months to 5 in a month in very short amount of time.
We also know that not every crime is reported. Although you would expect criminal damage and robbery to be reported - especially as your insurance company is highly unlikely to pay out if you don't have a crime number. And you only get a crime number if you report it to the police.
Out of interest I quickly looked up the crime stats for where I used to live in the leafy suburbs of South West London. The London Borough of Merton has the fourth lowest crime rates of any of the London boroughs. It's a pretty safe place. We did once get a visit from a PCSO warning us that there had been a break in near by. Turned out our neighbour had been robbed. The robbery? An ironing board was taken from an unlocked outdoor storage cupboard.
The stats? 79 recorded crimes in September for the part of Merton I lived in until 2016. Given Marple Bridge, Marple South, and Marple North had ONE recorded crime between them in September, then either there's huge amounts of unrecorded crime going on, or there isn't that much crime.
Please. Don't have nightmares.
-
I just don't get why people get so furious about getting caught speeding. You did it. You could have not done it. Suck it up.
-
So you haven't got a source all you have is your gossip and social media chat. Whereas if you check out the link Andrew provided they don't bear out your statement.
I tend to believe what I see and hear first hand rather than headline statistics. If you're happy that a Marple outlet is robbed at knifepoint but because it doesn't show immediately in a statistic somewhere then you'll clearly sleep soundly in your bed tonight Wheels :)
-
I just don't get why people get so furious about getting caught speeding. You did it. You could have not done it. Suck it up.
I don't speed so not a problem; if I do, which has happened twice in 35 years of driving, I've graciously accepted the consequences and become a wiser and safer driver because of it. I object though to having my car wrecked by speed bumps and the environment and roadspace being blighted with speed humps.
-
I tend to believe what I see and hear first hand rather than headline statistics. If you're happy that a Marple outlet is robbed at knifepoint but because it doesn't show immediately in a statistic somewhere then you'll clearly sleep soundly in your bed tonight Wheels :)
Now let's be honest here. No sensible person one will ever be happy for a business to be a victim of crime. And to suggest someone would be, is not nice.
But personally the only source I have that Bargain Booze was robbed is you jimblob. I am not saying it didn't happen. But I am saying I cannot currently corroborate your assertion that this crime took place. If someone can produce a reliable source of information that matches what you say, then that will back you up. Right now, I do not have that corroboration.
Why is this important? Because I don't know you from Adam. I have never met you. I don't know anything about you. To me personally you currently sit in the bucket of "random person I know of from the internet". I don't know where your information comes from. I don't know you.
So I don't automatically believe what you are saying because no one should never believe what they read on the internet,unless there is a source for that information
To take a simple example, I can say right now my hair is blonde.
How do you know that is true? If you have met me, you will know the answer. But if you haven't? Is it blonde? Is it red? Is it very? Have I even got hair? How do you know? Where is the evidence?
That's a silly example (my hair is actually green). But sometimes these things are bigger. Rumours and disinformation happen all the time. They can stoke fear and mistrust. Sometimes unsubstantiated rumours can be spread with the best intentions. Sometimes for the worst.
So I will not make an apology for not looking at the local crime stats and concluding that one reported crime a month in three police areas does not make this a hotbed of crime. And from looking at them and concluding that suddenly going from very little crime over 12 months to loads in just a few weeks seems a little unlikely.
If the data at my fingertips changes and my conclusion turns out to be wrong, then I will be wrong. But right now i do not have that information.
I don't want to offend by labelling you jimblob as unreliable. You may be a very reliable source of information. But I don't know that you are.
-
no one should never believe what they read on the internet,unless there is a source for that information
I accept your points Andrew Bowden and I'm afraid I don't know Adam either, but am similarly sceptical when information on the internet from seemingly reliable sources becomes trusted simply because it is well presented but has had significant time and effort applied to it's presentation.
some samples from my "sources" below, they could be fabricated/exaggerated of course but are still sources nontheless!
I'm concious also that this thread has gone way offtrack and was about speed humps, my true passion :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A couple of posters have suggested they'd like to see road accident data. Luckily this data is available, in map form, at this address: https://www.crashmap.co.uk/ (https://www.crashmap.co.uk/)
Click on the 'Map' option and a map will appear. For some reason the default extent is the area around Ambleside, but just type Marple into the Location box towards the bottom-right and press Enter. The pins show where an accident between 2015-2019 has been recorded; and you can fiddle around with the settings to show data as far back as 1999.
bd
-
I accept your points Andrew Bowden and I'm afraid I don't know Adam either, but am similarly sceptical when information on the internet from seemingly reliable sources becomes trusted simply because it is well presented but has had significant time and effort applied to it's presentation.
some samples from my "sources" below, they could be fabricated/exaggerated of course but are still sources nontheless!
I'm concious also that this thread has gone way offtrack and was about speed humps, my true passion :)
Okay, let's go through this.
Firstly something important to say - to everyone. Screenshots are dead easy to fake. It took me 30 seconds to mock up a Twitter post where Boris Johnson is congratulating Mr Chips on being the best chippy in Marple. It's that easy. I took me far longer trying to work out how to actually include the image in this post...
Unfortunately though, businesses assuming everyone has Facebook - and therefore not making their posts public to all - makes it hard for me to find canonical sources of information for one simple reason - I don't have a Facebook account.
Anyway I will assume they are all true. The Works - we have a first hand account. Okay. So there may have been a crime. But the Bargain Booze reference? Well who is the person who posted that? Are they reliable? Do they work for Bargain Booze? Were they there? Or was it heresay? Was it someone bored just making up rumours for the sake of it? People do you know.
So I'm going to repeat this. And I'm going to put it in very big letters.
MARPLE IS A SAFE PLACE
This is NOT a hotbed a crime. Yes there is crime. There's crime everywhere. There's crime in the Shetland Islands.
Seriously.
We can sit here panicking, worrying our heads of, being absolutely petrified about crime. That we're about to be stabbed, robbed, beaten to a pulp. That our houses our about to be ransacked. Murdered in our beds.
As I said, I used to live in a part of London where there were 80 recorded crimes a month. I didn't live in fear of crime then. And I'm certainly not going to do so now.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No one is saying Marple isn't a safe place both from a crime AND a traffic perspective!
It's highly unlikely people make stuff up just for the sake of posting something on social media
what some people are saying though is that they'd rather see fewer speed humps!
-
It's certainly turned into an interesting thread, not least because I finally agree with BoJo on something.
I think for the purposes of this topic the traffic / crash map is the most interesting part. You can clearly see a correlation between accidents and where council officers have tried to implement traffic calming measures. I don't agree with them all, but you can appreciate that they have responded to an issue.
I think we seem to have some consensus or a majority for doing *something* but not on what that should be.
I personally would like to see the District Centre a place where cars and pedestrians have equal priority, and that all routes to our local schools have zebra crossings so people have priority over cars at junctions. There seems to be a significant peak in accidents around our local Primary schools or the crossings nearby, surely we should be focusing some efforts here too.
-
Looking at that map, I would say that the majority of those accidents seem to be around junctions where collisions tend to happen way more often. Mostly due to people not checking around them before moving off or being impatient.
As an almost lifelong resident of Marple, the areas where speeding has been most evident over the years has been
- along Windlehurst
- along Hibbert Lane from the Mill down to the Buxton Lane junction
- Stockport road between Dan Bank and Rose Hill station
- Church Lane from Littlewoods up to Ridge Road.
The only area where that has diminished, in my experience has been along Windlehurst where the speedbumps have been most aggressive. The ones on Hibbert Lane are useless as on most cars you can straddle them or drive between them without even feeling the bump.
-
Looking at that map, I would say that the majority of those accidents seem to be around junctions where collisions tend to happen way more often. Mostly due to people not checking around them before moving off or being impatient.
As an almost lifelong resident of Marple, the areas where speeding has been most evident over the years has been
- along Windlehurst
- along Hibbert Lane from the Mill down to the Buxton Lane junction
- Stockport road between Dan Bank and Rose Hill station
- Church Lane from Littlewoods up to Ridge Road.
The only area where that has diminished, in my experience has been along Windlehurst where the speedbumps have been most aggressive.
it's worth buying some credits for crashmap so you can see more detail and which accidents are as a result of speeding (I have).... it's not many!
-
There is a free version - the data is all in the public domain - https://www.roadcrash.co.uk/map (https://www.roadcrash.co.uk/map)
To be fair the reporting information isn't great and we don't know if speed played a factor. The question will be whether the collision could have been avoided if the cars were travelling at a slower speed.
-
As an almost lifelong resident of Marple, the areas where speeding has been most evident over the years has been
- along Windlehurst
- along Hibbert Lane from the Mill down to the Buxton Lane junction
- Stockport road between Dan Bank and Rose Hill station
- Church Lane from Littlewoods up to Ridge Road.
Funny you should mention 'Church Lane from Littlewoods up to Ridge Road', Howard; I witnessed some pretty atrocious driving near the Conservative Club just a couple of Fridays ago. A car driver - travelling well over the speed limit - evidently hadn't realised the car in front had stopped to let a utility van join the traffic; and had he not been able to stop in time (which he just about managed to do, amid a screeching of tyres and smoke) he would have been into the back of it. The really scary thing is that a couple were on the pavement between the Con Club and the stopped car and, fearful of being hit, felt obliged to jump out of the way. Not only that but 20 minutes later I saw the same car, this time on Stockport Road, and the driver was on his phone looking at Facebook! A white J-reg Toyota MR2, if anyone's interested - I'd advise people to stay clear of it.
-
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/16m-cycling-funding-greater-manchester-19270278
Mpre speed humps no doubt ::)
-
Hi Jim,
This isn't helpful - I don't really want more speedbumps but with out constructive dialogue with council officers via our councillors we'll end up in the self defeating cycle of speedbumps or nothing, nothing isn't an option, so speedbumps it is, but we don't want speedbumps.
I think you mentioned chicanes, narrowing, speed restrictions etc. I've suggested Zebra crossings, junction tables and shared space. Perhaps we ought to start a new thread with what we want to see - from the starting point that the status quo isn't viable. We can then use this to build a plan for Marpe and see how much of that 15 million our councillors will bagsy for us.
As I have said time and time again, if you drive out of Marple in the morning better walking and cycling provision will improve your journey as it'll remove some of the traffic. Pre-covid I was that traffic a couple of days a week, I want to use this time and opportunity to do something constructive that means I don't spend several hours each week crawling down Stockport Road. This could be improving rotes so I and other can cycle or take out a dozen cars that are dropping off at Marple Hall.
-
Safe routes for cycling into Stockport from Marple and High Lane, separate from pedestrians and cars, are so desperately needed, it’s truly woeful that the council continue to ignore this problem and hope it’ll just go away.
Meanwhile, while we wait out their inaction, it would be nice if Marple could at least get a few thousand from the council to resurface the Alan Newton Way into Stockport or the canal towpath out to the High Peak, so that either are actually usable after rain. These aren’t big jobs compared to the amount of road resurfacing that’s done each year. It’s no wonder the roads become choked with cars when the choice for cycling is a deadly road or relentless mud.
-
I regret to say, although I would like to use the Middlewood Way and the Alan Newton Way for cycling, until the surface is suitable for commutiers who would be willing to cycle to work instead of using their cars, I too will carry on using my car.
It should be possible to cycle commute between Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield and Manchester Airport, but Stockport Council is the muddy sledehammer in the works. Does anyone know if the link from the Middlewood Way to the A6 MARR is now open and suitable for commuting cyclists, and similarly is the bridge from the Alan Newton Way into Vernon Park now open.
-
It should be possible to cycle commute between Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield and Manchester Airport, but Stockport Council is the muddy sledehammer in the works.
I went down the Middlewood Way yesterday and got covered in mud. But actually the vast majority of it came from the stretch between Middlewood and Bollington. It was particularly bad near Poynton. I didn't have much of a problem in the Stockport section. That was my experience yesterday anyway.
Does anyone know if the link from the Middlewood Way to the A6 MARR is now open and suitable for commuting cyclists
I am not aware of any link between the Middlewood Way and the Airport Road (A555) if that is what you mean other than to go down the A6 then join the old Buxton Road. The old road has an access ramp to the the A555.
-
The link between Vernon Park and The Alan Newton Way (Dark Lane) is open, as of the last few days. I'm not even aware of any SUGGESTIONS to link the Middlewood Way to the new A555, much less an actual opened path
-
In April of this year I responded to an email in this way ;-
Re A6 MARR
To: Julie.Felton@atkinsglobal.com
I wish to be involved in the Post Scheme Consultation on the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme for Vulnerable Road Users.
Unfortunately that is the only record I have. However from what I remember reading some time later in a notice, from I think Sue Stevenson Transport Manager, was that the planned link between the Middlewood Way amd the A6 at High Lane had been put on hold because it was considered unsuitable for horses. If that is the case then any person wanting to cycle between Marple and the Airport, or any of the places in between will have to wait until the horses can easily get onto the A6MARR.
-
Unfortunately that is the only record I have. However from what I remember reading some time later in a notice, from I think Sue Stevenson Transport Manager, was that the planned link between the Middlewood Way amd the A6 at High Lane had been put on hold because it was considered unsuitable for horses. If that is the case then any person wanting to cycle between Marple and the Airport, or any of the places in between will have to wait until the horses can easily get onto the A6MARR.
bonkers! ... who takes a horse to the airport?
-
bonkers! ... who takes a horse to the airport?
How much runway does Pegasus need?
-
I regret to say, although I would like to use the Middlewood Way and the Alan Newton Way for cycling, until the surface is suitable for commutiers who would be willing to cycle to work instead of using their cars, I too will carry on using my car.
It should be possible to cycle commute between Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield and Manchester Airport, but Stockport Council is the muddy sledehammer in the works. Does anyone know if the link from the Middlewood Way to the A6 MARR is now open and suitable for commuting cyclists, and similarly is the bridge from the Alan Newton Way into Vernon Park now open.
To come off the Middlewood Way and then use the cycle friendly back road of Threaphurst Lane which then leaves an extremly short distance along the A6 to the lights and the A555 Relief Rd seems by far the best way to access the relief road. I use that out most days and it seems to me to negate any need for a Middlewood Way -A555 cycle link. It's already there as I say it's called Threaphurst Lane.
-
Thanks Wheels, I don’t suppose there is a sign on the Middlewood way showing the way to the A6.
Personally I am no fan of the Middlewood way and currently drive to the Deanwater before setting off on my bike, but as I drive along the A6MARR I do wonder if I should try to overcome my dislike of the muddy conditions on the Middlewood Way so as to be able to cycle from home.
Stockport doesn’t realise what a treasure they could have if the Middlewood and Alan Newton Way’s were surfaced properly. A few years ago I did a little survey asking cyclists where they came from. The first couple I asked were unloading their bikes at Rosehill having driven over from Barnsley. From then on, discounting a few local cyclists, there was a couple from Northwich, another from Sandbach, and even a father and daughter whose ambition was to ride all the notable cycle paths in Britain. They had come from Essex to ride the Tissington and Monsal Trails. They saw an advert for the Middlewood Way so came on to ride it. I met them coming towards me as I rode back to Marple. I asked them where they had been and they said they had got to the Council Refuse Tip so decided to turn back. They didn’t see any of the delights of Marple because there was nothing to show them where to go. I asked them what they thought of the Middlewood, and with only the slightest hesitation they both said of all the trails they had ridden, the Middlewood Way was by far the worst.
-
To come off the Middlewood Way and then use the cycle friendly back road of Threaphurst Lane which then leaves an extremly short distance along the A6 to the lights and the A555 Relief Rd seems by far the best way to access the relief road. I use that out most days and it seems to me to negate any need for a Middlewood Way -A555 cycle link. It's already there as I say it's called Threaphurst Lane.
Except you can honestly be waiting up to 10 minutes+ at peak times for a gap in traffic to make the right turn out of Threaphurst Lane onto the A6, and even this short stretch of the A6 includes pinch points like pointless central traffic islands. I can’t see anyone new to cycling choosing to do this, it still feels frightening.
A link between Middlewood and the old A6/Norbury Hollow would be incredibly easy compared to some of the things SMBC are doing elsewhere, I don’t know what their issue is. It genuinely feels like they got the plan for a shared pavement rejected* and then threw their toys out of the pram, now just saying “well we offered you a shared pavement didn’t we!” and not doing anything else out of spite.
*This was rejected I believe based on a couple of comments from horse riders that because it was due to be on the north side of the A6, cyclists would be travelling fast downhill on the left side of the pavement, directly next to where horses might be coming uphill on the road (because they can’t use such a pavement), causing horses to be alarmed. Apparently they’re used to being passed on the other side. While this is a slightly ridiculous complaint given it suggests taking a horse on a 40mph road in the first place, like that wouldn’t bother them, it’s also slightly ridiculous SMBC didn’t then propose to just widen the pavement on the other side instead, and instead gave us... nothing! For 2 years now. And no plans in progress. I really blame the local Marple South & High Lane councillors for not properly fighting on this either. They seem content to sit back and be told what’s what by the Highways masters.
-
I totally agree with RSH who said:-
(I really blame the local Marple South & High Lane councillors for not properly fighting on this either. They seem content to sit back and be told what’s what by the Highways masters).
.
It applies to practically all our Councillors. and so must include the Marple North Councillors as well. Councillors should be firmly representing the Communities views and not just their own, and should stop simply being no more than Post Boys between the residents and SMBC which appears to have no interest in the future of all the residents in the Stockport area.
Choosing not to create a link between the Middlewood Way and the A6MARR simply because it isn't suitable for horse riding is only one of their Pro-Horse Riding related policies. Britain is 50 years behind many European countries when catering for cycling , and Stockport is a further 50 years behind that when horse riding as a general mode of transport finally disappeared.
-
Except you can honestly be waiting up to 10 minutes+ at peak times for a gap in traffic to make the right turn out of Threaphurst Lane onto the A6, and even this short stretch of the A6 includes pinch points like pointless central traffic islands. I can’t see anyone new to cycling choosing to do this, it still feels frightening.
Possibly, as a wrinklie I am never there at peak times and I accept you do have to be a little assertive to get into the flow of traffic however the use of Threaphurst Lane is in itself a pleasenter cycling experience than cycling down the A6 from the Middlewood Way and one we should be concentrating on as it's just a nicer way to cycle.
-
consultation on Windehurst speed "mitgation" measures...
please air your views....
https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/windlehurst-road-traffic-calming-measures/
-
A resounding vote AGAINST speed humps in Marple from "several hundred" repsondents
18% for
68% against
14% alternative measures.
20mph in Marple Centre is a great idea but clearly not with humps.
Please Please Please can we now do something about our own myopic and obsessive Stockport Highways team.
So the latest I have from the Stockport Highways team, despite having received a request from our councillors to remove the speed cushions based on their feedback as above is now...
"Jon Brown (Network manager for Stockport Highways) states that there is a due process to follow and in this case, whilst the SSSL scheme is temporary the intention has always been to undertake a formal consultation (at what cost!) with residents upon the measures implemented to gauge success or otherwise. It has been agreed with the local Councillors to complete this consultation as if any elements of the scheme are to be made permanent then this should be subject to consultation and formal Committee process."
Stockport Highways team bullying us again and hiding behind "due process" as an excuse to save face rather than admit they got it wrong. Cummon councillors, surely common sense can prevail here?
-
Which Temporary scheme are they referring to, the original mk1 car destroying humps or the rejected proposed mk2 car destruction scheme?
-
Which Temporary scheme are they referring to, the original mk1 car destroying humps or the rejected proposed mk2 car destruction scheme?
they're all car destroying and all rejected as far as I'm concerned... shame the powers that be aren't listening to that message!
-
Similar to the terrible road width reduction scheme they're doing from Bramhall roundabout up past the Hazel Grove leisure centre.
Taking a perfectly safe and wide road and chopping it up to create a cycle lane whilst narrowing the road at what I can only assume is an astronomical cost!.
-
Similar to the terrible road width reduction scheme they're doing from Bramhall roundabout up past the Hazel Grove leisure centre.
Taking a perfectly safe and wide road and chopping it up to create a cycle lane whilst narrowing the road at what I can only assume is an astronomical cost!.
Exactly, but no one really wants this stuff, it simply impedes traffic flow, often creates a more dangerous environment, the testosterone fuelled mamals don't cycle on the cycle lanes anyway, we foot the bill but it keeps Stockport Highways team busy. No one seems to be prepared to stand up to them and say NO.
-
Right, let's have this. I ride bikes, I go walking, and I drive. I've pass my advanced driving test and qualified as an IAM observer. I passed my cycle proficiency back in the day.
Taking a perfectly safe and wide road
It's not perfectly safe and wide. It's wide, which makes it LESS SAFE. Width encourages speed. It's not safe to approach that roundabout at speed, you need to be slowing on approach. I'm sure at this point all of you will be jumping up and down in your seats saying "but I do slow down, I'm a good driver". Not everyone is a good driver, believe it or not, and sadly the number of "not good" drivers is increasing and that is NOT GOOD for road safety, regardles of whether you are on foot or in a bike (I'm not bothering with those in a big protective metal cage, you have the cage to protect you)
no one really wants this stuff
I do, and so do other people. You may not, but you aren't everybody so you can't say "no one" wants this.
the testosterone fuelled mamals don't cycle on the cycle lanes anyway
well,. let's dissect that shall we?
"testosterone fuelled mamals" - so all people on bikes are just proving how manly they are, is that right? We never see kids on bikes, or women? Or just people popping to the shops?
don't cycle on the cycle lanes
well that all depends on where the cycle lane is, where I'm going, what time it is and how the "cycle lane" is built. I used to commute to Cheadle for instance - If I did that nowadays, I STILL wouldn't use the "Perfectly good" Alan Newton Way cycle link between Marple and Stockport because it doesn't go where I want and it's really poorly surfaced. Many of the "cycle lanes" in Stockport are not actually constructed for the benefit of cyclists, they're deisgned to get those bloody bikes out of the way of the almighty all-important motor vehicle. Occasionally, rather than diverting off though a maze of back streets and thus covering twice the distance, they do run alongside a road - but in this case it's usually a "shared path" where cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to peacefully co-exist. This is an equally bad idea. Pedestrians wander along, chatting to each other or listening to music through headphones or whatever. Cyclists - even those just pottering along - travel at a faster speed and should not be asked to share the same space as it's dangerous for both sides. If I'm riding at a reasonable pace, I won't use a shared path like this unless I know it's going to be empty *for the entire length*.
The plain fact is there are too many cars on our roads, and they're all getting bigger and bigger. Electric cars are not the answer, as they're still car sized. We need to reduce our reliance on cars and encourage people to use other means of transport - walking to the shops, or walking the kids to school, rather than popping down in the car (I've walked to the shops from our house near the ring o'bells and seen neighbours drive the same distance, setting off and arriving at the same time!)
At the moment, public transport is woeful. We don't have a reliable, affordable service that is fit for purpose - unlike London, you can just leave the house and trust that there will be a bus / train along within a few minutes which will get you to where you need to go in a reasonable time. When I want to visit my Dad in Wigan, driving is the only reasonable choice, as public transport would take almost three times as long and cost more than double. This is not sustainable. We need to encourage people out of cars and onto bikes, buses, trains and foot. This means planning, supporting and building quality infrastructure both in terms of timetables and pricing when it comes to public transport, and safe, segragated infrastructure to allow people to cycle. The biggest blocker to people cycling at the moment is fear - people are afraid they'll be knocked off their bikes becuase of the sheer amount of traffic and the initimidating nature of drivers who either just don't look for cyclists or worse still see them and see them as fair game for being stupid enoug to ride on the road
Not every person can ride, I get that. Not every person wants to ride, I get that. But, many people can and do. If you oppose every single safety measure so that you can continue to drive unimpeded, then the amount of traffic will never reduce and you'll remain sitting in that queue of traffic. Every person on a bike is one less person in a car. Think about that the next time you say that cyclists are holding you up - it's not bikes that cause traffic james, it's cars.
-
whilst I don't disagree with much of what you say @nbt , it's a simple question of return on investment.
I don't have exact figures but I believe our highways team should have these figures but doubt they do; but if the outcome of a £1M investment in cycle lanes encourages only 1 motorist out of every hundred to cycle but the remaining 99 motorist's journey is negatively impacted either because of damage to their vehicle because of speed humps, their journey is slower and they sit in a traffic jam increasing air pollution then there is no business case for the current approach and a more radical approach is required that doesn't impact users of the current only viable transport option for the large majority of people.
-
Sadly, it doesn't work that way. We need stick and carrot - both making an impact on the current methods of transport and providing alternatives. At the moment we're not providing alternatives. Years of "encouraging" have not resulted in a big enough change as quite frankly it's too easy to carry on the way we're currently behaing. Hopefully the new generations of electric bicyles will change things as it means people wil be able to get about more easily. I honestly think the e-bike is a game changes, they just need to become more affordable (I ride a LOT and can't justify the prices, but it's on the way)
You get the city you build for - if you build lots of roads, you will get lots of cars. If you build a place that's nice for walking and riding, then you will get people. Just look at dtuch and belgian cities in 1970 vs nowadays - they made a conscious decision to prioritise people and as a result they're much nicer places to live in. Paris is making the same change on a more recent scale. Saying that "no one cycles so we do't need cycle lanes" is like saying "we don't need a bridge over the river here as no-one crosses at this point"
But you are right about one thing - the stockport council highways / planning department are not doing a good job for anybody
-
But you are right about one thing - the stockport council highways / planning department are not doing a good job for anybody
Again @nbt, I largely agree, but in particular with you closing point.
-
I see the consultation on this is now in progress and can be commented on on the council website.
As you know, I consider the whole idea to be madness and an insult to Marple, but whatever you think, you can have your say. Whether any notice will be taken of the consultation is likely to depend on whether it agrees with what the council has already decided; or that's what it seems like happens with these "consultations".
-
I see the consultation on this is now in progress and can be commented on on the council website.
As you know, I consider the whole idea to be madness and an insult to Marple, but whatever you think, you can have your say. Whether any notice will be taken of the consultation is likely to depend on whether it agrees with what the council has already decided; or that's what it seems like happens with these "consultations".
completed....
feel free to cut and paste at your leisure if you agree.....
The bolt dwn measures currently installed are non-compliant with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 and are therefore illegal. The humps
closest to the crossing are within 30m of that crossing and are therefore in breach of the regulations. Three pairs of humps are sited adjacent to parking
laybys which the stage 1 safety audit conducted by Stockport's own Highways Team stated presented a risk of cars swerving into the laybys to avoid the
cushions and hitting pedestrians that might have stepped into the road to socially distance. The recommendations made in the saefty audit were ignored
when the cushions were installed! The bolt down cushions appear to have a vertical face greater than 6mm, which again contravene the aforementioned
regulations. They are also now lifting from the road and present a trip hazard as well a a vertical face of greater than 6mm.
The measures were installed without any traffic count or speed data available and it is highly questionable whether imposing a 20mph limit in Marple
District Centre is even necessary. The distances, junctions and traffic light setup at the moment make it almost impossible to achieve speeds greater than
20mph anyway, and for the minority of offenders who might attempt to exceed 20mph, speed cushions are unlikely to prevent them doing so.
-
I might have to paraphrase my response.
The letter arrived with the local liberal leaflet, what a surprise.
They were lamenting about how the evil tories and labour are running the council.
25 labour, 26 liberal and they blame 8 Conservative.
-
I might have to paraphrase my response.
The letter arrived with the local liberal leaflet, what a surprise.
They were lamenting about how the evil tories and labour are running the council.
25 labour, 26 liberal and they blame 8 Conservative.
;D ;D they're running the council because they got the most votes!
-
But we don't like getting criticism when we actually have a chance to be in charge.
Sounds very Cameron & Clegg :)
-
The bolt down measures currently installed are non-compliant with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 and are therefore illegal. The humps
closest to the crossing are within 30m of that crossing and are therefore in breach of the regulations. Three pairs of humps are sited adjacent to parking
laybys which the stage 1 safety audit conducted by Stockport's own Highways Team stated presented a risk of cars swerving into the laybys to avoid the
cushions and hitting pedestrians that might have stepped into the road to socially distance. The recommendations made in the saefty audit were ignored
when the cushions were installed! The bolt down cushions appear to have a vertical face greater than 6mm, which again contravene the aforementioned
regulations. They are also now lifting from the road and present a trip hazard as well a a vertical face of greater than 6mm.
The measures were installed without any traffic count or speed data available and it is highly questionable whether imposing a 20mph limit in Marple
District Centre is even necessary. The distances, junctions and traffic light setup at the moment make it almost impossible to achieve speeds greater than
20mph anyway, and for the minority of offenders who might attempt to exceed 20mph, speed cushions are unlikely to prevent them doing so.
Interestingly, when I put this to the Highways Team their response (after a mere 8 months) was
· Normal procedures and standards were not always observed
· A Road Safety Audit was carried out and did not identify the cushions outside of 85 Stockport Road as a hazard
point 1 means Stockport Highways Team seem to think they can break the law and acts of parliament don't apply to them
point 2 is simply a lie, ref their own safety audit (screenshot attached of the relevant paragraph augmented with actual photographic evidence showing the actual placement of the cushions as installed)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Even as a person who isn't a highways engineer, but has travelled a lot.
If you were going propose speed humps/cushions/grand canyon, at least put them as the pedestrian crossing which is what they do everywhere else I've been to!.
-
I note that if you wish to comment on these proposals, you have until 17 Sept to do so.
https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/safe-streets-save-lives-sssl-district-centre-20mph/ (https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/safe-streets-save-lives-sssl-district-centre-20mph/)
-
Done it. Can't see what the fuss is about - it all seems quite reasonable to me.
-
https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/safe-streets-save-lives-sssl-district-centre-20mph/
I don't believe this has been shared by anyone....
-
I don't believe this has been shared by anyone....
It was on here @PhilB but no harm done - I've merged the threads.....
-
Thanks Mark,
Wood for the trees :)
-
Don't forget to share your views on the safe streets Marple consultation... it closes on the 17th September.
https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/safe-streets-save-lives-sssl-district-centre-20mph/
just remember that the scheme as installed today hasn't made the streets safer as the consultation preface suggests, it is in breach of The Highways Regulations (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 and it has placed speed cushions adjacent to laybys when the stage 1 safety audit made specific recommendations not to do so because it risked cars "swerving into an empty layby to avoid the cushions and hitting a pedestrian who had stepped into the layby in order to socially distance" It also has placed cushions closer than 30m to the pedestrian crossing outside no.85 Stockport Road, a direct breach of the regulations!
Stockport Highways Team won't admit to their failings and our local councillors seem complicit in this cover up and are using the consultation as a smokescreen, hoping that a conclusion to remove them will make all this go away rather than them have to stand up to Stockport's Highways Officers and hold them to account. Marple Area committee meeting tonight has refused my question, asking them which regulations apply to the scheme and why safety audit answers were ignored!, I very much suspect; because they know the answer will reflect badly on Stockport's Highways team and the council so they slam the door in your face!
Please complete the consultation and at least, justly or otherwise, get these ridiculous, polluting and car damaging cushions removed.
-
just remember that the scheme as installed today hasn't made the streets safer as the consultation preface suggests, it is in breach of The Highways Regulations (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 and it has placed speed cushions adjacent to laybys when the stage 1 safety audit made specific recommendations not to do so because it risked cars "swerving into an empty layby to avoid the cushions and hitting a pedestrian who had stepped into the layby in order to socially distance" It also has placed cushions closer than 30m to the pedestrian crossing outside no.85 Stockport Road, a direct breach of the regulations!
Out of interest, how many dangerous drivers who clearly weren't paying attention to the road have swerved into the layby and have actually hit a pedestrian, since they were installed?
I mean, there's risks of things happening all over the place. And I think we can all agree that someone who swerves recklessly into a layby and hits someone who has stepped out into the layby, is a actually dangerous driver. So I think asking how many proved examples of dangerous driving we have, is a fair question.
-
Out of interest, how many dangerous drivers who clearly weren't paying attention to the road have swerved into the layby and have actually hit a pedestrian, since they were installed?
I mean, there's risks of things happening all over the place. And I think we can all agree that someone who swerves recklessly into a layby and hits someone who has stepped out into the layby, is a actually dangerous driver. So I think asking how many proved examples of dangerous driving we have, is a fair question.
take that one farther back still @Howard , what were the accident stats, traffic data and speeding data as recorded in Marple district centre before these measures were installed....
The last two were not even in existence or part of the criteria for these measures being designed and installed and the accident stats (of which there were three) in the three years through 2017, 18 & 19 are as follows: -
The first incident involved a vehicle pulling out from Queen Street onto Stockport Road when it collided with a motorcycle travelling in a south westerly direction, resulting in a slight injury to the motorcyclist. The second incident involved a vehicle and pedal cycle both travelling westbound on Stockport Road when the vehicle stops to turn right and the pedal cycle collides with the rear of the vehicle, resulting in a slight injury to the pedal cyclist. The third incident involved a vehicle turning right from Union Road onto Stockport Road when it collided with a pedestrian crossing southbound from drivers nearside, resulting in a slight injury to the pedestrian.
All incidents involve turning or stationary vehicles, none state speed as a cause!, so let's introduce even more things for motorists to have to avoid, look out for, swerve to avoid on top of the hazards already presented to them!
You've also re-affirmed my point in stating.. "someone who swerves recklessly into a layby and hits someone who has stepped out into the layby, is a actually dangerous driver"
if there are dangerous drivers out there, which no one can deny there are, don't design a road scheme that makes them do more dangerous things and ignore the very recommendations in your own safety audit that suggests that the measures create a risk of this happening.
-
Thanks for the reminder, I’ve just commented stating full support for the 20mph zone and replacement of the bolt down cushions with permanent flatter-topped tables that aren’t quite so horribly harsh. 👍
-
Thanks for the reminder, I’ve just commented stating full support for the 20mph zone and replacement of the bolt down cushions with permanent flatter-topped tables that aren’t quite so horribly harsh. 👍
20mph... 👍
flatter-topped tables... 👎
smooth, level road surface... 👍
-
Thanks for the reminder, I’ve just commented stating full support for the 20mph zone and replacement of the bolt down cushions with permanent flatter-topped tables that aren’t quite so horribly harsh. 👍
Wow! I've commented on the insanity of both the 20mph zone and even more so the cushions. Someone must really hate Marple to have even thought of introducing them.
-
Wow! I've commented on the insanity of both the 20mph zone and even more so the cushions. Someone must really hate Marple to have even thought of introducing them.
👍 ;D ;D
-
I've also ridiculed the whole scheme.
I'd be more than inclined to believe they hate both Marple and the whole of Stockport. Maybe whomever comes up with these idea lives in Tameside?
-
Despite my well documented crusade for the Marple motorist and disdain for needless traffic calming measures, I have this very minute returned from walking into Marple district Centre to collect my cat’s flea treatment from the vet. Whilst walking up Stockport Road, near to the Shell station and nearby crossing I heard over my left should a large thud only to look round and see a small red Peugot having ploughed into the back of an equally small silver Suzuki Alto. Traffic was moving slowly on the main road, as it always does at this time and it appears the Suzuki had had to slow further in order to navigate his tiny frame over the speed cushion immediately following the crossing. Clearly the red car behind had not forseen this, probably because he wouldn’t have seen the speed cushion and therefore had not expected a sudden slowing of the vehicle in front of him. Whilst it is in no doubt that fault lies with the driver of the red Peugot having rear-ended the car infront of him, in my opinion and having witnessed the collision, it is also most likely that had there not been a needless mound of rubber bolted to the road infront of the Suziki, both vehicles would now be intact and both owners would be able to enjoy the rest of their sunny Friday rather than having to phone their respective insurance companies.
-
Sush jimblob, don’t give them any more reasons to make the plenty 20mph idea an even more sedate 15.
At this rate they’ll try turning Marple into a park and ride, leave your car at the Rec and they’ll have blockaded the roads like French protesters at Calais or superglued protesters hands to the tarmac.
-
Serene 15. It's got a ring to it! It'd need bigger humps though I'm sure.
-
Just think of all the slow motion carnage, OAP's shuffling past you on the pavement. Which isn't too dissimilar to an average morning whilst escaping to get to work.
-
It’s nearly happened to me on several occasions as I have to pass over the “humps” at 5 – 10 MPH to avoid damage to my gentleman’s carriage.
Despite my well documented crusade for the Marple motorist and disdain for needless traffic calming measures, I have this very minute returned from walking into Marple district Centre to collect my cat’s flea treatment from the vet. Whilst walking up Stockport Road, near to the Shell station and nearby crossing I heard over my left should a large thud only to look round and see a small red Peugot having ploughed into the back of an equally small silver Suzuki Alto. Traffic was moving slowly on the main road, as it always does at this time and it appears the Suzuki had had to slow further in order to navigate his tiny frame over the speed cushion immediately following the crossing. Clearly the red car behind had not forseen this, probably because he wouldn’t have seen the speed cushion and therefore had not expected a sudden slowing of the vehicle in front of him. Whilst it is in no doubt that fault lies with the driver of the red Peugot having rear-ended the car infront of him, in my opinion and having witnessed the collision, it is also most likely that had there not been a needless mound of rubber bolted to the road infront of the Suziki, both vehicles would now be intact and both owners would be able to enjoy the rest of their sunny Friday rather than having to phone their respective insurance companies.
-
I hope your referring to you car and not some male anatomy related medical condition!.
-
It is indeed my horseless carriage, although my personal chassis and ancillaries do have a few miles on the clock.
I hope your referring to you car and not some male anatomy related medical condition!.
-
Local SAFETY matters....!
how about the immediate removal of the speed cushions in Marple district centre that are non-compliant with the regulations, ie, the law! The Highways (Road Humps) legislation 1999 and also that disregard the recommendations made in the stage 1 safety audit where it was stated in para 8.4.1 / 8.4.2 / 8.4.3 & 8.4.4...
"there exists the potential for vehicles to swerve into the layby to avoid speed cushions, leading to collisions with pedestrians or risk of loss of control"
If local councillors are going to raise safety issues, maybe they should do something about the safety issues that are staring them in the face and that they have been repeatedly informed about.
-
@jimblob you are asking for the REMOVAL of safety measures there. Ok , we get you don't like being slowed down and want the speed bumps removed. Fair enough if driving fast is your thing (though I do think you should try that on the motorway or even the race track rather than a local street), but "take them away" is not enough. You need to come up with a constructive alternative.
-
Local SAFETY matters....!
how about the immediate removal of the speed cushions in Marple district centre that are non-compliant with the regulations, ie, the law! The Highways (Road Humps) legislation 1999 and also that disregard the recommendations made in the stage 1 safety audit where it was stated in para 8.4.1 / 8.4.2 / 8.4.3 & 8.4.4...
"there exists the potential for vehicles to swerve into the layby to avoid speed cushions, leading to collisions with pedestrians or risk of loss of control"
If local councillors are going to raise safety issues, maybe they should do something about the safety issues that are staring them in the face and that they have been repeatedly informed about.
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/yawn-gi.gif)
-
@jimblob you are asking for the REMOVAL of safety measures there. Ok , we get you don't like being slowed down and want the speed bumps removed. Fair enough if driving fast is your thing (though I do think you should try that on the motorway or even the race track rather than a local street), but "take them away" is not enough. You need to come up with a constructive alternative.
I don't drive fast, I don't break the speed limit... you're missing the point here @nbt , the "safety measures" to which you refer actually reduce safety because they breach their own design safety audit recomendations AND they break the law. You are not legally allowed to place a speed cushion within 30m of a pedestrian crossing, the cushions outside No85 Stockport Road do exactly that. The highway's own safety audit made 4 seperate recommendations to NOT place speed cushions next to the laybys because this introduced a risk of pedestrian injury... have you read the safety audit @nbt or the highways regulations? Do you know how fast I drive @nbt...No! so can I suggest you take the time to do your research before making accusations and passing unfounded judgements without evidence.
-
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/yawn-gi.gif)
I'm glad you think implementing schemes that break design guidelines, regulations (as written in law), and safety audit recommendations are boring @Howard . Let's hope someone you love is never killed as a pedestrian because they were hit by a moving vehicle!
-
All I'm hearing is "take them away".
I'm not hearing any alternatives?
-
The accident data prior to them being installed shows no pedestrian injuries as a result of speed; the issue of speeding, perceived or otherwise will not be solved with speed cushions because the small minority who speed will not slow down for a speed hump, but they will swerve to try and avoid one... (safety audit observations!). So there is no case to require an alternative. There was no greater danger before the speed cushions were installed, there are now safety risks and an increased danger... three pairs of cushions next to laybys and a pair of speed cushions 18m from a pedestrian crossing (which breaches regulations written in law!).
We are being greenwashed (or safetywashed) into believing we need speed mitigation here!
Longer term, a better road design within Marple is certainly required, but the current temporary measures make any problem worse, not better. So leaving them there or forcing the agenda for an alternative before they are removed is misguided in my opinion.
-
For goodness sake, do we have to have this endless pointless repetitive argument AGAIN?
-
For goodness sake, do we have to have this endless pointless repetitive argument AGAIN?
if you don't like it @andrewbowden, stay out of it!
-
if you don't like it @andrewbowden, stay out of it!
How can I do that when pretty much every thread gets hijacked by it?
-
All I'm hearing is "take them away".
I'm not hearing any alternatives?
Why do we need an alternative? Just get rid of the dangerous and pointless nonsense.
I don't speed; I do use Marple a lot as a pedestrian; I don't see the problem with how it was before.
However, I think we've probably been through all this before.
-
Why do we need an alternative? Just get rid of the dangerous and pointless nonsense.
I don't speed; I do use Marple a lot as a pedestrian; I don't see the problem with how it was before.
However, I think we've probably been through all this before.
Exactly...
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/yawn-gi.gif)
-
How can I do that when pretty much every thread gets hijacked by it?
slight exaggeration there @andrewbowden; almost up there with the enormous misconception that we need speed mitigation in Marple District Centre because "pretty much every" driver is a speeding motorist.
Avoiding the conversation would therefore mean of course that you'd have to NOT read "pretty much every thread", just think what you'd miss out on!
-
Good evening
I feel it is worth stating that I have made the bumps on Stockport Road as an agenda item at the next Marple Area Committee meeting. Like many I am not a fan of them and do not feel the reason for their installation (improve social distancing) warranted them being in position for so long. I do however feel that the 20mph signage should remain.
I do believe that my previous emails regarding safety matters are justified. Lighting issues in the park, Police improvements and road/pavement safety in winter are relevant to many in our community and coming from a profession where I have experience that smoke alarms save lives I want to make sure residents are as safe as possible. I hope people use the freephone number and get alarms if they are in need of them.
Kind regards and stay safe
Steve
-
Good evening
I feel it is worth stating that I have made the bumps on Stockport Road as an agenda item at the next Marple Area Committee meeting. Like many I am not a fan of them and do not feel the reason for their installation (improve social distancing) warranted them being in position for so long. I do however feel that the 20mph signage should remain.
Kind regards and stay safe
Steve
Would you care to comment on my observatiobns @Steve Gribbon , the fact that the speed measures are in breach of regulations and also that the stage 1 safety audit recommendations were ignored. I do feel that "not being a fan" is a little understated when compared to these measures breaching regulations and safety audit recommendations. I appreciate you might not want to pass on those comments on this forum but you're welcome to reply to my earlier emails and voicemail left for you on this matter... you have my number I believe?
-
Would you care to comment on my observatiobns @Steve Gribbon , the fact that the speed measures are in breach of regulations and also that the stage 1 safety audit recommendations were ignored. I do feel that "not being a fan" is a little understated when compared to these measures breaching regulations and safety audit recommendations. I appreciate you might not want to pass on those comments on this forum but you're welcome to reply to my earlier emails and voicemail left for you on this matter... you have my number I believe?
Why dont you put yourself forward when there is a vacancy for councill officer im sure you could you think do a Better job .
-
Why dont you put yourself forward when there is a vacancy for councill officer im sure you could you think do a Better job .
do you mean a council officer or a local councillor?
Assuming you actually meant the latter, it's because @amazon, I have absolutly no desire to be a local councillor. That of course does not preclude me, as a tax-paying resident of Marple to ask those elected councillors, who have chosen to take on the role about matters of public concern and to repeat those requests directly and on community forums if I feel I am being ignored. The role of a local councillor is to represent their ward or division and the people who live in it and provide a bridge between the community and the council and the officers it employs to carry out public services, hopefully, competently and safely.
-
There was a public consultation a couple of months ago as to whether to keep or remove these bumps and 20mph speed limit. Does anybody know what the result was.
-
There was a public consultation a couple of months ago as to whether to keep or remove these bumps and 20mph speed limit. Does anybody know what the result was.
I asked but was refused the result... I think the council like to "analyse" the results first and spin things in their favour. The consultation however overlooks the fact that the measures breach regulations and safety audit recommendations and it's this the council are being VERY canny about admitting to. It seems the consultation is being used as a cover-up and a reason for them hopefully to be removed rather than the council removing them anyway and having to admit that they f***d up.
-
Would you care to comment on my observatiobns @Steve Gribbon , the fact that the speed measures are in breach of regulations and also that the stage 1 safety audit recommendations were ignored. I do feel that "not being a fan" is a little understated when compared to these measures breaching regulations and safety audit recommendations. I appreciate you might not want to pass on those comments on this forum but you're welcome to reply to my earlier emails and voicemail left for you on this matter... you have my number I believe?
A couple of posts from this thread have been moved to the trivia section as they have added no value to this conversion.
You would be much more likely (but not guaranteed) to get a response from Cllr @Steve Gribbon if you posted using you own real name rather than an anonymous alias. It's easy to change in your profile.
-
Is this a good time to note that it is not a requirement on the Council to implement / act on all suggestions set out in an RSA1? Has anyone read the Council's 'Designers Response' to the RSA, where they will have no doubt responded to this point? They defiitely should have.
As you might have guessed, I haven't btw, but it may well be that they ultimately determined that the principle of seeking to limit general traffic speeds to 20mph on the route overided the potential for the odd clown to drive through marked parking bays in order to try to avoid the need to slow down just a little bit.
The point of an RSA1 is for an independent party to review an initial scheme & highlight any potential issues for the original designer to consider in more detail and respond to when progressing their scheme. There are further stages to go through when designing the works in detail and implementing on the ground.
-
Is this a good time to note that it is not a requirement on the Council to implement / act on all suggestions set out in an RSA1? Has anyone read the Council's 'Designers Response' to the RSA, where they will have no doubt responded to this point? They defiitely should have.
As you might have guessed, I haven't btw, but it may well be that they ultimately determined that the principle of seeking to limit general traffic speeds to 20mph on the route overided the potential for the odd clown to drive through marked parking bays in order to try to avoid the need to slow down just a little bit.
The point of an RSA1 is for an independent party to review an initial scheme & highlight any potential issues for the original designer to consider in more detail and respond to when progressing their scheme. There are further stages to go through when designing the works in detail and implementing on the ground.
@Belly
I have previously requested this information from the highways team and been met with a wall of silence other than two very succint statements.... (it took them 9 months to reply, despite repeated requests).
· Normal procedures and standards were not always observed
· A Road Safety Audit was carried out and did not identify the cushions outside of 85 Stockport Road as a hazard
point 1 suggests that it's OK to breach regulations written in law and point 2 is a lie if one cares to read para 8.4.2 of the RSA1.
I don't believe an RSA2 or stage 3 has been carried out as it should have been during the implementation phase and despite many opportunities for a "designers response" the only response provided when questioned has been the two points above. Similarly, the breach of The Highways Regulations (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 has not been explained ... namely cushions within 30m of a pedestrian crossing; again a wall of silence and not even information as to which regulations apply, even when asked! The RSA1 was done without any speed or traffic data so your suggestion that the principle of seeking to limit general traffic speeds to 20mph is without foundation with no evidence to suggest that prior to the measures, speeds exceeded 20mph, similarly, there is no evidence that post implementation, speeds are below or limited to 20mph. It is worth noting however, that the measures were implemented to make social distancing safer as we came out of lockdown and the cushions next to laybys actually reduce safety in this regard as the RSA1 comments allude to in paras 8.4.1, 8.4.2 8.4.3 & 8.4.4. swerving is seen as the risk, NOT speed!
-
The potential for the odd clown to drive through marked parking bays in order to try to avoid the need to slow down just a little bit.
I have to say, @Belly referring to a motorist as a clown for simply trying avoiding a large and potentially vehicle damaging lump in the road when they're likely adhering to the speed limit is a little unfair and somewhat presumptious.
-
I have to say, @Belly referring to a motorist as a clown for simply trying avoiding a large and potentially vehicle damaging lump in the road when they're likely adhering to the speed limit is a little unfair and somewhat presumptious.
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/yawn-gi.gif)
-
(https://exploringyourmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/yawn-gi.gif)
touché @Howard ,
The only way it seems we might see change on this matter given the general tide of ineptitude on the part of Stockport’s highways team and our local councillors is persistence
If you don't like it or it bores you, find yourself another thread to follow.
-
touché @Howard ,
The only way it seems we might see change on this matter given the general tide of ineptitude on the part of Stockport’s highways team and our local councillors is persistence
If you don't like it or it bores you, find yourself another thread to follow.
How well has that persistence worked out for you so far? You post about it pretty much non-stop on FB as well, which has a wider reach than this forum.
If you feel about it as strongly as you appear to, I believe direct action is the way you should go. Glue yourself to the speed bumps
-
How well has that persistence worked out for you so far? You post about it pretty much non-stop on FB as well, which has a wider reach than this forum.
If you feel about it as strongly as you appear to, I believe direct action is the way you should go. Glue yourself to the speed bumps
I have taken direct action @Howard, nothing as irresponsible or as selfish as gluing myself to the speed cushions or as childish as posting memes, but reading the regulations, garnering the facts and building a strong case to the Highways team, both directly and via my local councillors and Area Committee meetings in the naïve hope that my local councillors might support me in this endeavour. My regular posts on FB (thank you for reading them by the way), specifically in relation to the Windlehurst speed cushions consultation perhaps helped contribute to almost 1000 respondents, of which over 85% requested that the “measures be removed in their entirety”. They’re still there, and this was a campaign pledge from Cllr McCallister to get them removed! Persistence it therefore seems is the only remaining weapon in my armoury.
-
I have taken direct action @Howard, nothing as irresponsible or as selfish as gluing myself to the speed cushions or as childish as posting memes, but reading the regulations, garnering the facts and building a strong case to the Highways team, both directly and via my local councillors and Area Committee meetings in the naïve hope that my local councillors might support me in this endeavour. My regular posts on FB (thank you for reading them by the way), specifically in relation to the Windlehurst speed cushions consultation perhaps helped contribute to almost 1000 respondents, of which over 85% requested that the “measures be removed in their entirety”. They’re still there, and this was a campaign pledge from Cllr McCallister to get them removed! Persistence it therefore seems is the only remaining weapon in my armoury.
I think "ignored" rather than "read" is a better way of addressing your Facebook posts, but anyway...good luck shouting into the void. I guess everyone needs a hobby...
-
I think "ignored" rather than "read" is a better way of addressing your Facebook posts, but anyway...good luck shouting into the void. I guess everyone needs a hobby...
Sadly "shouting into the void" is pretty much what happens for most sensible campaigns on all sorts of subjects. It is no wonder the public loses trust in politicians and the whole political process.
-
touché @Howard ,
The only way it seems we might see change on this matter given the general tide of ineptitude on the part of Stockport’s highways team and our local councillors is persistence
If you don't like it or it bores you, find yourself another thread to follow.
Has it ever occurred to you that you are just wrong and that many of us like the current arrangements.
-
Has it ever occurred to you that you are just wrong and that many of us like the current arrangements.
Has it occurred to you just how many of us vehemently object to the traffic calming measures? If fact, I think it's true to say that most people feel very strongly one way or the other on the subject. However, we all know that we will be ignored by the council whatever we feel, so if we do feel strongly on an issue, whether our view is in the majority or not, it will not be listened to, so there is little point protesting too much.
On this issue. as on most others, the council will do whatever they feel like. I think they know our views; I just get the feeling they really don't care. They certainly act as if that is the case.
-
Has it occurred to you just how many of us vehemently object to the traffic calming measures? If fact, I think it's true to say that most people feel very strongly one way or the other on the subject.
You might want that to be true, but the fact is that most people really don't care...they may see them as a mild inconvenience when they first encounter them, but they absolutely do not "feel very strongly" or we'd have Insulate Britain-style protests with people gluing themselves to Stockport Road. Most people just get on with their lives and never think about speed humps and traffic measures at all.
-
You might want that to be true, but the fact is that most people really don't care...they may see them as a mild inconvenience when they first encounter them, but they absolutely do not "feel very strongly" or we'd have Insulate Britain-style protests with people gluing themselves to Stockport Road. Most people just get on with their lives and never think about speed humps and traffic measures at all.
Or perhaps @Howard , the people who do feel strongly about these measures aren't so stupid or as selfish as to glue themselves to the road and they prefer to use legitimate means with the authorities involved and forums such as this to inform and get their message across and help provide all those who you suggest "really don't care" with a voice. eg, almost 1000 respondents to the Windlehurst traffic calming measures where over 80% specifically stated they wanted the measurs "removed in their entirety"!
-
Bearing in mind that this forum is available to anyone who wants to use it, but is not overly active in terms of the number of posters - so far, @jimblob, there seems to be only YOU complaining vociferously about this, while there are several others saying "no, this is actually great"
extrapolating that to the rest of Marple would seem to put you very much in the minority.
Buy an e-bike, use that where possible, drive your car SLOWLY if you really need to transport a fridge or a piano or something
-
Bearing in mind that this forum is available to anyone who wants to use it, but is not overly active in terms of the number of posters - so far, @jimblob, there seems to be only YOU complaining vociferously about this, while there are several others saying "no, this is actually great"
extrapolating that to the rest of Marple would seem to put you very much in the minority.
Buy an e-bike, use that where possible, drive your car SLOWLY if you really need to transport a fridge or a piano or something
I have also complained about the insanity of the speed bumps. Ideally, they should be banned altogether, but at the very least, there should be much stricter conditions before such nonsense is allowed.
-
Sorry that makes two people complaining about the speed bumps.
-
Bearing in mind that this forum is available to anyone who wants to use it, but is not overly active in terms of the number of posters - so far, @jimblob, there seems to be only YOU complaining vociferously about this, while there are several others saying "no, this is actually great"
extrapolating that to the rest of Marple would seem to put you very much in the minority.
Buy an e-bike, use that where possible, drive your car SLOWLY if you really need to transport a fridge or a piano or something
lets wait for the results of the consultation to see who's in the minority @nbt. ref also to earlier correspondence provided by our local councillors where it was reported that...
feedback from a large number of local residents garnered by local councillors resoundingly object to them: -
18% for
68% against
14% alternative measures
-
But bear in mind also that govermnent guidance is that we don't prioritise cars and be wary of listening to shouty peple who object to everything...
-
Sorry that makes two people complaining about the speed bumps.
check your facts first @nbt
feedback from a large number of local residents garnered by local councillors resoundingly object to them: -
18% for
68% against
14% alternative measures
and perhaps look up the meaning of majority and minority
-
again though, it depends WHO the councillors spoke to. have you a link to the actual survey showing the questions posed, an overview of the respondent demographic, details on how the survey was conducted etc?
-
again though, it depends WHO the councillors spoke to. have you a link to the actual survey showing the questions posed, an overview of the respondent demographic, details on how the survey was conducted etc?
A large number of local residents..... is the phrase used, you'd have to ask the councillors for more specifics.. perhaps they didn't ask enough e-bike owners for your liking?
we can wait for the official consultation results which will show the information you're asking for, I believe they are due very soon.
-
The speed bumps on Stockport Road were covered at Marple Area Committee Meeting on 1st December.
Councillors were pretty clear on their views about this and their frustration at delays that have occurred in getting the matter resolved.
They are having a meeting with officers some time this week and they were hoping to delegate any decisions to that meeting so that they don't have to wait until the next MAC at the end of January 2022.
You can watch that back via this link:
https://stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/616722/start_time/15199000?force_language_code=en_GB (https://stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/616722/start_time/15199000?force_language_code=en_GB)
Maybe Cllr @Steve Gribbon can update us after this meeting please?
-
https://stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/616722/start_time/15199000?force_language_code=en_GB (https://stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/616722/start_time/15199000?force_language_code=en_GB)
Maybe Cllr @Steve Gribbon can update us after this meeting please?
Quite surprised at the normally sensible Cllr @Steve Gribbon failing to understand how the 20mph measures help people on foot (or other means) and with social distancing. Some pavements in the area (particularly outside Travis Perkins for example) are ridiculously narrow and cluttered with street furniture. If people want to pass each other at a reasonable distance, that’s going to require one party briefly stepping into the road. Stating, quite angrily, “we walk on pavements” as if how dare any pedestrian need to use some of the THREE lanes of carriageway there is a really disappointing and misguided response to this matter. Luckily Malcolm Allan seemed to get it.
-
Quite surprised at the normally sensible Cllr @Steve Gribbon failing to understand how the 20mph measures help people on foot (or other means) and with social distancing. Some pavements in the area (particularly outside Travis Perkins for example) are ridiculously narrow and cluttered with street furniture. If people want to pass each other at a reasonable distance, that’s going to require one party briefly stepping into the road. Stating, quite angrily, “we walk on pavements” as if how dare any pedestrian need to use some of the THREE lanes of carriageway there is a really disappointing and misguided response to this matter. Luckily Malcolm Allan seemed to get it.
I use Marple on foot at least as often as by car; probably more and I don't see the point in the iniquitous 20mph limit. Note that you can't often do any more than that anyway, but having an actual limit is the action of people who give the impression of hating the people of Marple (and other places with the same bonkers idea). I'm sure they don't; they think they are helping and are well meaning, but if the limit persists, time will show how damaging it is.
Really, the problem is that the law allows councils to do this sort of thing. The real solution lies in changing the law to prevent it. That's where campaigning is really needed.
Perhaps however here isn't the place to discuss it any more, as I think everyone is aware of ever one else's view on the issue.
-
Quite surprised at the normally sensible Cllr @Steve Gribbon failing to understand how the 20mph measures help people on foot (or other means) and with social distancing. Some pavements in the area (particularly outside Travis Perkins for example) are ridiculously narrow and cluttered with street furniture. If people want to pass each other at a reasonable distance, that’s going to require one party briefly stepping into the road. Stating, quite angrily, “we walk on pavements” as if how dare any pedestrian need to use some of the THREE lanes of carriageway there is a really disappointing and misguided response to this matter. Luckily Malcolm Allan seemed to get it.
Good morning
Thanks for linking me into this and my apologies for the delay in replying, I genuinely missed seeing my name on the thread. I always welcome feedback on how I come over at meetings and appreciate your comments, you have my word I wasn't angry. Maybe a little stern at best but certainly not angry as I really enjoy local engagement matters.
I have absolutely no problem with the 20mph zone, I like the idea of it and I will always push for safety of residents, especially with the full time job I work in. What I didn't/don't get is how the speed bumps improve social distancing. Whilst I understand the need to reduce speed in certain areas such as Travis Perkins as you rightly mention, the 20mph zone you enter should result in people driving at 20mph. The speed bumps do not appear to have helped this as I have seen people go over them at a wide range of speeds throughout the daytime and evening. We do have designated areas for crossing of course and it is great so many use these facilities.
Historically Stockport Road has not been a particular problem for accidents (having looked at fire service attendances). If the installed devices were to counter accidents following a series of them
I would say fair enough but the only reason we were ever told was to improve social distancing. Many of my councillor colleagues agree and this has been taken forward following communication from a large amount of residents.
I hope this clarifies my thoughts on the subject. I also am grateful for your comment on being normally sensible, I take my role as councillor very seriously and for those who know me protection of our residents has always been a priority and it will continue to be.
Kind regards
Steve
-
Thank you for replying to that Cllr @Steve Gribbon
Are you able to give us an update on outcome of the meeting you and fellow councillors were due to attend with Officers in early December please?
-
Thank you for replying to that Cllr @Steve Gribbon
Are you able to give us an update on outcome of the meeting you and fellow councillors were due to attend with Officers in early December please?
Yes of course
We had a good meeting where we stated the concerns of residents along with our own thoughts, the main issue being none of us are against the 20mph zone but the bumps have caused a lot of feedback with the majority of it being negative.
The information is then passed to the portfolio holder for a decision and we are still awaiting this. Now the festive period is over I will chase up where we are with it. I requested the double yellow lines on Station Road be repainted a couple of days ago and have received a reply stating this has been put forward so the officers are available to contact. I will update on here when I get some more information.
I forgot to mention before, all the best to everyone on this site for 2022.
Kind regards
Steve
-
I have absolutely no problem with the 20mph zone, I like the idea of it and I will always push for safety of residents, especially with the full time job I work in. What I didn't/don't get is how the speed bumps improve social distancing. Whilst I understand the need to reduce speed in certain areas such as Travis Perkins as you rightly mention, the 20mph zone you enter should result in people driving at 20mph. The speed bumps do not appear to have helped this as I have seen people go over them at a wide range of speeds throughout the daytime and evening. We do have designated areas for crossing of course and it is great so many use these facilities.
Historically Stockport Road has not been a particular problem for accidents (having looked at fire service attendances). If the installed devices were to counter accidents following a series of them
I would say fair enough but the only reason we were ever told was to improve social distancing.
Thank you for the reply @Steve Gribbon .
Re the aims of Safer Streets Save Lives, it seems that's quite a basic take on the subject, and although it was generally about "social distancing", there are many aspects to that, which could have been understood more fully by actually reading press releases at the time: https://news.tfgm.com/news/leaders-progress-bold-active-travel-plans-as-up-to-gbp-5m-of-emergency-funding-made-available-as-part-of-coronavirus-recovery
One very important aspect of this is that people immediately no longer wanted to take buses or trains and numbers of people cycling shot up. That's effectively social distancing too. Putting yourself on a bike rather than an enclosed train or bus = social distancing! And I hope you can understand that trying to cycle amongst traffic doing 20mph is massively different to 30mph. So the funding was about about trying to make roads better for cycling, too.
As someone who cycles around Marple centre most weeks, the 20mph zone/humps have made a modest but important difference. The hump outside the cinema in particular means I can now cross from Memorial Park into Church Street much more easily and safely, because most traffic coming from Strines Rd is properly slowed down rather than speeding in to race the lights at 35mph+. I still don't actually feel comfortable cycling down Stockport Road though, which is a shame, and something I'd hope councillors might actually address one day, if we're ever to sort out Marple's traffic problems..?
That said, I actually agree that speed bumps never completely work - often the only way to really control peoples driving speeds is with enforcement, either police or camera. Although in this case, I do feel that some kind of clear entry feature or simply more modest (less jarring) humps is still necessary to signify to people driving that they are entering a 20mph zone/town centre — eg the gentle humps in Marple Bridge, or different paving as in Poynton.
I don't feel that simply removing the bolt-in humps and leaving the (easily missed) 20mph signs in place will be sufficient to bring about or continue with any kind of behaviour change. So what ideas do you and your colleagues have for alternative traffic calming and/or placemaking for Marple centre? Because honestly, it needs something.
-
So what ideas do you and your colleagues have for alternative traffic calming and/or placemaking for Marple centre? Because honestly, it needs something.
Does it? Really? That's a large part of the issue. As a frequent pedestrian, I've never had a problem with traffic. My wife has now had both hips replaced, but prior to that found mobility difficult and was very slow crossing the road. She never had the least difficulty with traffic.
I really question the need for damaging traffic calming measures. If we need something, it should be a regular police presence to check on compliance with traffic rules. That would no doubt be considered expensive, but it is what the police are supposed to be for; deterring offences by their presence. It's their whole raison d'être.
-
The conclusion of a report being considered at Marple Area Committee on Wednesday is:
The results of the consultation indicate that whilst respondents support the speed limit reduction across the district centre, the physical traffic calming cushions were much less popular and the view was that they should be removed. A 20mph zone should be supported by some form of traffic calming measure. Therefore, if the cushions are removed and not replaced, the 20mph Zone would need to be replaced with a 20mph speed limit and the signage would need to be altered from zonal signage to speed limit signing. It is recommended that the 20mph zone be made permanent and the temporary cushions are removed. To maintain the zonal order, alternative traffic calming measures (such as road markings and additional signage) will be considered and options reported back to Area Committee.
You can read the full report here: https://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s198939/Committee%20Main%20Report%20-SSSL_Marple%20DC%20JAN22.pdf
-
The conclusion of a report being considered at Marple Area Committee on Wednesday is:
You can read the full report here: https://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s198939/Committee%20Main%20Report%20-SSSL_Marple%20DC%20JAN22.pdf
astonishing it took this long to compile the report! Perhaps they couldn't figure a way to fudge this one! One interesting statistic though does come through, that BEFORE the measures were introduced 51% of people specifically stated they were opposed to the measures and ONLY 26% were in support of them.... WHY WERE THEY STILL IMPLEMENTED?
Maybe one of our councillors could answer that one?
-
Just looked at this report again... it contradicts itself...
para 2.5...
264no (51%) of all respondents stated they were supportive of the implementation of the measures prior to installation, with 137no (26%) not being supportive and 118no
(23%) having no view. A summary of the responses to each of the questions asked is
provided in Appendix C
but appendix C graphic states the opposite.... They can't even write an accurate report!
-
It's very disappointing that the cushions are to be removed and not be replaced with more permanent infrastructure changes, chicanes, kerb extensions, tree planting, extra and more sensitive pedestrians crossings, introduction of roundabouts. Much more could be done to slow traffic down and make the street scene more pleasant and attractive for all.
-
It's very disappointing that the cushions are to be removed and not be replaced with more permanent infrastructure changes, chicanes, kerb extensions, tree planting, extra and more sensitive pedestrians crossings, introduction of roundabouts. Much more could be done to slow traffic down and make the street scene more pleasant and attractive for all.
the report results speak for themselves @wheels and alas, (at least as far as you're concerned), speak for the majority.
-
the report results speak for themselves @wheels and alas, (at least as far as you're concerned), speak for the majority.
Are you suggesting a better more pleasant built environment which gave everyone at least equal status on our roads is something you would not favour. It feels a little like the no smoking campaigns of the 70s, 80, and 90. Eventually we will get there.
-
Are you suggesting a better more pleasant built environment which gave everyone at least equal status on our roads is something you would not favour. It feels a little like the no smoking campaigns of the 70s, 80, and 90. Eventually we will get there.
I think we have different definitions of equal @wheels
-
It's very disappointing that the cushions are to be removed and not be replaced with more permanent infrastructure changes, chicanes, kerb extensions, tree planting, extra and more sensitive pedestrians crossings, introduction of roundabouts. Much more could be done to slow traffic down and make the street scene more pleasant and attractive for all.
I am very glad the nonsense of these so-called traffic calming cushions are to be removed. Traffic is slow; at least it always is and always was when I've been walking in Marple (which is frequently). Before the 20 limit and cushions, I found Marple a pleasant and attractive place to be when walking. The roads are easy to cross (although I've seen a good few idiotic pedestrians try and walk in front of cars; even ones driving slowly and responsibly), just yards from a crossing. Even when my wife had two hips in need of replacement and walked very slowly, she had no problems crossing roads and this was before any of these measures.
If there is any need for anything at all, it should be in the form of a police presence (which there should be anyway, as that is the whole point of the police; the Peelian principle that the police are not there primarily to catch criminals, but to deter crime by their presence seems to have been forgotten).
-
Got to worry about Stockport Highways Team.... a report that is over 3 months late finally arrives and given the contentious nature of these measures it contains a subtle but very significant error!
Para 2.5 stating… 264no (51%) of all respondents stated they were supportive of the implementation of the measures prior to installation. … WRONG!
It was in fact 51% were NOT supportive of the measures.
Para 2.7 then goes on to say
2.7 When asked if they supported the implementation of the speed cushions, 162no (31%) of all respondents stated they supported the introduction of cushions, with 346no (66%) not supporting the implementation and 15no (3%) being undecided. This indicates an increase in support of 5%.
Oooo 5% increase in support for the measures, but they fail to point out the more significant INCREASE of 15% in the lack of support (51% to 66%).
When the error is pointed out to them, they correct the mistake and resubmit the report but don't bother to aknowledge their error. Reeks of arse-covering to me!
This council department is dysfunctional, unaccountable and incompetent! The only competency they seem to have is an ability to cover their arses and waste money hand over fist.
I also worry that our local councillors appear to be continually duped by the Highways Team, please councillors @Steve Gribbon @ColinMac @BeckySenior @Malcolm Allan, stop letting them make fools you and your electorate.