redruby Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 1 hour ago, Art_Dent said: err... Nope According to Crashmap (maybe not the most comprehensive or reliable of data sources I agree) in the last 15 years there have been no fatalities at this junction. There has been just one fatality in the surrounding area which was in Dec 2017 and involved one vehicle and one pedestrian. It wasn't even at this junction but at the junction of Tullibardine Road/Ringinglow Road/Ecclesall Road South. Again according to Crashmap, In the same 15-year period according to Crashmap, there have been just two serious accidents at this junction in June 2017 (2 vehicles, 1 casualty) and May 2021 (2 vehicles, 3 casualties). Crashmap lists the Hoober Avenue/Knowle Lane/Haugh Lane crossroads as having 3 serious incidents in the last 15 years - April 2014 (2 cars, 3 casualties), October 2016 (2 vehicles, 1 casualty) and August 2020 (2 vehicles, 1 casualty). So sorry, not a 'death trap'. Agreed that the junction design is poor but I see little justification to the proposal to block access to Millhouses Lane from Ecclesall Road South, the data just doesn't support this. I'll be making a FoI request to the City Council for more reliable information about both of these junctions. Art I agree that ‘death trap’ is too strong and inaccurate but I don’t oppose this change as I’ve seen so many near misses there. I don’t agree with waiting for accidents to happen before implementing changes to improve road safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 16 hours ago, Planner1 said: Nothing wrong with them using the road, there’s no compulsion to use a cycle path. So what the heck is the point of a cycle path??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 5 hours ago, ads36 said: funny that - given the lack of cycle routes... (you don't assess the need for a bridge by counting the number of people swimming across the crocodile infested river) So come November the roundabout is going to be swarming with cyclists?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 4 hours ago, Planner1 said: I don’t get why you seem to be obsessed with cyclists going the “right” way around the new roundabout. Pedestrians can use the crossings in either direction, so why do you think it will be an issue for motorists if any cyclists did the same? Because the description states that cyclist are on a CLOCKWISE route, that is what drivers are being told to expect. Cyclists tend to go a tad quicker than pedestrians so they will hit the junction quicker and from an unexpected direction if going anticlockwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 2 hours ago, Planner1 said: The points you make about the “clockwise” issue, ie speed of approach by cyclists, will apply whichever direction they come from. There are already plenty of places where there are cycle crossings, so looking out for cycles crossing shouldn't be a new issue for motorists. Personally I probably wouldn’t use the cycle path at all. Using the road will be quicker. In an anticlockwise direction???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 12 minutes ago, alchemist said: So what the heck is the point of a cycle path??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 17 minutes ago, alchemist said: So what the heck is the point of a cycle path??? Good question - and I doubt all these 'policy-makers' even know what a cycle is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 2 hours ago, alchemist said: So what the heck is the point of a cycle path??? It helps people to cycle who are less confident and may be nervous about sharing space with vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 2 hours ago, alchemist said: Because the description states that cyclist are on a CLOCKWISE route, that is what drivers are being told to expect. Cyclists tend to go a tad quicker than pedestrians so they will hit the junction quicker and from an unexpected direction if going anticlockwise Drivers have eyes and should drive to the prevailing conditions ie what they can see. Not to what they have been told to expect. Basically folk on here are getting wound up at the potential for cyclists using the cycle track in the opposite direction. Drivers need to be alert to what is happening around them and observe what others may be doing. Pedestrians/cyclists/other drivers doing unusual or unexpected things will be something most drivers see on pretty much every trip they make. This roundabout should not present any issue to drivers however it gets used by whoever. This is a non-issue in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 2 hours ago, RollingJ said: Good question - and I doubt all these 'policy-makers' even know what a cycle is. You’ll be disappointed then. When I was at SCC, most of the transport planning team up to the Head of Service were regular cyclists. Much of the major funding for cycling schemes started to happen when Boris was prime minister. Both he and his main advisor were/are cyclists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now