Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: jimblob on January 19, 2021, 01:07:02 PM
-
Time to air your views.....
the more if us that take part, the better and more accurate the outcome.
https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/windlehurst-road-traffic-calming-measures/
-
Thanks for sharing. I have a BMW with run flat tyres, i have to crawl down that road, thus annoying drivers behind me.
I would welcome their removal.
-
We've got a new mini and it's a bone-shaker of a ride that way; the whole situation really angers me, that I buy an environmentally friendly vehicle that's being shaken to bits and devalued thanks to our myopic and obessive highways teams and the assumption that it's OK for them to penalise the majority of law abiding motorists whilst monumentally failing in their duties to maintain our roads.
Let's get as many folks to take part in this consultation as we can, not just the residents who live closest but all those who need to use the route as well. Typically, the consultation process for schemes such as this is flawed as it's only made known to those who live in the vicinity of the scheme rather than the many more motorists who are potentially impacted.
The consultation isn't biased, so those who like the measures have their chance to endorse them too.
share share share!
-
I'm in the same position. Got an electric mini which isn't wide enough to straddle traffic calming humps. I can see why they have humps to slow traffic down but would rather have chicanes to slow it down and signage to put off HGVs from going that way. The residents must despair when noisy lorries go over those humps on Windlehurst at all hours of the day and night.
-
Whilst i appreciate they are intended to slow down speeding traffic, Stockport needs to actually think how they direct traffic through the limited roads.
There are businesses at the goyt mill and the trailer manufacturer that require HGV acess, thats not even before Marple itself.
They spent billions putting in a bypass and widening the high lane junction, then put humps on all routes through marple including the 20mph in the centre of Marple, Romiley etc.
With the humps along hibbert lane it should be enough to funnel them one way or the other unless they're passing through to strines or marple bridge.
Last thing we want is the another Poynton!.
-
I would have thought a scheme as well designed and presented as the Poynton scheme is exactly what Marple wants and would benefit from. A scheme which makes it clear that road space is available equally to us all, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, mobile scooter users, buses and car users. Such a scheme would help all road users and be a help to local traders as it would make it easier for shoppers to move about.
The current temporary installations are already successfully starting to positively alter drivers behaviour so let's see what the proposals brought forward are before condemning them and hopefully the area covered will be increased from the current rather limited one
I think there is no doubt local people would come to love a scheme similar to the Poynton scheme just as Poynton people love theirs.
-
I would have thought a scheme as well designed and presented as the Poynton scheme is exactly what Marple wants and would benefit from.
the small matter that Poynton is now getting a bypass perhaps helps your argument and will finally turn Poynton centre into a safe space rather than a confusing free-for-all
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/construction-starts-on-cheshire-relief-road/
this thread however is about Windlehurst as a primary route in and out of Marple, not Marple centre itself.
-
Reminder that the consultation ends today. I am just completing it.
https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/windlehurst-road-traffic-calming-measures/consultation/subpage.2020-12-23.1297578957/?fbclid=IwAR2unKwqyTWUl6PLLe1SdDZiiUJc3FCtvq38BlIGO9noUtSOfvyyqfFC8DM (https://consultation.stockport.gov.uk/policy-performance-and-reform/windlehurst-road-traffic-calming-measures/consultation/subpage.2020-12-23.1297578957/?fbclid=IwAR2unKwqyTWUl6PLLe1SdDZiiUJc3FCtvq38BlIGO9noUtSOfvyyqfFC8DM)
-
Consultation results are in for the Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane traffic calming. 945 responses, of which around 50% are from those who live on the roads themselves; a resounding result in my opinion. Of the two sections in question, an average of 81% think they should be removed. Well done to our local councillors who brought about this consultation, let's now make sure we follow this through and act on this overwhelming tide of public opinion.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Who do we need to lobby to find out when the humps are going to be removed ?
It would be timely to do it asap if all the Marple to/from New Mills traffic is going to be forced along Windlehurst.
-
Who do we need to lobby to find out when the humps are going to be removed ?
It would probably be best to contact our Marple South and High Lane Councillors @ColinMac @Aron Thornley or Shan Alexander.
-
Who do we need to lobby to find out when the humps are going to be removed ?
It would be timely to do it asap if all the Marple to/from New Mills traffic is going to be forced along Windlehurst.
Don't know how much effort it is to remove a speed bump, but given it would mean roadworks, this probably isn't the time to do it as it would make things worse!
-
Who do we need to lobby to find out when the humps are going to be removed ?
It would be timely to do it asap if all the Marple to/from New Mills traffic is going to be forced along Windlehurst.
apparently, they have to do a further study to find an alternative!... not sure why as this was not the outcome or the objective of the consultation. Stockport Highways calling the shots as always with our money and against our wishes!
They've been asked to remove the temporary speed humps in Marple district centre too but are dragging their heels on that one despite again an overwhelming majority of residents asking their local councillors to have them removed!
-
Quite obviously Road Humps are an Outdated interference with Transportation, and if my recollections are correct, one of the reasons given for the recent introduction of humps in Marple and Romiley was that it would help Social Distancing. If true I can think of no more ridiculous reason for introducing them, particularly in the centre of Marple, where the pavement space has been reduced by bollards for years.
Another reason was that it would slow traffic. This is true, but it only aggravates motorists and does nothing for pedestrians in the shopping area where they really want priority in order to cross the road at any point.
I think the Shopping area humps are simply bolted down and could be removed overnight. I hope our Councillors will take up the issue.
As for an alternative there are simple things like Speed Cameras and Number Plate Recognition when Mobile Phone users could discover they had been fined before they had even left the area.
However with a Government that gives way to Motorists when they object to being caught for Law Breaking, and a Local Council that fails to cater for pedestrians and cyclists when the Government is trying to reduce car use, little of benefit to the residents will be felt in the Stockport area.
-
Consultation results are in for the Windlehurst and Hibbert Lane traffic calming. 945 responses, of which around 50% are from those who live on the roads themselves; a resounding result in my opinion. Of the two sections in question, an average of 81% think they should be removed. Well done to our local councillors who brought about this consultation, let's now make sure we follow this through and act on this overwhelming tide of public opinion.
The results of the consultation highlight the perversity of those who live on the roads. In 2010, when I questioned the rationale for the traffic calming measures, Stockport Traffic Services stated that local residents had called for their installation and the Authority had acceded to the residents' demands. It seems as if the residents may have grown to regret their folly.
-
The results of the consultation highlight the perversity of those who live on the roads. In 2010, when I questioned the rationale for the traffic calming measures, Stockport Traffic Services stated that local residents had called for their installation and the Authority had acceded to the residents' demands. It seems as if the residents may have grown to regret their folly.
Interesting thoughts, particularly when in other cases, (parking for example), local residents are told that they have no greater "ownership" of the road outside their house than any other tax paying road user or resident. Seemingly not the case when Stockport Highyways get a sniff of a new "Improvement scheme" ... (ahh the irony) to get their interferring little mits into with our money.
The problem now is that it's harder to have them removed than installed in the first place and an alternative MUST be sought according to Stockport Highways team. Come on local councillors, can we just simply have them "removed in their entirety"; the exact question posed in the recent consultation run by the Highways Team and responded to with an ovewhelming YES!
-
Yeah "Ownership", until they force you to pay for permits to park outside, like on the one way church lane!.
I'm not exactly surprised our newly elected councillor who practically lives on Windlehurst Road has remained quiet on any solution to the outcome of the survey.
-
From jimblob
"...when Stockport Highways get a sniff of a new "Improvement scheme" ... (ahh the irony) to get their interfering little mits into with our money. Come on local councillors, can we just simply have them "removed in their entirety"; the exact question posed in the recent consultation run by the Highways Team and responded to with an overwhelming YES!"
Indeed, Local Authorities love a road project, and then enjoy restricting its use. After all the nonsense of Poynton's 'shared space', I see that the village is now to have a 'relief road', costing the astronomic sum of £52million, and for just 3,000 metres of road!
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/construction-starts-on-cheshire-relief-road/
And when will the ridiculous speed cushions in Marple and Romiley be removed, given that the justification, last year, was claimed to be to "assist social distancing"? Local government is beyond parody.
-
And when will the ridiculous speed cushions in Marple and Romiley be removed, given that the justification, last year, was claimed to be to "assist social distancing"? Local government is beyond parody.
Stockport Highways team have already had instruction from our local councillors on 25th March to remove the temporary measures based on public response gathered by said councillors showing 18% for, 68% against, 14% alternative measures (ref below from my local councillor reporting this instruction to me)
"I have contacted the highways department today and asked for the Stockport Road speed bumps to be removed as soon as possible"
Stockport Highways seem unable to aknowledge receipt of this request, their latest stance on this to me being direct from the Traffic Manager, stating;
"this is due to be discussed with the Marple North and South Ward Councillors in mid-June and I will update you on the outcome of those discussions."
Seems selective deafness has taken over and any need for further discussion is entirely arbitrary. Needless to say, I have a stage 2 complaint raised against Stockport Highways on this matter dating back to November 2020 when the cushions were installed and their continued failure to repond to a direct question from me regarding the safety of the measures and their compliance with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999. Somewhat frustratingly, Stockport Council's complaints procedure seems very good at stalling when it suits in order to protect their own. It's about time Stockport Highways were held to account, Windlehurst, the so called "roundabout" at the new builds on Hibbert Lane/Eddwards way, cycle lanes that are wider than the roadspace left for vehicles that cyclist will likely never use, speed humps galore at the behest of handfuls of "concerned" residents, it's been going on for years and there seems no stopping them.
As to Poynton's relief road, we'll always be the poor relation to Poynton until we stop seeing rescuing a cat from a tree as a triumph and talk less but act more on the big stuff. (or have our political allegiances swing a little further to the right)
-
Stockport Highways seem unable to acknowledge receipt of this request, their latest stance on this to me being direct from the Traffic Manager, stating;
"this is due to be discussed with the Marple North and South Ward Councillors in mid-June and I will update you on the outcome of those discussions."
Presumably this discussion took place. Does anyone have any view of progress?
Highways were quick to install the 'temporary measures' but unsurprisingly, the anti-car forces are clearly at work now, leading to the usual dragging of heels.
-
Maybe they're waiting until the road deteriorates enough to reuse all the tarmac from the humps to fill the potholes?.
-
Presumably this discussion took place. Does anyone have any view of progress?
Highways were quick to install the 'temporary measures' but unsurprisingly, the anti-car forces are clearly at work now, leading to the usual dragging of heels.
Exactly that...
Marple Centre temporary traffic calming now has to go to consultation because someone decided we want to keep it as a 20mph (ironic as the safety audit prior to its design and installation had no speed or traffic data to even determine whether folks ever managed to get above 20 mph anyway)
Windlehurst - after an overwhelming request through consultation and at a cost of over £10k to "remove the speed mitigation measures in their entirety", the heel dragging has started because someone has decided there has to be alternative measures. The suggestion has been for average speed cameras. Over a year after our councillors proposed this, nothing has been done because no one knows who would pay for, install or manage them. All the while, our cars are being wrecked having to drive over the speed cushions no one wants.
Cummon' councillors, just get these all removed, your electorate have spoken loud and clear!
-
Exactly that...
Marple Centre temporary traffic calming now has to go to consultation because someone decided we want to keep it as a 20mph (ironic as the safety audit prior to its design and installation had no speed or traffic data to even determine whether folks ever managed to get above 20 mph anyway)
Windlehurst - after an overwhelming request through consultation and at a cost of over £10k to "remove the speed mitigation measures in their entirety", the heel dragging has started because someone has decided there has to be alternative measures. The suggestion has been for average speed cameras. Over a year after our councillors proposed this, nothing has been done because no one knows who would pay for, install or manage them. All the while, our cars are being wrecked having to drive over the speed cushions no one wants.
Cummon' councillors, just get these all removed, your electorate have spoken loud and clear!
Wrecked, yes, just spent £250 on replacing a spring and shocker on my car due to those humps.
-
Wrecked, yes, just spent £250 on replacing a spring and shocker on my car due to those humps.
Ditto. Had a broken spring done a week or two ago. Obviously I can't prove the speed humps were the cause, but that's the most likely reason. In case anyone wonders, yes I do go over them within the speed limit.
-
The councillors have been a bit quiet on the forum since the election.
-
Wrecked, yes, just spent £250 on replacing a spring and shocker on my car due to those humps.
make a small claims court claim from the council....
-
Cummon' councillors, just get these all removed, your electorate have spoken loud and clear!
Yeah but there's one big problem with your request. Our councillors are not in the ruling party in control of Stockport Council. They can ask for things. But that doesn't mean they will get them.
-
Yeah but there's one big problem with your request. Our councillors are not in the ruling party in control of Stockport Council. They can ask for things. But that doesn't mean they will get them.
they asked for the speed mitigation measures on Windlehurst and we got those! Shame they forgot to ask if anyone actually wanted them other than a handful of residents on the road itself!
-
From jimblob
"...when Stockport Highways get a sniff of a new "Improvement scheme" ... (ahh the irony) to get their interfering little mits into with our money. Come on local councillors, can we just simply have them "removed in their entirety"; the exact question posed in the recent consultation run by the Highways Team and responded to with an overwhelming YES!"
Indeed, Local Authorities love a road project, and then enjoy restricting its use. After all the nonsense of Poynton's 'shared space', I see that the village is now to have a 'relief road', costing the astronomic sum of £52million, and for just 3,000 metres of road!
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/construction-starts-on-cheshire-relief-road/
And when will the ridiculous speed cushions in Marple and Romiley be removed, given that the justification, last year, was claimed to be to "assist social distancing"? Local government is beyond parody.
So what is your allternative to to speed bumps
-
So what is your allternative to to speed bumps
No speed bumps.
If speed limit enforcement is really necessary (and it's hard to see why, as the road is not suitable for more than 30MPH, if that, anyway), then that is a job the police should be doing.
-
No speed bumps.
If speed limit enforcement is really necessary (and it's hard to see why, as the road is not suitable for more than 30MPH, if that, anyway), then that is a job the police should be doing.
I thinks you won't be securing a job within local government, with those radical ideas and common sense!.
-
So what is your allternative to to speed bumps
Speeding traffic and rat runners but hey who cares about that so long as I can drive along a road and don't have to face a tine fraction on inconvenience.
-
Speeding traffic and rat runners but hey who cares about that so long as I can drive along a road and don't have to face a tine fraction on inconvenience.
And why presume they're all going to be speeding, by that logic all motorways should be closed immediately because some drivers don't stick to the speed limit.
I'm sure I pay for a service that employ people who drive around in checkered vehicles to keep an eye on that sort of thing.
-
Speeding traffic and rat runners but hey who cares about that so long as I can drive along a road and don't have to face a tine fraction on inconvenience.
@wheels I neither speed nor do I rat run, nor I doubt do the majority of the 83% of the 900+ respondents who stated an overwhelming YES in the consultation earlier this year when asked if they wished for the measures on Windlehurst to be removed in their entirety. Why ask such a question Stockport if you're not then prepared to act on the results?
additionally @wheels as far as defining a rat run, it is not an officailly recognised term used in the classification or roads, it is entirely subjective and from a legal standpoint, a resident of any public road has no greater or less legal right to use said road than anyone else.
-
Speeding traffic and rat runners but hey who cares about that so long as I can drive along a road and don't have to face a tine fraction on inconvenience.
I'm not sure I consider a large bill for a broken spring a tiny inconvenience. Speeders (if there are any, they are probably driving dangerously as well, considering the narrowness of the road) are the responsibility of the police.
Also not that "rat run" rather ignores the fact that this a normal road and the most obvious route for most people using it.
-
No speed bumps.
If speed limit enforcement is really necessary (and it's hard to see why, as the road is not suitable for more than 30MPH, if that, anyway), then that is a job the police should be doing.
Not enough Police to be stood on every corner .
-
So following "further analysis" of the consultation results conducted earlier this year, the results yet again overwhelmingly conclude that these measures need to be removed.
However, the issue is now it seems is that of funding! Should we pay for Stockport Highway's flawed consultation processes and the £250k that was spent installing something nobody actually wanted? Perhaps we should raid the final salary pensions of our illustrious Highways team to fund their removal (the speed humps that is!) or should we in fact remove the Highways team altogether and save ourselves a small fortune?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I wonder if lack of funding will also be the reason those awful temporary humps in Marple and Romiley haven't been removed.
Those four bolts per hump must be so expensive to insert a socket set and remove!.
-
I wonder if lack of funding will also be the reason those awful temporary humps in Marple and Romiley haven't been removed.
Those four bolts per hump must be so expensive to insert a socket set and remove!.
they'd be the ones that don't comply with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 !
-
I wouldn't know about that, all I can safely say is I've driven over more comfortable potholes!.
-
So following "further analysis" of the consultation results conducted earlier this year, the results yet again overwhelmingly conclude that these measures need to be removed.
However, the issue is now it seems is that of funding! Should we pay for Stockport Highway's flawed consultation processes and the £250k that was spent installing something nobody actually wanted? Perhaps we should raid the final salary pensions of our illustrious Highways team to fund their removal (the speed humps that is!) or should we in fact remove the Highways team altogether and save ourselves a small fortune?
Yes to all of the above, but Stockport Highways are not short of money. They want to spend a fortune re-engineering Hollins Lane in Marple Bridge with chicanes and illuminated signage to create a 'traffic management' scheme, where none is needed.
-
Yes to all of the above, but Stockport Highways are not short of money. They want to spend a fortune re-engineering Hollins Lane in Marple Bridge with chicanes and illuminated signage to create a 'traffic management' scheme, where none is needed.
Do they? I didn't know that. Sounds like madness to me.
-
Maybe they'll just loose the plot completely and install illuminated signs on all roads.
Knowing Stockport Highways they would be circles with a red border and a picture of a car and a motorbike ?.
-
Yes to all of the above, but Stockport Highways are not short of money. They want to spend a fortune re-engineering Hollins Lane in Marple Bridge with chicanes and illuminated signage to create a 'traffic management' scheme, where none is needed.
lets just hope our local councillors stop this in its tracks and divert the resources and money to the removal of the speed humps in Marple Centre and on Windlehurst
-
lets just hope our local councillors stop this in its tracks and divert the resources and money to the removal of the speed humps in Marple Centre and on Windlehurst
Very much agree. We can but hope.
-
Very much agree. We can but hope.
In vain no doubt
-
In vain no doubt
Road changes due shortly on lower fold ludworth school area there aplication for new classrooms entrance etc to in crease the capacity for more pupils was granted on wednesday night at
area comitte meeting .
-
Road changes due shortly on lower fold ludworth school area there aplication for new classrooms entrance etc to in crease the capacity for more pupils was granted on wednesday night at
area comitte meeting .
I watched it....!
so now it's granted we find out exactly what the measures will be... speed humps. Yippeeee!
or hopefully, local councillors have now realised that Marple residents DON'T want speed humps/cushions/tables.
-
I watched it....!
so now it's granted we find out exactly what the measures will be... speed humps. Yippeeee!
or hopefully, local councillors have now realised that Marple residents DON'T want speed humps/cushions/tables.
I hope the local councillors know that by now. They should. However, whether they act on that is another matter. Even if they do want to support what they must know we want, there is the question of whether the whole council will take any notice.
-
I hope the local councillors know that by now. They should. However, whether they act on that is another matter. Even if they do want to support what they must know we want, there is the question of whether the whole council will take any notice.
It feels like our local councillors allow themselves to be bullied by Stockport Highways rather than standing up for themselves ... (and us!).
-
Whilst I'd like to give them benefit of the doubt, it's been dragging along for years with platitudes of its getting looked at etc.
Think Stockport Highways are more yes minister than yes councillors, we'll see if a more sensible alternative can be found or god forbid listen you you're electorate and rate payers!.
That's before the awful introduction of Burnham scorched earth clean air abomination.
-
That's before the awful introduction of Burnham scorched earth clean air abomination.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You do have to wonder if he's taken inspiration from the Amish.
Let's get everyone back on horse and carts and then they'll moan about horse manure and high levels of horse farts in the city centre!
-
I watched it....!
so now it's granted we find out exactly what the measures will be... speed humps. Yippeeee!
or hopefully, local councillors have now realised that Marple residents DON'T want speed humps/cushions/tables.
Wont be speed Bumps road markings i think
-
There is one speed hump shown on the last page of the plans but they are very disjointed.
The drawings show car parks on the plans but at the same time includes parts of brabyns park and the council depot.
Yes I understand Stockport council own both but it's hardly clear cut.
-
There is one speed hump shown on the last page of the plans but they are very disjointed.
The drawings show car parks on the plans but at the same time includes parts of brabyns park and the council depot.
Yes I understand Stockport council own both but it's hardly clear cut.
Can you tell me how i view the plans
-
This is the link from the committee agenda
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s191856/Enc.%202%20for%20DC077983%20Ludworth%20Primary%20School%20Lower%20Fold%20Marple%20Bridge%20Stockport%20SK6%205DU.pdf
You might need to cut and paste tho.
-
It feels like our local councillors allow themselves to be bullied by Stockport Highways rather than standing up for themselves ... (and us!).
Your regular reminder that all our councillors are Lib Dems and that Stockport Council is controlled by Labour and as such what Stockport Highways do is not directed by our local councillors.
-
That's before the awful introduction of Burnham scorched earth clean air abomination.
Yes. I hate that too. I DEMAND more pollution!
-
That's not the point is it, oh let's force all companies and people with older commercial vehicles to buy a new one.
Well, the old vehicles aren't getting crushed and recycled, they are exported, yet your putting another new one the road.
So how is that benefiting the environment?.
Whilst I agree older vehicle that are obviously polluting should be scrapped they set an arbitrary date of 2015 and before for diesels in euro 5 and below
-
Surely what we have to consider with the traffic calming measures on Windlehurst Road is have they reduced traffic and speeds on the road, have they made road usage safer for other road users. Have they potential cut down accidents or deaths. These are much more important questions than whether x has been inconvenienced on their journey or has had their car damaged.
-
Surely what we have to consider with the traffic calming measures on Windlehurst Road is have they reduced traffic and speeds on the road, have they made road usage safer for other road users. Have they potential cut down accidents or deaths. These are much more important questions than whether x has been inconvenienced on their journey or has had their car damaged.
Well, it's a point of view I suppose.
Whether the measures have reduces speed is in many ways a pointless question. There are many things which could reduce speed. Digging major potholes, encouraging animals to run across the road at random, placing road humps etc. All of these would work, but all are silly. Normal traffic enforcement works perfectly well, although since we have only about 10% of the police that the area needs, it might need some changes to work effectively.
When it comes to traffic reduction the real question is do we actually want to reduce traffic. I would say no we don't.
The measures undoubtedly make the road less safe. OK, insisting that cars go at no more than 4 mph and must be preceded by a man with a red flag, might make it safer, but it would cause more problems than it would solve. Road humps like the ones there now are a menace to all road users and it is astonishing that anyone could in any way support them.
Overall, the road humps, are counter-productive, they are unnecessary, the make the road less safe not more, they do not solve any problem which cannot be solved in better ways.
-
Condate has pretty much summed it all up perfectly. I've said it before but Stockport need to think through the strategy of what they are trying to achieve by putting humps everywhere.
You could even argue why put a bypass so close to windlehurst, if your aim is to actually reduce traffic!.
-
Well, it's a point of view I suppose.
When it comes to traffic reduction the real question is do we actually want to reduce traffic. I would say no we don't.
I'm not clear here whether you are saying traffic in general shouldn't be reduced or whether its traffic on Windlehurst Road that shouldn't be reduced. Personally on the former I'd like to see traffic level reduced to the levels we saw in the first lockdown last year. Within days the air quality improved, sky's were blue again, there was more wildlife about and people discovered that they could walk short journeys. If you are just referring to Windlehurst Road I'd like to hear from residents of the road on that score rather than those of us who might be causing the, if there is on, problem.
The measures undoubtedly make the road less safe. OK, insisting that cars go at no more than 4 mph and must be preceded by a man with a red flag, might make it safer, but it would cause more problems than it would solve. Road humps like the ones there now are a menace to all road users and it is astonishing that anyone could in any way support them.
You need to back this. How do the measures make the road less safe. Where is the evidence for that? Are the road humps a menace or are they just an irritant just an inconvenience?
Overall, the road humps, are counter-productive, they are unnecessary, the make the road less safe not more, they do not solve any problem which cannot be solved in better ways.
Why are they counterproductive? How do they make the road less safe? Just making such a statement doesn't make it a fact.
-
Why are they counterproductive? How do they make the road less safe? Just making such a statement doesn't make it a fact.
They make the road less safe because in a smaller car like our BMax (which is same as a Fiesta so not tiny) you can only go over the humps at between 15 and 20mph without high risk of damage and even at those speeds it is a very unpleasant experience. However, they don't slow larger vehicles down very much at all - you barely notice they are there in our motorhome at 30mph, as it has a much wider wheelbase. So when I drive down there in the BMax we always have larger vehicles coming up too close behind trying to push us along, and on many occasions we have been overtaken by them when slowing down for these particular humps. I've driven the same car over humps and speed cushions in many other areas all around the country and the Windlehurst Road ones are by far the most horrible I've ever experienced even at crawling speed.
-
They make the road less safe because in a smaller car like our BMax (which is same as a Fiesta so not tiny) you can only go over the humps at between 15 and 20mph without high risk of damage and even at those speeds it is a very unpleasant experience. However, they don't slow larger vehicles down very much at all - you barely notice they are there in our motorhome at 30mph, as it has a much wider wheelbase. So when I drive down there in the BMax we always have larger vehicles coming up too close behind trying to push us along, and on many occasions we have been overtaken by them when slowing down for these particular humps. I've driven the same car over humps and speed cushions in many other areas all around the country and the Windlehurst Road ones are by far the most horrible I've ever experienced even at crawling speed.
OK well that's a reasonable response and an explanation of one small issue. So the question surely must be how do we develop traffic calming which ensures that larger more powerful vehicles have to drive more slowly. I'm not in anyway suggesting that the Windlehurst Road traffic calming is ideal but it has at least got people thinking about their behaviour and whether they need to go that way at all and that can only be a good thing.
-
More powerful vehicles!, are you actually thinking that's a reason to install speed humps ?.
And then to suggest it's a way of reducing the number of vehicles using windlehurst seems even more ridiculous!.
So in your opinion we should just funnel all the traffic via Dan bank?, causing even more traffic jams, pollution from sitting waiting to get out of Marple?.
Are you sure your not an employee of the highway team?
-
You are correct we have to make all routes equally unattractive, for motorised vehicles at least and so yes I agree Dan Bank has been crying out for some form of traffic calming measures to reduce speed and volume for many years.
-
You are correct we have to make all routes equally unattractive, for motorised vehicles at least
great idea @wheels!
let's make it almost impossible for people to make a living and kill the economy whilst we're at it.
-
great idea @wheels!
let's make it almost impossible for people to make a living and kill the economy whilst we're at it.
Come on then. What's your solution? It's all very well moaning and whining. But what's the answer to all this?
How do we get to traffic utopia? How do we get to traffic being able to flow?
Frankly I am bored of the repetition of moaning and whining. If Stockport Highways don't have the answers, then what are they?
-
I'm sure wheels will be perfectly fine with just waitrose and Amazon vans being the sole road users.
-
great idea @wheels!
let's make it almost impossible for people to make a living and kill the economy whilst we're at it.
You do understand that the aim must surely be to have less vehicle journeys per year don't you. We are all working to the same objective aren't we? We agree on that at least?
-
No, I think your confusing totally separate issues.
Why should we reduce vehicle journeys, we don't just hop in our cars for the enjoyment of driving to work or anywhere else for that matter.
-
No, I think your confusing totally separate issues.
Why should we reduce vehicle journeys, we don't just hop in our cars for the enjoyment of driving to work or anywhere else for that matter.
Population is always growing
Ergo number of cars grows with it
We have a choice. Reduce use of private vehicles. Or build more roads.
You choose.
-
Erm, they just spent £290m building the airport relief road, which according to the MEN flooded again!.
So I guess we at least have a local swimming hole until its drained.
So how is keeping the Windlehurst humps and creating more similar slowing down traffic schemes across the borough helping to reduce traffic jams?.
-
Erm, they just spent £290m building the airport relief road, which according to the MEN flooded again!.
So I guess we at least have a local swimming hole until its drained.
So how is keeping the Windlehurst humps and creating more similar slowing down traffic schemes across the borough helping to reducRe traffic jams?.
I said to Jimblob and I say it to you.
What's your answer? Cos all I see is moaning and grumbling. And I all I see in the future is moaning and grumbling.
Because we all know what will happen if the speed bumps are removed. It will be someone moaning about people speeding. About people using it as a cut through. And we will be having this tedious discussion in some form for decades.
So I ask you now. What is your solution?
How the hell do we stop having this tedious never-ending conversation? How do you solve it? Because you both clearly can solve this better than the highways team. Well you must be able to because you are both so convinced they are wrong.
-
Come on then. What's your solution? It's all very well moaning and whining. But what's the answer to all this?
How do we get to traffic utopia? How do we get to traffic being able to flow?
Frankly I am bored of the repetition of moaning and whining. If Stockport Highways don't have the answers, then what are they?
Whether we like it or not, we have an economy, a 100 year history of building and town planning along with lifestyle aspirations built on the car. (One only needs to watch every second Tv advert to see that it is to either buy or insure a car). Whilst it is and must be along term goal to move away from our dependency on cars, we cannot restrict or limit that dependency until such time as a viable alternative is in place unless we want to kill our economy completely. The current approach seems to be to restrict car use and make it unpleasant or impossible but without providing any viable alternatives.
The solution therefore is to do nothing to the roads other than that which will improve the flow of traffic. In the meantime, other public transport infrastructures need to be developed that can, over time provide those viable alternatives but without detrement to what which we already have. (Don't restrict heavily used existing highways infrastructure for cycle lanes that wont get used, the business case and value proposition just doesn't stack up!). Viablity of alternatives is that they are cheaper, greener, healthier and more reliable and therefore preferable to the car. Then and only then do you tax or discriminate aginst the motorist.
-
Quite simply remove all these pointless, expensive and car damaging schemes, that includes road width reduction, speed humps and any other ridiculous ideas.
If your speeding have the police do what they are paid to enforce or cameras, just because some under endowed idiot speeds you cannot force the rest of the population to sit under draconian traffic calming schemes.
Murder is illegal, but you don't have the whole population using plastic cutlery just in case!.
-
Because we all know what will happen if the speed bumps are removed. It will be someone moaning about people speeding. About people using it as a cut through. And we will be having this tedious discussion in some form for decades.
It's not a cut through, a road is a road, people who drive cars or ride bicycles tend to use them to get to places.
-
Quite simply remove all these pointless, expensive and car damaging schemes, that includes road width reduction, speed humps and any other ridiculous ideas.
If your speeding have the police do what they are paid to enforce or cameras, just because some under endowed idiot speeds you cannot force the rest of the population to sit under draconian traffic calming schemes.
Murder is illegal, but you don't have the whole population using plastic cutlery just in case!.
Hear Hear ! :D
-
Precisely, you choose the most direct and quickest route and without speeding regardless of your mode of transport.
-
I said to Jimblob and I say it to you.
What's your answer? Cos all I see is moaning and grumbling. And I all I see in the future is moaning and grumbling.
Because we all know what will happen if the speed bumps are removed. It will be someone moaning about people speeding. About people using it as a cut through. And we will be having this tedious discussion in some form for decades.
So I ask you now. What is your solution?
How the hell do we stop having this tedious never-ending conversation? How do you solve it? Because you both clearly can solve this better than the highways team. Well you must be able to because you are both so convinced they are wrong.
Nice one .
-
Quite simply remove all these pointless, expensive and car damaging schemes, that includes road width reduction, speed humps and any other ridiculous ideas.
If your speeding have the police do what they are paid to enforce or cameras, just because some under endowed idiot speeds you cannot force the rest of the population to sit under draconian traffic calming schemes.
Murder is illegal, but you don't have the whole population using plastic cutlery just in case!.
No if you don't like the road humps go a different way inconvenience yourself a little and really to moan about damage to cars is laughable. Does that really matter when measured against a potential accident. If you don't like the road don't use it and stop moaning.
-
So which of the roads without speed humps would you like me to use ?.
As I think nearly all the routes are littered with them.
Potential accident against whom, its usually devoid of anybody when ever I drive along it!.
-
You do understand that the aim must surely be to have less vehicle journeys per year don't you. We are all working to the same objective aren't we? We agree on that at least?
Errr no I don't think we do.
-
I said to Jimblob and I say it to you.
What's your answer? Cos all I see is moaning and grumbling. And I all I see in the future is moaning and grumbling.
Because we all know what will happen if the speed bumps are removed. It will be someone moaning about people speeding. About people using it as a cut through. And we will be having this tedious discussion in some form for decades.
So I ask you now. What is your solution?
How the hell do we stop having this tedious never-ending conversation? How do you solve it? Because you both clearly can solve this better than the highways team. Well you must be able to because you are both so convinced they are wrong.
Firstly, it is not a cut through, unless you describe every road from A to B as a cut through. It is the normal and obvious route to the A6 and indeed was the official diversion route to the A6 when Strines road was closed.
Secondly, what is the issue to be solved? The main issue is the ludicrous traffic calming measures which are entirely unnecessary. If speeding becomes a issue, which is possible, if unlikely, then normal enforcement measures should be taken. It's hard to see any other issue which needs a solution.
-
Firstly, it is not a cut through, unless you describe every road from A to B as a cut through. It is the normal and obvious route to the A6 and indeed was the official diversion route to the A6 when Strines road was closed.
Secondly, what is the issue to be solved? The main issue is the ludicrous traffic calming measures which are entirely unnecessary. If speeding becomes a issue, which is possible, if unlikely, then normal enforcement measures should be taken. It's hard to see any other issue which needs a solution.
hear hear!
-
Errr no I don't think we do.
Why not?
-
Because we don't want to be a part of Extinction Rebellion and would actually like to use our vehicles.
You know, to drive to work and earn a wage, most people can't earn money counting paper-clips and shuffling digital paperwork at home.
-
Is that it you think we should have millions of car journeys just so you can get to work because you can't put yourself out to travel in another way or find employment you can walk to. Is that really the best you can do.
-
For reference and according to parliament the UK is responsible for 1.1% of global emissions!.
And your great idea is to slow everyone down, use more fuel and create more pollution. Great idea!.
And we've not even discussed the addition of ethanol into petrol, which yes reduces co2 but reduces the energy value meaning you use more fuel.
-
Firstly, it is not a cut through, unless you describe every road from A to B as a cut through. It is the normal and obvious route to the A6 and indeed was the official diversion route to the A6 when Strines road was closed.
Did I say it was a cut through? No. But you can guarantee some people will complain about it being used as a cut through if traffic increases.
Secondly, what is the issue to be solved? The main issue is the ludicrous traffic calming measures which are entirely unnecessary. If speeding becomes a issue, which is possible, if unlikely, then normal enforcement measures should be taken. It's hard to see any other issue which needs a solution.
So when the traffic calming measures are removed all will be good and there will be no problems?
No.
No chance at all.
Do you really think they introduced traffic calming measures off their own backs? No way.
Measures like this get introduced for reasons. The reasons usually being people complaining and people speeding. So they to solve the problems Then other people complain about the traffic calming AND THE WHOLE ENDLESS TEDIOUS CYCLE CONTINUES.
Councils don't have the money or the inclination simply to invent schemes for no reason, no matter what any of the "experts" on this forum think. Removing speed bumps isn't going to solve all the problems. It will just change them to different problems.
The only, and I repeat ONLY true solution is for people to use cars less and obey speed limits. But then the "war on motorists" moaners and whiners complain about that.
And so we will have this endless tedious repetitive argument until the end of time
-
Did I say it was a cut through? No. But you can guarantee some people will complain about it being used as a cut through if traffic increases.
So when the traffic calming measures are removed all will be good and there will be no problems?
No.
No chance at all.
Do you really think they introduced traffic calming measures off their own backs? No way.
Measures like this get introduced for reasons. The reasons usually being people complaining and people speeding. So they to solve the problems Then other people complain about the traffic calming AND THE WHOLE ENDLESS TEDIOUS CYCLE CONTINUES.
Councils don't have the money or the inclination simply to invent schemes for no reason, no matter what any of the "experts" on this forum think. Removing speed bumps isn't going to solve all the problems. It will just change them to different problems.
The only, and I repeat ONLY true solution is for people to use cars less and obey speed limits. But then the "war on motorists" moaners and whiners complain about that.
And so we will have this endless tedious repetitive argument until the end of time
Removing traffic calming and recognising that this is a significant route will solve most of the problems. Speed limit enforcement (if there really is a problem) will deal with the rest. People obeying speed limits is obviously right, although the council does seem obsessed with setting ludicrous limits in places (which should still be obeyed). Personally, I have no intention of using my car less and I suspect that's the case for most people.
The council must know they cannot please everyone. There is no point trying to. In fact it's not at all clear what they think they are doing. I should point out that the decisions made are made by the council as a whole. Even if all the Marple councillors support one course of action, it doesn't mean it will happen, or that the current mess is their fault.
-
So which of the roads without speed humps would you like me to use ?.
As I think nearly all the routes are littered with them.
Potential accident against whom, its usually devoid of anybody when ever I drive along it!.
Nearly all routes are not littered with speed hump this is just just the sort of statement the moaners come up with which just isn't true and which needs continually challenging as a falsehood.
-
Nearly all routes are not littered with speed hump this is just just the sort of statement the moaners come up with which just isn't true and which needs continually challenging as a falsehood.
there are only really two primary routes in and out of Marple in terms of getting to the A6 and Hazel Grove or the new A555 Bypass, Windlehurst and Dan Bank. One of them is littered with speed humps!
-
Personally, I have no intention of using my car less and I suspect that's the case for most people.
The council must know they cannot please everyone.
Maybe you're not the person the council is trying to please? perhaps they think that people shouldn't be driving cars so much
of course they also sem to think that people shouldn't be riding bikes eaither but that's a different issue
-
Think you might need to remember all the humps in the middle of Marple regardless of the direction you want to go, there are humps.
Windlehurst = humps
Centre of Marple humps on all directions as you have to go via the lights at the old swimming pool
Hibbert lane = humps
All the side roads off Stockport Road have humps. So how is that a falsehood!.
Whilst Stockport might be trying to appease cyclists, surely I as a rate payer, car owner and government cash cow have slightly more right to a voice as I pay a lot for the privilege of getting the joys of using the humps ?
-
You seem to think that roads are available for the use of motorists only. Pedestrians, horses riders, mobility scooters, children, cyclist, buses all use the roads as well and have equal rights to do so as car users. Thus the more we can slow speeds down the better.
-
Roads are not designed for pedestrians or children. They maybe designed to accommodate crossing for them, hence why we have paved areas along them.
You'll probably start to use your logic to slow down motorway traffic?
-
You seem to fail to understand that in the hierarchy of road users it is the motorist who comes bottome of the pile as the new edition of the Highway Code is about to make clear. Motorist have no greater rights over the roads than any other road users. Indeed they are at the bottom of the pyramid that's just something you are going to have to get used to.
-
I don't think any of us can fail to realise and acknowledge your absolute and utter distain for any car usage.
Without any actual explanation of why you hate them.
-
Goodness me the boomers are angry today.
The world is on fire, change is necessary and inevitable, most people want a rational and informed discussion on how we manage a shift away from a reliance of fossil fuel and once again Marple gets Farage and Francois atop a speedhump 'taking back control'
How about GPS controlled speed limiting, I've been away recently and hired an electric scooter, it had GPS limiting on it and cost a few quid. Surely we can have them in cars / bikes etc. which w
-
I'm not a boomer, would that make you a gretta in this particular analogy?.
The world is not on fire, we as a country have done more than most to reduce our pollution, 1.1% according to the statistics.
Just remember your economic scooter is made in the words most polluting country on the planet.
-
Now now!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So what's are the scores George doors!
-
I don't think any of us can fail to realise and acknowledge your absolute and utter distain for any car usage.
Without any actual explanation of why you hate them.
I don't hate car drivers indeed like many other I am one but I am annoyed by drivers who think they should have priority on the roads when in fact most motorists are starting to realise that they must come bottom of the hierarchy on the road. As I said earlier something which is acknowledged by the latest edition of the Highway Code.
If I am inconvenienced by speed humps or 20mph restrictions in housing estates or town centres then that's all it is a slight inconvenience I don't behave as if I believe that the road are my private preserves and that I as a a motorists have greater rights than anyone else. Andys Fararge comment was an amusing but a accurate one.
-
As usual there are many issues at play that are expressed at different levels.
Climate change, this is happening and will have a profound impact on us all. Each of us has a duty to do what we can to reduce our environmental impact, some will chose not to eat meat, others cycle, others do nothing. If we make a choice to limit our impact it will have a knock on down supply chains, reducing emissions in developing/production countries. We all equally live with the consequences whether we take action or not, just because we only pollute a little doesn't mean that our climate and weather won't change.
We then have the issue of speeding, there are many ways this can be resolved, traditional traffic calming measures, like chicanes and bumps or tech like GPS limiting. Reducing speed increased capacity, as vehicles can travel closer together.
We could shift to electric cars and renewable energy, this wouldn't solve the traffic congestion we suffer at peak hours, but would have a positive impact on global heating.
There is a intersection here, which is interesting to discuss. My Dad has an old Defender, he argues it is the most eco friendly car. This is because it was built 30+ years ago and has been in use ever since, the embedded carbon is tiny but the emissions are high. compare this to a Tesla, the embedded carbon is stratospheric but in use emissions negligible.
Which would you rather was sat in traffic on Lower Fold as you walk your 5 year old to school? Which is going to have a more significant overall impact on our climate?
Our town needs to change, physically and in mindset, thankfully many of us are involved in constructive discussions about positive change offline, so I'm confident that the change will happen.
My comments were made to highlight the fact that many pixels have been displaced to demonstrate how we have managed to reduce important topics to Farage-esq rhetoric, presenting tough choices as simple binary decisions. (remind you of anything!) a tiny fraction of the local population responding to a consultation exercise doesn't automatically mean exactly what you think or want to happen will happen regardless of how many hissy fits you have online. I'm happy to be Gretta, however I'm a late 30's BMW driving male who wants to do what I can to leave the world in a slightly better place for my Daughter.
At the moment this is through walking and cycling more and generally trying to reduce our consumption of and reliance on fossil fuels.
It's not hard.
-
Without spending all day replying, whilst I don't mind the MAMIL, with the exclusion of those Go pro's stuck on the top types!.
Slowing traffic does nothing to improve or reduce pollution, I remember the great idea of a bus lane down the A6.
That definitely did not improve pollution for anyone and the traffic carnage it created.
Your dad is factually correct, the statistic has always been around 70% or more of all Defenders and Land rovers are still on the road today. You try buying any spare part for a Tesla vs a Landrover!, there is a reason why even 1948's land rovers are still working and its not necessarily just the engineering but its simplicity.
-
with the exclusion of those Go pro's stuck on the top types
why is that may I ask? do you think it says something about the cyclist or about your own driving?
Last year I started running cameras on the bike as frankly the standard of driving is becoming abominable and I was at time genuinely scared for my life while out on a gentle ride. Visible signs like a go-pro will often encourage drivers to reconsider how they drive
-
My driving isn't too bad, I see plenty of poor driving and even poor riding, its more they look like Jeremy Vine wannabes.
Not as bad as the weird people I see face time calling as they're walking along the pavements or in the countryside.
-
Why the hostility to every other type of road user.
-
How is that hostility?, I didn't say poorer riding.
-
I sense this debate is becoming far too polarised. The roads we have are for all to use and where all users respect and have equal consideration for all others. Sadly there will always be a minority who spoil it for the considerate majority, that applies to motorists as much as cyclist, horseriders etc. I'm predominently a motorist, I bought an electric car to help the environment a little, but I have been a keen runner and always slow or stop my car to give way to a runner at junctions if I'm turning and can slow a little to allow them to continue easily and safely. Similarly, when younger I was a cyclist and always give cyclists space, provided ofcourse that they do the same for me and don't think they have a higher priority than me or a right to use the entire road riding two or there abreast or to use the road when money has been spent on a cycle lane for them but they "choose" not to use it.
Improved behaviours are always going to be the solution and this is why places like the Netherlands and Norway have been successful in the adoption of mixed transportation, I've worked and travelled in both locations and they are simply more considerate! The other ingredient in these cases however has been money, and lots of it, often on roads too; sadly that's the part we're missing, we think we can do it on the cheap or can raise the money to do it by taxing the motorist. This approach however, will only serve to alienate the motorist, who, whether we like it or not currently constitutes by far and away the highest financial contributor to our infrastructure and also represents the majority of users. Within that use, most motorists are simply trying to get from A to B for a valid reason, a reason no greater or less valid than someone on a bicycle or walking. Add to that, that in a large number of cases, there simply is no viable alternative to their chosen mode of transport.
I've said this already in this thread, we need to spend money to create those viable alternatives. The answer is to improve and make the alternatives more appealing than the car, rather than make the car even less appealing than the limited and often impractical alternatives.
This thread seems to have gone a little of track. The Windlehurst Speed humps were installed as "mitigation measures" as a result of the new bypass, but what were we mitigating against, increased traffic, speed or both or just a perception of speed experienced by a handful of local residents and casued by an even smaller minority of inconsiderate motorists and a pot of money from the SEMMS project that needed to be spent that would appease those residents and also give the Highways Team a pet project, which as we know only too well, they love! Whatever the case, they don't work for the majority. The overriding conclusion from these seems to show that people now prefer to use a different route, Hoorah! they have worked; but only for that small handful of residents! But to what detriment to every one else? On one hand we build a £290m bypass to make car journeys easier and actually a little greener and then make it a road to nowhere by building a rollercoaster at one end of it that motorists will hate... madness! The answer was of course to build the whole bypass and connect it to the M60 but our green campaigners wouldn't like that because cars are the enemy and must be destroyed.
Then consider little old Marple and how it loves its heritage, its shops and cafes and how it wants visitors. You only get that if people can get in and out, we can't have it both ways.
There is no easy answer but I for one don't see bashing the motorist as the answer, speed humps damage cars, there's no denying that, they do increase polution, yes they do reduce speed, but not safely and certainly not fairly because as was pointed out by someone earlier in the thread, we don't all have to use wooden knives and forks because one person might use a knife to hurt someone somewhere, (although God forbid, I can see wooden spoons being made law one day). If that's our mindset, every 30mph road in the country should have speed humps.
-
Jimblob I think that is a perfectly reasonable post some of the points which I would agree with. The main point I'd make initially is that whilst you might not feel continually bashing the motorist is the answer nor is continually bashing and moaning about highways staff who do in the main a reasonable job and who more importantly are not allowed to defend themselves. Less attacks on individuals just trying to do their jobs and moaning about them might lead to less bashing of motorists and a more constructive debate. For too many "let's attack highways staff" is a default position.
-
Calling out the complete lack of progress on the issue is not bashing council staff, they are after all employed through our rates and should be held accountable by our elected representatives.
The schemes they create have to show plus and minus points with the intended positive outcomes.
Surely if those outcomes aren't met, the overwhelming majority of the consultation response highlights that, then it should be removed/adapted.
And I think we can safety assume the Highways design department isn't just one work experience kid in a cupboard behind the photocopier.
-
Jimblob I think that is a perfectly reasonable post some of the points which I would agree with. The main point I'd make initially is that whilst you might not feel continually bashing the motorist is the answer nor is continually bashing and moaning about highways staff who do in the main a reasonable job and who more importantly are not allowed to defend themselves. Less attacks on individuals just trying to do their jobs and moaning about them might lead to less bashing of motorists and a more constructive debate. For too many "let's attack highways staff" is a default position.
Points taken @wheels. The frustration however is that the consultation processes are flawed that supposedly allow for democratic decisions to be made. We have local councillors campaigning on the basis that they will push for the removal of measures on Windlehurst (ironic when once considers it was their actions that got them installed in the first place), they get a consultation confirming the wishes of the electorate (with a little help by members of the public admitedly whipping up support), only for us to be told that the councillors have no power or money to act on the results. Earlier consultations that brought about the measures in the first place were flawed because they only involved a small and select group of local residents who lived on Windlehurst itself who were terrifed that the bypass would mean a deluge of HGVs and rep-infested BMWs racing past their houses at all hours, who would quite clearly request that some form of mitigation was needed. (I don't disagree incidentally). So the only people I feel I can look to for solutions are the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who we employ to design and implement safer roads for us, who, seemingly at least, and despite ever-growing public opinion against speed humps, continue to install them. Perhaps them being unable to defend or answer for themselves is part of the problem, and if permitted to do so, they might suggest different options for speed mitigation as they'd have to stand by and answer for what they're tasked to implement. The frustration comes I think through the Highways Team's own fear of reprisal were they not seen to act on a request, from however small a minority, to make somewhere seemingly safer. The root cause of the problem is a minority of inconsiderate road users, the Highways Team are tasked with fixing this and yet the results penalise the majority of law-abiding and considerate road users but sadly don't guarantee a safer road. The Highways Team need the steer and budget to be given alternative tools to fulfill their remit rather than more lumps of tarmac. It would make their lives easier I'm sure and the outcome would be better for all. I have spoken in person and at length with members of the team and I understand their frustrations, they genuinely do believe they are doing the right thing!
It is a worry though when as an example of their expertise, it turns out that the speed cushions in Marple District Centre are probably illegal as they don't comply with The Highways (Road Humps Regulations 1999) and when the Highways Team knowingly ignored three of the recommendations in their own safety audit prior to them being installed. That sends a worrying message, to me at least about our Subject Matter Experts.
The solution here is political, but given the route for any political recourse appears to be non-existent, people will innevitably blame the departments who are seen to implement the measures they don't like and who are funded from our local taxation. If those measures are then sub-standard, ill-conceived or badly designed, then it's the designers of those schemes who naturally are the focal point for any complaints.
-
Whilst we can also all agree that the local councillors just aren't pushing the issues either.
Regards of who controls the council, I'd rather they were vocal and not just the usual platitudes come election time.
-
Whilst we can also all agree that the local councillors just aren't pushing the issues either.
Regards of who controls the council, I'd rather they were vocal and not just the usual platitudes come election time.
Then put up for election next time
-
Whilst we can also all agree that the local councillors just aren't pushing the issues either.
Regards of who controls the council, I'd rather they were vocal and not just the usual platitudes come election time.
I think we can also all agree that a consultation exercise is just that, consultation, it is not a decision making process it is just a tool to help inform those making a decision and its perfectly in order for the decision makers to reject the majority view of consultees without any loss of goodwill or integrity. It is perfectly acceptable to take no notice of a consultation exercise particularly if the decision makers hold other information not available to consultees.
-
I think we can also all agree that a consultation exercise is just that, consultation, it is not a decision making process it is just a tool to help inform those making a decision and its perfectly in order for the decision makers to reject the majority view of consultees without any loss of goodwill or integrity. It is perfectly acceptable to take no notice of a consultation exercise particularly if the decision makers hold other information not available to consultees.
That is quite correct. I think the issue is that consultations are perceived as never being taken into account. You would expect the occasional consultation result to have some effect on the end result. When it appears, rightly or wrongly, that decisions have been made before the consultation has taken place and nothing in the consultation is going to change that, that people become somewhat cynical about them. As I say, it's a matter of the way consultations are perceived by a lot of people that affects the attitude towards them. For all I know, there is a chance that some consultations do change minds in the council. Perhaps the council could make more effort to convince people that what they think does actually matter.
-
Oh I see wheels.
We can just keep asking the people what they think, ignore the response and claim we can't do anything due to budgets.
Wait a while and then ask again until we give them the reply they wish to hear?.
-
You clearly don't understand how consultations work. It must be that lack of knowledge and understanding that causes your apparent frustration. I think it's that knowledge gap you need to address not the process which most people understand. They might not like the outcomes but they understand what's happened.
-
Looks and sounds like wheels has rewritten the definition of consultation.
So if I consult and ask for opinions and feedback, choose to ignore all the responses.
What's the actual point other than wasting time energy and council funds.
-
The measures were implemented on the back of the results of a far less detailed consultation! Seems this one just exonerates local councillors as they can now blame the Labour Council if nothing gets done..... Waste of even more money. Bravo!
I noticed in the concluding summary of the report, it states there is an appetite for alternative measures, so a small minority are still calling the shots. Nothing will get done and the majority get their cars shaken to pieces still.
-
This topic has languished for over a year now; so, it may interest those who remain angry that the vehicle damaging humps have still not been removed, to see this information:
Comment from Hazel Grove Conservatives:
"Hazel Grove Conservatives are holding Stockport Council to account for traffic calming measures on Windlehurst Road, with the suggestion of further consultation it is more important than ever to keep the pressure up for sensible measures to this issue."
https://www.hazelgroveconservatives.org.uk/news/high-lane-windlehurst-road-traffic-calming-report
However, the Council report (link below) is likely to further infuriate residents, with its typical foot-dragging, lazy and obstructionist manner, as it almost gleefully recounts comments from consultations on this topic dating back to 2015. Clearly, for Highways (or Place Management, as the idiots like to call themselves) a sense of achievement is enjoyed through having these issues drawn out for as long as possible. One can imagine a chart on the wall at Fred Perry House, showing which team has achieved the longest period of impeding inactivity and obfuscation, in the face of a clear need to take action to meet residents demands.
https://www.hazelgroveconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.hazelgroveconservatives.org.uk/files/2022-07/Windlehurst%20Road%20Traffic%20Calming.pdf