Ecclesfield Road (Woolley Wood Bottom) speed limit/closures

[*_ash_*]

At the junction with deep lane quite a few, I've seen (not witnessed but seen the aftermath of) four there since the start of last year and that's before you get to the national speed limit.

 

On the national speed limit part I'm aware of two in the same time period, both single car accidents caused by people not driving appropriately for the weather conditions (heavy rain both times)

 

Look at my post#23 again and how I edited your quote. I was subtly being sarcastic with my response

 

(i.e. your defence at remaining 60 and using the word majority in number of accidents! )

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2016 at 23:58 ----------

 

Alot, i wrote my car off there lol and i witnessed another a few weeks later

 

It's perfectly safe though! No accidents to see here...

 

 

Actually the most dangerous section is the junction with deep lane where people try to join the road by simply pulling out without looking, that's where the majority of accidents occur and it has nothing to do with the 60mph speed limit.

 

-

 

Be honest, did you not look Pr0187?

[Allen]

I'm not quite sure how that supports anything you've said

 

If drivers are not capable of driving to the road conditions the only thing this supports is that they really, really shouldn't be on the road to begin with.

 

I completely agree with putting up the new recommended speed signs, I also think that their should be a double white line to encourage people to stop overtaking.

 

It's not a long stretch, and the council would put at most one speed camera on there which would mean drivers would slow down just for the camera then just speed off after it.

 

A reduction in speed limit wouldn't stop those who are going to speed speeding, nor would it stop drivers who for whatever insane reason don't, or are unable to drive in accordance with the road conditions.

 

The most dangerous thing about the 60mph stretch is drivers going too slow (and I'm not talking about driving right up to or exceeding the speed limit, I would say weather permitting 45 mph plus is fine on there) I'm talking about those who are doing 25, 30, even up to a consistent 40 mph which encourages those behind them to try dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

 

It really is quite simple, it is a 60mph road, if you are incapable of achieving speeds of over 40mph on there you really should consider your fitness to be on the road at all.

 

Let me also just stress that I'm not simply a speed freak, there are roads that really shouldn't be national speed limit like that ridiculous stretch going from Upper to lower Bradfield that is exceptionally steep and winding, but under no circumstances is Wooly Wood Bottom one of them.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

When I lived locally to the area, like you, I drove the road at 60mph and felt it was safe to do so.

Now I see it from a different perspective....

 

On my (now rare) visits to Sheffield the wood bottom is my first port of call after leaving the motorway. I take the dog for a walk in the woods after the three hour car journey, before visiting friends.

If I leave the motorway at Tinsley and approach it that way, I then have to attempt to access a laybye by slowing down and then crossing approaching traffic doing 60mph.

Only tried it once....and now stay on the motorway, leaving at chapeltown.

I still have to slow down to access the laybye, often to the annoyance of some numpty "up my arse" believing it is their right to do 60mph no matter what.

 

Once parked I then have the problem of crossing the road to reach the woods.

Not an easy task with speeding traffic.

 

I strongly believe the speed limit is wrong. Perhaps a 50 limit would be more suitable.

As for speeders will speed anyway.....that's something else. There is no magic wand to stop them.

[GhostRiders]

Look at my post#23 again and how I edited your quote. I was subtly being sarcastic with my response

 

(i.e. your defence at remaining 60 and using the word majority in number of accidents! )

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2016 at 23:58 ----------

 

 

It's perfectly safe though! No accidents to see here...

 

 

 

-

 

Be honest, did you not look Pr0187?

 

Oh you are quite the witty one.

 

Pr0187 has not given any indication as to the nature of their accident, nor of the other accident they witnessed.

 

We simply don't know what the causes/conditions of that posters accidents were nor where they took place on the road.

 

If they offer more information it may shed some more light on our discussion.

 

Unlike you I prefer to make decisions based on fact.

 

The only facts I personally have regarding that road are that the majority of accidents I and those I know have witnessed happen with the junction at Deep Lane and the two accidents I know of last year on the 60mph stretch were both due to very bad weather.

 

I have no access to any official data so can only go.on personal experience. Please, if you have official figures which can shed more light on the numbers/circumstances of accidents please do bit crass attempts at sarcasm really just make you look silly.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 11:52 ----------

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

When I lived locally to the area, like you, I drove the road at 60mph and felt it was safe to do so.

Now I see it from a different perspective....

 

On my (now rare) visits to Sheffield the wood bottom is my first port of call after leaving the motorway. I take the dog for a walk in the woods after the three hour car journey, before visiting friends.

If I leave the motorway at Tinsley and approach it that way, I then have to attempt to access a laybye by slowing down and then crossing approaching traffic doing 60mph.

Only tried it once....and now stay on the motorway, leaving at chapeltown.

I still have to slow down to access the laybye, often to the annoyance of some numpty "up my arse" believing it is their right to do 60mph no matter what.

 

Once parked I then have the problem of crossing the road to reach the woods.

Not an easy task with speeding traffic.

 

I strongly believe the speed limit is wrong. Perhaps a 50 limit would be more suitable.

As for speeders will speed anyway.....that's something else. There is no magic wand to stop them.

 

I don't think a 50 limit will make any difference. I was on Penistone Rd (much longer but similar curves) a couple of days ago which is a 50 and almost saw a serious accident caused by someone travelling too slowly. A line of traffic had formed behind someone doing around 30 and someone travelling around a bend (I'd estimate they were doing around 45) had to slam the brakes on to avoid hitting the last car in the line, all because someone wasn't capable (or chose not to) of driving to the speed of the road.

 

Regarding parking there is a car park at one end of this road with access to the woods you could use without crossing the road and numerous car parks at the bottom end of concord Park you could use. Not having a go, just offering potential solutions to your personal dilemma.

 

I completely agree with you about people driving right up to the speed limit up people's arses, that's just dangerous. As I said before I'm not a speed freak and 45 miles plus on that road is fine for traffic flow and absolutely if someone slows down and indicates in plenty of time for a layby patience should be exercised.

[*_ash_*]

Oh you are quite the witty one.

 

I wasn't trying to be witty.

 

 

Pr0187 has not given any indication as to the nature of their accident, nor of the other accident they witnessed.

 

We simply don't know what the causes/conditions of that posters accidents were nor where they took place on the road.

 

Well it was you earlier who said the majority of accidents were 'where people try to join the road by simply pulling out without looking, that's where the majority of accidents occur'.

 

 

Unlike you I prefer to make decisions based on fact

 

Unlike me? I haven't expressed an opinion on it yet!

 

I'm looking at the points you make (and others) and so far it doesn't add up, nor do your answers to the problem seem likely.

 

Saying, the limit should stay, then back it up with - 'people who do this shouldn't be on the road', isn't an answer. There will at no point in time be a DVLC/VOSA(whatever called now) person be stood at the end of the road removing driving licences of people who do stupid things.

 

Please, if you have official figures which can shed more light on the numbers/circumstances of accidents please do bit crass attempts at sarcasm really just make you look silly.

 

I have no reason to look anything up yet. Your argument seems to be keeping things going before we need stats. If you want the limit to be the same, but then keep referring to what must be a large number of accidents on this stretch of road, when you keep using the word 'majority', which seems to imply this.

[GhostRiders]

I wasn't trying to be witty.

 

 

 

Well it was you earlier who said the majority of accidents were 'where people try to join the road by simply pulling out without looking, that's where the majority of accidents occur'.

 

 

 

 

Unlike me? I haven't expressed an opinion on it yet!

 

I'm looking at the points you make (and others) and so far it doesn't add up, nor do your answers to the problem seem likely.

 

Saying, the limit should stay, then back it up with - 'people who do this shouldn't be on the road', isn't an answer. There will at no point in time be a DVLC/VOSA(whatever called now) person be stood at the end of the road removing driving licences of people who do stupid things.

 

 

 

I have no reason to look anything up yet. Your argument seems to be keeping things going before we need stats. If you want the limit to be the same, but then keep referring to what must be a large number of accidents on this stretch of road, when you keep using the word 'majority', which seems to imply this.

 

The o/p is about the 60mph stretch of road. I said that the majority of accidents occur outside the 60mph stretch. You have inferred from that that I'm saying there is a large number of accidents. That is not what I'm saying, I'm saying that the majority of accidents (I personally know of around six in the last couple of years, which as far as I'm aware isn't a large number for any given road)

 

My point is that reducing the speed limit won't affect where the majority of accidents ON THIS ROAD occur, as they happen where the road is already a 40mph zone. I could be referring to a road that's had 3 accidents in 20 years, it would still be correct to say 'the majority' if two had happened in one specific area, it doesn't by default mean that there are alot of accidents on there.

 

I wasn't backing up the limit by saying people who can't drive in bad weather shouldn't be on the road,. I was merely making the point that people who can't drive In accordance with a roads given conditions shouldn't be on the road. This applies to any road, with any speed limit.

 

The fact of the matter is that the accidents that have occurred on the road's 60mph stretch have only (to my knowledge) occurred during bad weather. If accidents occurred on there in all weather conditions there would, IMO be cause to reduce the limit. As they haven't there seems to be no cause to reduce it.

 

My proposals (one of which has been shown by another poster to be unlikely implemented) were to make the road safer considering the current habits of motorists on there. I fully agree with the recommended lower speed limit sign in inclement weather that has been put up, however reducing the speed limit on the road as a whole will likely cause those who are going to speed anyway to take more risks. I really don't see how this doesn't add up and rather than just shooting me down it would be nice if you could show exactly HOW my points don't add up.

[*_ash_*]

The o/p is about the 60mph stretch of road. I said that the majority of accidents occur outside the 60mph stretch. You have inferred from that that I'm saying there is a large number of accidents. That is not what I'm saying, I'm sayin <snipped to shorten post> on there in all weather conditions there would, IMO be cause to reduce the limit. As they haven't there seems to be no cause to reduce it.

 

My proposals (one of which has been shown by another poster to be unlikely implemented) were to make the road safer considering the current habits of motorists on there. I fully agree with the recommended lower speed limit sign in inclement weather that has been put up, however reducing the speed limit on the road as a whole will likely cause those who are going to speed anyway to take more risks. I really don't see how this doesn't add up and rather than just shooting me down it would be nice if you could show exactly HOW my points don't add up.

 

Your idea (which wasn't bad) still wouldn't stop people who 'shouldn't be driving'. You said it yourself in this bold bit and several times earlier in the thread.

 

You can't stop bad driving, but what does this consist of? I'll write my examples.

 

Rather than argue, let me turn it around and put my views forward for both the junction, and the 60 section.

 

Junction: I don't agree with your reasoning of 'people don't look' - this is nonsense. The only people who don't look are joyriders or people trying to evade the police following.

 

The reason this junction sees a lot of accidents (at certain times of day)... when it is busy times, this is a hard junction to get out of Ghost, it's a simple as that. Lots of people speed on there, AND it is a busy road both ways, which is quite unusual. People take more risks, because otherwise you would sit there all day (well until night when it's easy! ).

 

Personally, I don't use this junction much because I don't work around there often, but I don't particularly like pulling out of there at busy times. (bear in mind that I'm often distracted too, something non-taxi drivers/and bus drivers will not know well)

 

A junction I have to use a lot reminded me of this thread earlier Ghost, the bottom of the hill down coming from Bolsterstone, turning right on the old Manchester road. This can be very easy if lucky, but at the time I come down, it's often quite tricky. It's quite a similar example to this junction I think. If it was a busy one (i.e. if a lot of drivers using this junction, you would see a similar accident rate I think)

 

-

 

The 60 bit:

 

The thing that I think about in this thread is like a lot of Sheffield roads, the inconsistencies. There are 30 roads that are ridiculous, and the cameras just take the <Removed> (Penistone Road is a good example)

 

I had to go along this section of Woolywood the other day, and the guy behind me was about 1 foot from my backend, and flashing lights. I was doing 40 and it was slightly wet road. So I was going too slow you would think?* Think and post before reading the small print.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*(as it happened, I'd just picked up a dog job because unusually for PHV I allow dogs in my PHV. There were two of them, and the one in the front was pretty feisty, AND I'd only just picked them up so I had 4 complete strangers in my car, and 2 dogs, and I didn't know the destination as they wanted to direct me (which I hate!)... tbh 40 was way faster than I was comfy with, but I was driving to the conditions IN my car, as well as out.) - can you answer me your thoughts on my slow driving please?

Edited March 10, 2016 by nikki-red
added a bit for clarity, and typos

[GhostRiders]

Your idea (which wasn't bad) still wouldn't stop people who 'shouldn't be driving'. You said it yourself in this bold bit and several times earlier in the thread.

 

You can't stop bad driving, but what does this consist of? I'll write my examples.

 

Rather than argue, let me turn it around and put my views forward for both the junction, and the 60 section.

 

Junction: I don't agree with your reasoning of 'people don't look' - this is nonsense. The only people who don't look are joyriders or people trying to evade the police following.

 

The reason this junction sees a lot of accidents (at certain times of day)... when it is busy times, this is a hard junction to get out of Ghost, it's a simple as that. Lots of people speed on there, AND it is a busy road both ways, which is quite unusual. People take more risks, because otherwise you would sit there all day (well until night when it's easy! ).

 

Personally, I don't use this junction much because I don't work around there often, but I don't particularly like pulling out of there at busy times. (bear in mind that I'm often distracted too, something non-taxi drivers/and bus drivers will not know well)

 

A junction I have to use a lot reminded me of this thread earlier Ghost, the bottom of the hill down coming from Bolsterstone, turning right on the old Manchester road. This can be very easy if lucky, but at the time I come down, it's often quite tricky. It's quite a similar example to this junction I think. If it was a busy one (i.e. if a lot of drivers using this junction, you would see a similar accident rate I think)

 

-

 

The 60 bit:

 

The thing that I think about in this thread is like a lot of Sheffield roads, the inconsistencies. There are 30 roads that are ridiculous, and the cameras just take the <Removed>(Penistone Road is a good example)

 

I had to go along this section of Woolywood the other day, and the guy behind me was about 1 foot from my backend, and flashing lights. I was doing 40 and it was slightly wet road. So I was going too slow you would think?* Think and post before reading the small print.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*(as it happened, I'd just picked up a dog job because unusually for PHV I allow dogs in my PHV. There were two of them, and the one in the front was pretty feisty, AND I'd only just picked them up so I had 4 complete strangers in my car, and 2 dogs, and I didn't know the destination as they wanted to direct me (which I hate!)... tbh 40 was way faster than I was comfy with, but I was driving to the conditions IN my car, as well as out.) - can you answer me your thoughts on my slow driving please?

 

The 60 section.

 

I have only one statement.

 

If you think 'people don't look' is nonsense you have clearly never ridden a motorcycle. Virtually every biker I know that has been knocked off at a junction has been given the excuse 'i didn't see you '. While I accept 'i didn't see you' and 'don't look' aren't exactly the same in this case it amounts to the same thing. Didn't see you is shorthand for didn't look hard enough. It's a regularly used excuse that quite simply costs lives.

 

Regarding that particular junction it's simply not true that 'you'd sit there all day', I'm sorry but that road, apart from possibly at peak times simply isn't that busy. Regardless if YOU think (capitalised because I'm not suggesting you do, merely saying that IF you do) that even when it is busy it's an excuse to 'take more risks' then I will categorically state that I think you really shouldn't be driving a vehicle carrying members of the public. It is a difficult junction, but as such more care should be taken, not more risks.

 

Regarding the 60mph stretch I completely agree about the inconsistencies with Sheffield roads (and actually especially your comment about Penistone Road)

 

Regarding if I think you were going too slow I can't answer that, do you think you were driving in conjunction with the weather/your circumstances? As I've stated several times I've no problem whatsoever with people adjusting their speed in accordance with the conditions, my point has always been consistently that it is a 60mph road in good weather and speed should be adjusted when necessary.

 

As for people going too fast, especially in the case of the person flashing you I'm totally against that kind of aggressive driving. Again being a motorcyclist it frustrates me when I'm driving in accordance with the conditions and people are right up my arse. Riding a bike in the wet is much more dangerous than driving a car and greater care has to be taken for all sorts of reasons. Car drivers don't appreciate this and think you're taking the micky.

 

I actually once had a Land-rover driver threaten to beat me up because I was doing 30 in a 30 zone and because he wanted to do whatever speed it was he wanted to go at and I was holding him up he didn't like it.

 

So I don't think there is anything wrong with 'slow' driving when safety is concerned. My issue is with people who are incapable of driving to the speed of the road where conditions are ideal. These people really should ask themselves if they should be on certain roads if they aren't confident enough to drive on them towards the speed limit, and as I have already said, this doesn't mean pegging it to 60 and not below, it means not sauntering along at 25 mph holding traffic up unnecessarily.

 

I've yet to see any argument which convinces me that the 60mph limit should be reduced. As for people's behaviour behind the wheel, unfortunately that's much harder to police and I fear it's something that won't change until some people are in an accident themselves.

Edited March 10, 2016 by nikki-red

[DT Ralge]

A general point, unspecific to the road in question: as has been said, "looked but not seen" (SMIDSY) is the most commonly quoted contributory factor amongst all the factors (78 ) available to the Police on their Stats19 form.

It is one factor among several in nearly 40% of crashes.

 

That's possibly why your driving instructor said, "look and look again" (well, he/she should have).

 

What contributes to SMIDSY?

- situational blindness (rush, rush; familiarity/complacency)

- vision blocks (door/window pillars - "killer pillars"; parked vehicles, buildings, advertising hoardings, bends/dips in road)

- ineffective scans (ever not found the marmalade in the fridge when it's there in front of you? This is "saccadic masking". Same thing happens on the road)

- not seeing it because of its passing through your eye's blind spot (punctum caecum).

 

We are built not to see everything so look and look again, take your time, have a window down ...

Edited March 10, 2016 by DT Ralge

[GhostRiders]

A general point, unspecific to the road in question: as has been said, "looked but not seen" (SMIDSY) is the most commonly quoted contributory factor amongst all the factors (78 ) available to the Police on their Stats19 form.

It is one factor among several in nearly 40% of crashes.

 

That's possibly why your driving instructor said, "look and look again" (well, he/she should have).

 

What contributes to SMIDSY?

- situational blindness (rush, rush; familiarity/complacency)

- vision blocks (door/window pillars - "killer pillars"; parked vehicles, buildings, advertising hoardings, bends/dips in road)

- ineffective scans (ever not found the marmalade in the fridge when it's there in front of you? This is "saccadic masking". Same thing happens on the road)

- not seeing it because of its passing through your eye's blind spot (pun gum caecum).

 

We are built not to see everything so look and look again, take your time, have a window down ...

 

Like button for this post please SF

[*_ash_*]

 

I have only one statement.

 

If you think 'people don't look' is nonsense you have clearly never ridden a motorcycle.

 

I have and had one for about 3 years (though only 125cc)

 

Regarding that particular junction it's simply not true that 'you'd sit there all day', I'm sorry but that road, apart from possibly at peak times simply isn't that busy.

 

It's a way of talking, I didn't mean literally. Ditherers slow the flow of traffic down in all junctions.

 

You obviously never driven a taxi. You people think that you just go and pick someone up, take them somewhere, drop them off, get paid, job done?

 

I've got complete strangers in the car, who are all very different. Some people just get in the back and play on their phones, sometimes I've got 4 rowdy people in the car who may make me uncomfortable, sometimes people are aggressive, and some people even try and 'assist' (i.e. saying things like 'you're ok this side' (I don't like people interfering with my driving). These things are called distractions, and I manage to drive 500 miles a week on Sheffield roads like this, so enough of the 'shouldn't be driving malarky'.

 

I'm out of this one anyway. It doesn't look like we can have a rational discussion.

 

Regardless if YOU think (capitalised because I'm not suggesting you do, merely saying that IF you do) that even when it is busy it's an excuse to 'take more risks' then I will categorically state that I think you really shouldn't be driving a vehicle carrying members of the public. It is a difficult junction, but as such more care should be taken, not more risks.

 

I don't take risks, if anything, because of my insurance cost, I sway more to a ditherer.

 

The facts are there though, it's a tricky junction at busy times, and there are a lot of accidents.