Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gary

Signage clutter and traffic lights

Recommended Posts

 

:P

 

Well I read it and despite all the modelling and testing the council mention in their response to a perfectly valid point, the fact is that there are times when the traffic moves better when the lights break down. 

 

Anybody think the traffic will flow better after they've spent this £20 million Government fund? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P

 

Anybody think the traffic will flow better after they've spent this £20 million Government fund? 

A manager and two members of his staff, an engineer and a programmer, are in a car. Its brakes fail, and it nearly goes out of control. Fortunately, they are able to stop it without causing an accident. They all get out, and the engineer says "I'll repair the brakes." The manager says "No, I'll organise a committee, arrange meetings, hold an inquest and, through a process of continuous improvement, develop a solution." Then the programmer says "I think the best way is to drive back to just before the spot where the brakes failed, and then go along the same route to see if the fault happens again

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add my little bit of evilness to the pot.

 

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/18807/1/Council-squandering-20000-on-30-road-signs-claims-councillor/Page1.html

 

How many of us on here forsaw this scenario???

 

There will no doubt be some part of the Road Traffic Act says that if the speed limit ain't 30 then a sign has to go up. Would want 40/50/60 signs up after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add my little bit of evilness to the pot.

 

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/18807/1/Council-squandering-20000-on-30-road-signs-claims-councillor/Page1.html

 

How many of us on here forsaw this scenario???

I'm sure Cllr Axcell knows the funding for this is capital from the Local Transport allocations so couldn't be spent on revenue stuff like potholes and grass-cutting and recycling centres. It's hard enough explaining capital v. revenue to electors without councillors mixing it up, by ignorance or design. And Cllr Axcell was on the scrutiny committee that recommended the roll-out of 20mph limits on all residential roads. No doubt Rod King of 20s Plenty would have wanted the feeder roads included, which would have avoided the costs of signing each cul-de-sac, but councillors didn't want that. I don't know about political correctness; political opportunism maybe.

 

As to the original post, I wonder if this is to do with businesses’ indifferent perception of the Chamber of Commerce, revealed in a business survey, that led the Supporting the Local Economy Policy Committee to "acknowledge the findings of the Business Survey 2013 and propose that Warrington & Co establish a new business support organisation for Warrington".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure Cllr Axcell knows the funding for this is capital from the Local Transport allocations so couldn't be spent on revenue stuff like potholes and grass-cutting and recycling centres. It's hard enough explaining capital v. revenue to electors without councillors mixing it up, by ignorance or design. And Cllr Axcell was on the scrutiny committee that recommended the roll-out of 20mph limits on all residential roads. No doubt Rod King of 20s Plenty would have wanted the feeder roads included, which would have avoided the costs of signing each cul-de-sac, but councillors didn't want that. I don't know about political correctness; political opportunism maybe.

 

As to the original post, I wonder if this is to do with businesses’ indifferent perception of the Chamber of Commerce, revealed in a business survey, that led the Supporting the Local Economy Policy Committee to "acknowledge the findings of the Business Survey 2013 and propose that Warrington & Co establish a new business support organisation for Warrington".

 

Yes, well we wouldn't want anybody, residents or business associations, questioning the council, would we Steve? Best we all just cough up and shut up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And isn't that just the sort of response that makes any sort of trying to explain decisions wasted on some? The issue is whether it's daft to put 20 mph limits on a cul-de-sac. It may be but it's a choice between that, not including cul-de-sacs in the 20 mph in all residential streets policy (for which Axcell voted it seems), or putting 20 mph limits on the main roads through estates. I don't know about cough up and shut up but someone has to decide these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the original post, I wonder if this is to do with businesses’ indifferent perception of the Chamber of Commerce, revealed in a business survey, that led the Supporting the Local Economy Policy Committee to "acknowledge the findings of the Business Survey 2013 and propose that Warrington & Co establish a new business support organisation for Warrington".

probably, well maybe,possibly not. if i ever figure out what it means and then find the survey and work out what all the committees and such reccomended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And isn't that just the sort of response that makes any sort of trying to explain decisions wasted on some? The issue is whether it's daft to put 20 mph limits on a cul-de-sac. It may be but it's a choice between that, not including cul-de-sacs in the 20 mph in all residential streets policy (for which Axcell voted it seems), or putting 20 mph limits on the main roads through estates. I don't know about cough up and shut up but someone has to decide these things.

 

I think the issue here is whether Steve Parish should get away with a cheap shot at somebody who said something he doesn't like.

 

Although I would be interested to know if he thinks we should have a survey of businesses asking what they think of the council and, if the response is not positive, whether the council should start looking at alternatives to its own existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the issue here is whether Steve Parish should get away with a cheap shot at somebody who said something he doesn't like.

 

Although I would be interested to know if he thinks we should have a survey of businesses asking what they think of the council and, if the response is not positive, whether the council should start looking at alternatives to its own existence. 

 

Cheap shot? Out of nowhere the Chamber of Commerce decries "the anti-motorist theme of the thinking and actions of highway planners and presumably councillors". We're pro walking, we're pro cycling, we're pro public transport, and we're not going to rip up the town to build new roads. Is the best the Chamber can do to help is say we've got too many road signs? There's a new set of lights on the A49 and I'm sure the businesses on Alban Park are highly delighted (avoiding the 2-hour delays to get out of there when the M6 is closed). Of course street furniture "clutter" is an issue but some would say more signs would help - I could cite plenty of towns where a stranger gets to a junction and wonders where the sign is for the next bit of the journey.

 

The survey was a limited sample of businesses (and the committee recognised its statistical limitations). There were a couple of questions about the Chamber of Commerce on attracting inward investment and supporting local business - more disagreed that the Chamber plays a valuable role than agreed, but a third were ambivalent (3 on a 1-5 scale) or a third were "don't know". Admittedly there was no direct equivalent question about perceptions of the Council but only a couple of respondents cited "lack of support from the Council" as a disadvantage to being in Warrington. Traffic congestion, and lack of parking, and other transport issues were disadvantages - but top advantage for being in Warrington was "access to tranport links". Three times as many sought business advice from the Council as from the Chamber of Commerce but both were some way behind accountants, government websites, other business associates, banks, colleges and Job Centre Plus...

 

I'll probably not respond further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggesting we have an excess of street signage is a no-brainer.  We have the new 20mph limit signs on residential side roads which have already been provided with speed humps, thus preventing speeds in excess of 5mph - hence total waste of money.  There are signs telling you how many accidents have occurred on that road last year (but they're now out of date, so refer to many years ago), just how that helps drivers I don't know; just more info for young women to consume, while they're texting. And all this uneccessary clutter providing an obstacle course for the blind or partially sighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point stands Steve. It was a cheap shot at somebody who said something you don't like. And you can be pro cycling, walking and public transport and pro motorist. In fact (brace yourself) many people routinely use all four forms of transport, including me.

 

The idea that you and Linda Dirir share that you can get people to stop using their cars by making their lives intolerable is an interesting one, but I don't think it will work. But even if it were true, you're not helping by asking people to use their cars more to access what were once local facilities or by penalising local shops and shoppers just because of where they live. Much better everybody takes their waste across town and does their shopping in Tesco? In their cars. 

 

Interesting numbers coming out from the council today showing how South Warrington is being used to subsidise parking in wards north of the Mersey don't you think?  Bewsey, Whitecross, Penketh, Cuerdley. Those sorts of places.

 

And, yes, that is a cheap shot as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the Council is wasting money..... that is what they are there for. To put forward all sorts of hair-brained schemes and ideas, to hold public consultations in secret and then to splash the cash on stuff that virtually no-one, except the crazies in the Town Hall seem to agree with.

 

We have signs up all over the borough stating that the have been "23 accidents in the past 3 years".... massive big red signs that are now all out of date (unless of course there have been exactly 11 accidents every year since they were put up)

 

And this "oh it comes from a different pot of money" nonsense needs to be sorted. If Cllr Parish and his ilk really want to represent his constituents; they should be arguing that the money SHOULD be spent on grass cutting and pot-holes and old folks free bus travel to day centres.... but no, they spend it on stupid signs because that is what they are told to do and haven't the bottle or intelligence or waywithall to argue otherwise..... BAAAAAA springs to mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the warning signs of x number of accidents in y number of years are quite a good idea as it alerts people to the fact that it is a dangerous spot and that people have been injured or killed there either through their own fault (I don't mean that to sound bad by the way) or because of someone else perhaps by not paying attention or going too fast etc.

Some drivers and pedestrians do need reminding about these things :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy, wouldn't a sign saying "Accident blackspot" or suchlike do the same? But actually research in other countries suggests that less signage/traffic lights suggests that people drive more carefully.

 

Steve Parish - "I could cite plenty of towns where a stranger gets to a junction and wonders where the sign is for the next bit of the journey." So what? Perhaps the councils should spend more money on signs that give usefull information rather than 20 MPH signs in cul de sacs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dizzy, wouldn't a sign saying "Accident blackspot" or suchlike do the same? But actually research in other countries suggests that less signage/traffic lights suggests that people drive more carefully.

I'm sure the other sign would do the same Asp but it's still a sign at the end of the day which would still be classed as possible street clutter.

 

Do people in the other countries drive more carefully with less signage or traffic lights because they are keeping their eyes on the road and other cars/road users rather than reading signs and starring at traffic lights waiting for light changes etc ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to prove to Steve Parish that it's not just the Warrington Chamber of Commerce who are spitefully questioning the council's focus on street ironmongery in preference to transport. It seems that most businesses across the North West see transport infrastructure as essential to what they do. http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/119970-businesses-call-better-transport-infrastructure?utm_source=northwest_newsletter&utm_medium=business_article&utm_campaign=northwest_news_tracker

 

'More road signage' doesn't even get a look in  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed a new sign has appeared on Cherry Lane coming out of Lymm to the Motorway advising 30mph limit ends.

The sign is positioned just 10 yards before a 50mph speed limit sign. Now that`s what I call a waste. Perhaps we`re now

following the way of the French advising the end of set speed limits prior to the new speed limits starting.

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is for the boy racers to see if they can achive 30 to 50 in ten yards.

I must admit I did ponder what the legal limit would be in the 10 yard distance, open limit?

Just seems so daft to have a speed limit end sign just before the start of a new speed limit.

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha, shows how observant I am. They`ve changed the 30mph stretch to 20mph (main route to motorway) and the sign 10 yards before the 50mph sign is the 20mph end, and changing to 30mph for 10 yards before it becomes 50mph.

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...