Windlehurst Road Traffic Calming Measures - Consultation

[admin]

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.

[wheels]

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.

[GM]

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!.

[Condate]

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.

[wheels]

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.

[GM]

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

[andrewbowden]

That's before the awful introduction of Burnham scorched earth clean air abomination.

Yes.  I hate that too.  I DEMAND more pollution!

[andrewbowden]

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.

[GM]

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.

[amazon]

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

[GM]

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.

[amazon]

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

[GM]

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!

[jimblob]

That's before the awful introduction of Burnham scorched earth clean air abomination.

[GM]

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.