Nottingham Council Traffic Department pro cyclists gone mad
Discussion
Mick50NCD said:
I'll have a word with next door who is a computer programmer as I am not absolutely clear re uploading
the explicit photos I have of all these junctions. This will not happen immediately but it will happen.
Don't tell me you live 100 miles away from here so that I would wonder why the interest in something that is applicable to Nottingham. I do realize though that these dangerous junctions like the workplace parking levy which attacked working drivers may well gain momentum when the Authority realizes that no challenge is made on them therefore the hassle will continue here and further afield.
Hey Mick, if you want to contact Keith Morgan, his contact details are: keith.morgan@nottinghamcity.gov.uk or call him on: 0115 876 3942, mods please note that this information is freely available for viewing on the official nottinghamcity.gov.uk website.the explicit photos I have of all these junctions. This will not happen immediately but it will happen.
Don't tell me you live 100 miles away from here so that I would wonder why the interest in something that is applicable to Nottingham. I do realize though that these dangerous junctions like the workplace parking levy which attacked working drivers may well gain momentum when the Authority realizes that no challenge is made on them therefore the hassle will continue here and further afield.
rich888 said:
Actually if you want a real shockingly poor example of Nottingham piss poor road planning then take a look at the most recent and expensive screw up on the A52 near Beeston where the road planning idiots have carved the road straight through the middle of an existing roundabout. Anyone attempting to turn right is in for a shock. Most local drivers know about it but it's tough sh*t for anyone travelling in from outside the area who is confronted with this monumental white elephant. What the hell were these clowns thinking?
It's been like that for more than 15 years to be fair
Thanks Rich888
Mr Morgan attended a meeting at Wollaton Park Residents association September/October. The ladies there were
infinitely more aware of both road safety and the errors of the road junctions than him. He was completely and
utterly out of his depth when he was asked about the safety audit that should have covered that project he said the
alterations were experimental! His statement therefore says that the council can experiment as to whether or not
accidents may or may not happen regarding what they have engineered.This underlines the fact that they are not a professional organization.
The Labor councilors are suggesting futile trimming of hedges etc to obtain more vision of an approaching vehicle
(car or bike or pedestrian). All replies from them has been a fob off. One thing that is patently clear is that Nottingham
is to become a cycling city come what may hence certain aspects of road alterations not being adequately safe & that is
because ideology is obliterating road safety.
I do hope they get to see all of these writings and if they do react upon it in a positive manner and alter what has been
done so that the engineering of these junctions are safe for all road users using them and not a one sided affair but one of equality.
Mr Morgan attended a meeting at Wollaton Park Residents association September/October. The ladies there were
infinitely more aware of both road safety and the errors of the road junctions than him. He was completely and
utterly out of his depth when he was asked about the safety audit that should have covered that project he said the
alterations were experimental! His statement therefore says that the council can experiment as to whether or not
accidents may or may not happen regarding what they have engineered.This underlines the fact that they are not a professional organization.
The Labor councilors are suggesting futile trimming of hedges etc to obtain more vision of an approaching vehicle
(car or bike or pedestrian). All replies from them has been a fob off. One thing that is patently clear is that Nottingham
is to become a cycling city come what may hence certain aspects of road alterations not being adequately safe & that is
because ideology is obliterating road safety.
I do hope they get to see all of these writings and if they do react upon it in a positive manner and alter what has been
done so that the engineering of these junctions are safe for all road users using them and not a one sided affair but one of equality.
I live in Newark, the only time I drive anywhere near Nottingham city is on the ring road to get to Eastwood (family live there). If I have to go in it's the train as I live near Newark train station.
Lincoln since they have decided to tear the city centre to pieces and close every road at random times is a no go at any time. I now jump in my car and go to Meadowhall it's so much easier.
I'm born and bread Nottingham but the war on the motorist the city has is shocking.
Lincoln since they have decided to tear the city centre to pieces and close every road at random times is a no go at any time. I now jump in my car and go to Meadowhall it's so much easier.
I'm born and bread Nottingham but the war on the motorist the city has is shocking.
Markbarry1977 said:
I live in Newark, the only time I drive anywhere near Nottingham city is on the ring road to get to Eastwood (family live there). If I have to go in it's the train as I live near Newark train station.
Your satnav is broken 
A617 to near Mansfield, down the A611 to M1 J27, then across into Eastwood. No need to go near the ring road!
tigger1 said:
Markbarry1977 said:
I live in Newark, the only time I drive anywhere near Nottingham city is on the ring road to get to Eastwood (family live there). If I have to go in it's the train as I live near Newark train station.
Your satnav is broken A617 to near Mansfield, down the A611 to M1 J27, then across into Eastwood. No need to go near the ring road!
Markbarry1977 said:
tigger1 said:
Markbarry1977 said:
I live in Newark, the only time I drive anywhere near Nottingham city is on the ring road to get to Eastwood (family live there). If I have to go in it's the train as I live near Newark train station.
Your satnav is broken A617 to near Mansfield, down the A611 to M1 J27, then across into Eastwood. No need to go near the ring road!
Nah - good point. I'd rather chance the A46/ a617 than head into nottingham though. Fewer scameras.
tigger1 said:
Markbarry1977 said:
tigger1 said:
Markbarry1977 said:
I live in Newark, the only time I drive anywhere near Nottingham city is on the ring road to get to Eastwood (family live there). If I have to go in it's the train as I live near Newark train station.
Your satnav is broken A617 to near Mansfield, down the A611 to M1 J27, then across into Eastwood. No need to go near the ring road!
Nah - good point. I'd rather chance the A46/ a617 than head into nottingham though. Fewer scameras.
Perhaps I should have attended some of these meetings! I can see the thinking behind some of these schemes such as the Middleton Blvd cyclist priority markings. It could appear simple - cyclists don't want to use the cycle path as it is continuously punctuated by side roads, driveways and other entrances. It is true that it was/is easier to make safe progress by riding sensibly on the ring road. It's not as simple as another poster put it where they described their position as "motorists are forced to stop at junctions but cyclists seem not to want to"; the cyclists in question are voluntarily using a cycle path running alongside a road (which they could use) which then brings them into conflict with entrances that the cycle path traverses.
Unfortunately, spending a lot of money with green and white paint is not necessarily going to make it safer. I have ridden along the new section and I treat the crossings exactly the same as I did before all this work. It may be that priorities have changed but motorists may not adhere to this - it doesn't matter whether their lack of adherence is due to incompetence, malice, confusion or anything else; if I hit a car I'm going to come off worse. So, for me they are just as they were before. It is poorly thought out - it's a complex situation with pedestrians on the "wrong side", motorists, cyclists, dogs, "keep clear" sections on the main road encouraging motorists to look elsewhere then turn across the cycle path without yielding etc etc.
The trouble is, I am looking at it from both my perspective as a motorist with a reasonable amount of training and a cyclist who wants to arrive home intact and without causing a nuisance. I wonder if I am in the minority by wearing both hats. Cyclists may decide they have priority and ride straight through, motorists may fail to negotiate the myriad hazards I've described above and there will be accidents.
I have been cycling on the road since I was a kid and competed in road cycling events but also have completed John Lyon's HPC and have a MSA competition licence. I'm not trying to sound like an internet hero but perhaps I might have some bloody idea about this nonsense which seems to have helped nobody yet cost a fortune. I would like to see the evidence-base for this scheme and the qualifications of those involved.
Ah well, I work in the public sector and see this all the time in my professional, rather than amateur, field so it doesn't surprise me one iota.
C'est la vie.
Unfortunately, spending a lot of money with green and white paint is not necessarily going to make it safer. I have ridden along the new section and I treat the crossings exactly the same as I did before all this work. It may be that priorities have changed but motorists may not adhere to this - it doesn't matter whether their lack of adherence is due to incompetence, malice, confusion or anything else; if I hit a car I'm going to come off worse. So, for me they are just as they were before. It is poorly thought out - it's a complex situation with pedestrians on the "wrong side", motorists, cyclists, dogs, "keep clear" sections on the main road encouraging motorists to look elsewhere then turn across the cycle path without yielding etc etc.
The trouble is, I am looking at it from both my perspective as a motorist with a reasonable amount of training and a cyclist who wants to arrive home intact and without causing a nuisance. I wonder if I am in the minority by wearing both hats. Cyclists may decide they have priority and ride straight through, motorists may fail to negotiate the myriad hazards I've described above and there will be accidents.
I have been cycling on the road since I was a kid and competed in road cycling events but also have completed John Lyon's HPC and have a MSA competition licence. I'm not trying to sound like an internet hero but perhaps I might have some bloody idea about this nonsense which seems to have helped nobody yet cost a fortune. I would like to see the evidence-base for this scheme and the qualifications of those involved.
Ah well, I work in the public sector and see this all the time in my professional, rather than amateur, field so it doesn't surprise me one iota.
C'est la vie.
Dear Doc Your writings are the most accurate and truthful to date but it is a sorry state
of affairs to say that you are one among thousands who cycle.
The only item that is ridiculous in the project that has been created is blatantly anti motorist
and has been designed by a person or persons who have no concept whatsoever of safety
to any one having to cross the junctions that are in question.
As I said in the first posting if an 'oncoming' cyclist or indeed a running pedestrian could
clearly be seen then the give way is valid. Due to that not being the case at all on several
of these junctions the double give way road markings must be removed to enable a valid
equal responsibility to all those negotiating these junctions.
The equal response to road safety has existed since 1927 without major mishap but
Mr Morgan and those at the so called Road safety Dept Nottingham come along and think they will do the militant cyclists a favor by their continuing degrade the driver campaign.
What he/they do not know is that the alterations have not done anyone any favors at all,
and that most definitely includes cyclists.
of affairs to say that you are one among thousands who cycle.
The only item that is ridiculous in the project that has been created is blatantly anti motorist
and has been designed by a person or persons who have no concept whatsoever of safety
to any one having to cross the junctions that are in question.
As I said in the first posting if an 'oncoming' cyclist or indeed a running pedestrian could
clearly be seen then the give way is valid. Due to that not being the case at all on several
of these junctions the double give way road markings must be removed to enable a valid
equal responsibility to all those negotiating these junctions.
The equal response to road safety has existed since 1927 without major mishap but
Mr Morgan and those at the so called Road safety Dept Nottingham come along and think they will do the militant cyclists a favor by their continuing degrade the driver campaign.
What he/they do not know is that the alterations have not done anyone any favors at all,
and that most definitely includes cyclists.
Well it does seem to be the case.... The Castle Blvd traffic chaos is outrageous. I wonder if there were a lot of accidents involving cyclists on that route...? I generally found it a fairly safe road to cycle on (for a City street) as it was quite wide. Now there seems to a greater risk of accidents, including those not involving cyclists. If anything, it will make things more dangerous for cyclists as they will not easily be able to use the narrow road safely and will be forced to use the cycle path such as it is. There's certainly no way I would be cycling along at 20mph through the junctions on that street.
From Dunkirk the traffic is funneled into a single lane even though the road was wide enough for 2 lanes. At the White Hart the rh lane is now a right turn lane and empty most of the time. Up to Abbey bridge was wide enough for two lanes but is now a single. Driving from Beeston to Nottingham has become a chore. Single file traffic, more traffic lights and junctions and a lot more pollution. I hate going to Nottingham and avoid it if I can.
It has been said that I am imagining the fact that Nottingham's Council
will do any mortal thing to get drivers out of their cars but I firmly believe this to be their intention.
In 1998 I telephoned the County Council and the head of the Transport/
Safety Dept told me word for word ---- Don't you realize it is Government(Labour) policy to get you (everyone) out of your car &
there fore that directive must be implemented........
The year after came the speed cameras, the incessant road works,the traffic lights that seem to be sequenced for maximum stop go......
I have a letter that is a reply to a complaint to traffic lights dept re
Wikinson Street traffic lights that admit there was a mistake re the traffic lights at the Park & Ride there. It states that the sequencing is wrong whereby all traffic has to wait far too long when a tram is 100 yards away and even when it's gone everyone is sat there looking at each other wondering when the lights will change to allow them to get on with what they are doing....
A poor excuse was that the sequencing is difficult to alter which is patent nonsense because any electrical system can be altered at will
and they would not have to dig anything up to sort it out. Timewastiong disruption by intent is the name of the game..... These designers have very thick skins.
will do any mortal thing to get drivers out of their cars but I firmly believe this to be their intention.
In 1998 I telephoned the County Council and the head of the Transport/
Safety Dept told me word for word ---- Don't you realize it is Government(Labour) policy to get you (everyone) out of your car &
there fore that directive must be implemented........
The year after came the speed cameras, the incessant road works,the traffic lights that seem to be sequenced for maximum stop go......
I have a letter that is a reply to a complaint to traffic lights dept re
Wikinson Street traffic lights that admit there was a mistake re the traffic lights at the Park & Ride there. It states that the sequencing is wrong whereby all traffic has to wait far too long when a tram is 100 yards away and even when it's gone everyone is sat there looking at each other wondering when the lights will change to allow them to get on with what they are doing....
A poor excuse was that the sequencing is difficult to alter which is patent nonsense because any electrical system can be altered at will
and they would not have to dig anything up to sort it out. Timewastiong disruption by intent is the name of the game..... These designers have very thick skins.
Mick - I'm in danger of thinking that our opinions are converging in some respects!
The local council is hellbent on becoming as anti-car as it can. Previously it was buses, then trams, not cycling that they're pinning their hopes on to reduce traffic volume (in order to reduce vehicle emmissions - as some areas of Nottinghamshire have the highest levels of traffic related pollution in the UK). Sadly this tends to be based upon increasing the road-space for whatever is currently favourable at the detriment of car users.
I'm very pro-bike (but not anti-car) - so whilst I disagree with you on the cycle lanes (I think motorists should be able to adjust to using them, but I agree with DocSteve that cyclists should be cautious as junctions!), I'd agree wholeheatedly that the council haven't got a bloody clue what they're doing.
The local council is hellbent on becoming as anti-car as it can. Previously it was buses, then trams, not cycling that they're pinning their hopes on to reduce traffic volume (in order to reduce vehicle emmissions - as some areas of Nottinghamshire have the highest levels of traffic related pollution in the UK). Sadly this tends to be based upon increasing the road-space for whatever is currently favourable at the detriment of car users.
I'm very pro-bike (but not anti-car) - so whilst I disagree with you on the cycle lanes (I think motorists should be able to adjust to using them, but I agree with DocSteve that cyclists should be cautious as junctions!), I'd agree wholeheatedly that the council haven't got a bloody clue what they're doing.
Tigger We agree on some of my points then raised at the beginning of my post. I can assure you that I realize I am not always right but I have not gained 54 years NCD by being unobservant.
The fact is that due to the Council's Road Safety department ( how dare they call themselves that?) hating drivers of any description their misguided ideas have done no one any favors whatsoever but the problem still exists. Some would get a blck paintbrush out but that is as you know illegal so the alternative is to have to go to great lengths publicizing their lack of professional road safety acumen.
This is the way of the world unfortunately but the removal of the give way lines must occur so that all cyclists realize fully that they do not have right of way at any junction & that they must be cautious as are motorists, well usually. ( In a perfect world , with butterflies settling gently etc etc)
One item that I have acquired ( good advice from the noteworthy Keith Peat) is a dash board CAMERA & it has already been put to good use on two occasions within but a few weeks.It would most definitely benefit every decent driver to have one.
The fact is that due to the Council's Road Safety department ( how dare they call themselves that?) hating drivers of any description their misguided ideas have done no one any favors whatsoever but the problem still exists. Some would get a blck paintbrush out but that is as you know illegal so the alternative is to have to go to great lengths publicizing their lack of professional road safety acumen.
This is the way of the world unfortunately but the removal of the give way lines must occur so that all cyclists realize fully that they do not have right of way at any junction & that they must be cautious as are motorists, well usually. ( In a perfect world , with butterflies settling gently etc etc)
One item that I have acquired ( good advice from the noteworthy Keith Peat) is a dash board CAMERA & it has already been put to good use on two occasions within but a few weeks.It would most definitely benefit every decent driver to have one.
Mick50NCD said:
1.This is the way of the world unfortunately but the removal of the give way lines must occur so that all cyclists realize fully that they do not have right of way at any junction & that they must be cautious as are motorists, well usually. ( In a perfect world , with butterflies settling gently etc etc)
2.One item that I have acquired ( good advice from the noteworthy Keith Peat) is a dash board CAMERA & it has already been put to good use on two occasions within but a few weeks.It would most definitely benefit every decent driver to have one.
1. I can't speak about the situation you're experiencing at all but - previous visits and a short holiday this year in Germany and the Netherlands have impressed me. I saw miles and miles of cycle path adjacent to the road. There is no kerbing between cycle path and road (but might be grass strip or different paving/ tarmac) and the paths are entirely absent of painted markings, signs, give way situations and so on. Users of the path have priority over everything else, and speaking as a driver that gave me no problems and we all know where we stand. 2.One item that I have acquired ( good advice from the noteworthy Keith Peat) is a dash board CAMERA & it has already been put to good use on two occasions within but a few weeks.It would most definitely benefit every decent driver to have one.
The result is a significant take-up of the use of these paths, not just by cyclists but also pedestrians and also users of low power mopeds and scooters (no helmet required either) and also motability scooter which gives unprecedented freedom to the elderly and less-abled. This also means fewr cars on nthe road, less congestion, better air quality, fitter people and so on. Surely win-win all round?
In Britain these paths are smothered with give way markings and signs, kerb stones abound meaning wheeled users have to clamber up and down, and priority is given to the motorised traffic on the road. Result is near total non-use of tracks and any cyclists out there stick to the roads and enjoy the same priority as everyone else. Only trouble is that we no have drivers shouting at cyclists about not using the useless cycle paths, as well as the normal shouting about "road tax".
2. Not sure about that. It's widely felt that decent drivers have no need of these cameras as they have a fraction of the problems that non-decent drivers do. Speaking as someone who has no difficulty in sharing the roads with others, I'm inclined to agree.
On the sh*t driving thread there are can be found many comments about dash-cam drivers (often known as DCWs). http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
This is an interesting thread - some more pictures would be welcome as it more clearly demonstrates the safety issues and avoids the misunderstanding that can occur (my initial reading made me believe that cyclists were shooting out of the side roads and across traffic on the ring road - clearly madness).
It sounds that many of the side road crossings are going to be OK as the sight lines are adequate to see cyclists, provided the drivers remember to look left as well as right (where the ring road traffic will come from). Making these a give way for vehicles coming into or out of the side road is the only way to manage these safely and, if this is done, this should also work for crossings where the sight lines are less clear. It will mean that cars have to give way entering and exiting side roads, which they may not be expecting (or following cars on the ring road).
If the roads are clearly marked, then the main risks are:
1) car failing to give way - drivers fault
2) car failing to look both ways after giving way (drivers fault, but may be caused by junction design)
3) car rear ending a car turning off the slip road - following drivers faul,t but primary cause is junction design)
I have a bike and a car, don't live in Nottingham but visit it regularly.
Steve
It sounds that many of the side road crossings are going to be OK as the sight lines are adequate to see cyclists, provided the drivers remember to look left as well as right (where the ring road traffic will come from). Making these a give way for vehicles coming into or out of the side road is the only way to manage these safely and, if this is done, this should also work for crossings where the sight lines are less clear. It will mean that cars have to give way entering and exiting side roads, which they may not be expecting (or following cars on the ring road).
If the roads are clearly marked, then the main risks are:
1) car failing to give way - drivers fault
2) car failing to look both ways after giving way (drivers fault, but may be caused by junction design)
3) car rear ending a car turning off the slip road - following drivers faul,t but primary cause is junction design)
I have a bike and a car, don't live in Nottingham but visit it regularly.
Steve
The very reason for the initial post was to publicise the fact that whoever
designed the new road junctions is not road safety orientated.
The facts have emerged that the person designated to design these junctions that
are derogatory to motorists is inexperienced.
The reasoning the junctions have been designed to give way to cyclists has been done
supposedly to make cyclists safer which it does not.
As said before anyone who has not seen these junctions as regards the fact that motorists cannot adequately see an approaching cyclist that will come into a vehicles path
cannot possibly give comment as to the fact that road safety has not been adequately
adhered to when the junctions have been designed at the design stage of the alterations.
The over riding factor due to ideology is to degrade the motorists rights and liability
irrespective of the legality and above all the common sense of the issue.
How right is the saying-----better to be alive than have the right of way!
In other words take note of the Highway code that states -- All road users at all road junctions
MUST USE CAUTION.
designed the new road junctions is not road safety orientated.
The facts have emerged that the person designated to design these junctions that
are derogatory to motorists is inexperienced.
The reasoning the junctions have been designed to give way to cyclists has been done
supposedly to make cyclists safer which it does not.
As said before anyone who has not seen these junctions as regards the fact that motorists cannot adequately see an approaching cyclist that will come into a vehicles path
cannot possibly give comment as to the fact that road safety has not been adequately
adhered to when the junctions have been designed at the design stage of the alterations.
The over riding factor due to ideology is to degrade the motorists rights and liability
irrespective of the legality and above all the common sense of the issue.
How right is the saying-----better to be alive than have the right of way!
In other words take note of the Highway code that states -- All road users at all road junctions
MUST USE CAUTION.
Mick50NCD - it would help me understand the issue if you could post a picture of one of the junctions - I have seen many in Nottingham, but probably not the ones you are worried about. Alternatively, let me know where to look.
You may get more support from others on here that way - my experience is that attacking the credibility of council workers just makes them close ranks and stop listening to you. They do respond to comments from individuals though, particularly where they are coherent and consistent.
Steve
You may get more support from others on here that way - my experience is that attacking the credibility of council workers just makes them close ranks and stop listening to you. They do respond to comments from individuals though, particularly where they are coherent and consistent.
Steve
Steve It's a very long time ago when a lady, now second in command at the Nottingham Transport safety etc refused to acknowledge that driving either way round an island locally was not safe. Some time later my proposal that it should be keep left for the safety of all who negotiated that island was eventually corrected.
I doubt very much it was her that did the right thing because she obviously has a hand in these ridiculous give way road markings.
As I have said anyone capable of designing such road junctions does not know a deal about road safety, if anything at all.
The world went mad about the time of the drive round Farndon Green 'any way you like' era and
common sense does not come into many decisions made by those in authority. They should of course know better but they do not & quite how they get into important positions is inexplicable especially as all individuals should be able to rely on their attention to safety.
I'll try to get these few photos onto this site as they are well worth publishing.
I doubt very much it was her that did the right thing because she obviously has a hand in these ridiculous give way road markings.
As I have said anyone capable of designing such road junctions does not know a deal about road safety, if anything at all.
The world went mad about the time of the drive round Farndon Green 'any way you like' era and
common sense does not come into many decisions made by those in authority. They should of course know better but they do not & quite how they get into important positions is inexplicable especially as all individuals should be able to rely on their attention to safety.
I'll try to get these few photos onto this site as they are well worth publishing.
Gassing Station | Midlands | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff