34 replies to this topic

[weirdmusic]

Grumpy, on 29 November 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

........................ You would have thought someone in the Property department of the care trust,no doubt seeking to get the best disposal proceeds, might have wanted to be on good terms with local councillors. In any event presumably the access can be gained through a Section 106 agreement-albeit in the future.

What's a "Section 106 agreement"?

[Grumpy]

weirdmusic, on 29 November 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

What's a "Section 106 agreement"?

Sorry.

In brief terms, where a developer seeks planning permission, the Planning Authority can reach an agreement with the applicant to secure the needs of residents or protect the local community from the impact of the development. This might for example involve the developer in doing some works, or paying money for someone else to do something elsewhere, or restricting how the development can be used.

What I meant in this case was that when whoever it is comes along to ask for planning permission to redevelop the Care Trust site, one of the conditions the Council might seek agreement to could be that the developer provide a decent footpath through the site thereby giving a shortcut for the existing residents. (Or possibly even pay for a crossing or extend the library!) If the Council are on the ball they will screw as much as they can out of the Developer.

I've no idea what the state of play is with the Care Trust site. Sometimes the old owners apply for permission before
putting the site up for sale as the sale value might be higher if it comes with permission for change of use. Whatever's happening I'll bet some Bradford Council Planning Officer has been having discussions with the present owners as to what they can get away with on the site, and also been sounded out by prospective purchasers. I wonder what he's told them they will have to do.

[weirdmusic]

Grumpy, on 29 November 2010 - 07:11 PM, said:

  ................. I wonder what he's told them they will have to do.

Not a lot, judging by what happened with the development of Scalebor Park itself.

[djohnson]

Grumpy, on 28 November 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

So whilst you think a 30 limit is about right, it is clear that the vast majority of motorists dont.

Do you therefore contend that the majority of drivers on our roads drive to a high standard?

[catbazza]

djohnson, on 30 November 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

Do you therefore contend that the majority of drivers on our roads drive to a high standard?

I travel up & down Moor Lane occasionally & follow the speed limits rigidly but nearly every time that I do by the time I get to the junction at the top of the road going up & the chicane coming down you can virtually guarantee that I am being tailgated.

[Grumpy]

djohnson, on 30 November 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

Do you therefore contend that the majority of drivers on our roads drive to a high standard?

This is like the "beating your wife" question. “High standard" is subjective. We probably all think we are better than we really are, and not having accidents doesn't mean you're a good driver. However I believe the UK's accident statistics are amongst the best in Europe so the majority must be pretty adequate.

A couple of local examples. The bends between Burley and Otley have a 50mph speed limit. Yet most drivers seem to go through at around 40mph. They could go faster, and yes their car suspensions could manage it, but they make an experienced judgement of the risks and reduce speed.

Similarly on entering Bramhope from Otley a 40 mph restriction starts near the Britannia Hotel, but again most drivers immediately drop below this for the bend by the church.

So what is the function of the speed limit in these cases?

The A65 between the Fox and Burley is considerably busier than Moor Lane. It has more potentially dangerous conflicting movements as people turn off into side roads and into their driveways-which are more frequent than on Moor Lane. Yet the speed limit on the A65 is 10mph higher

[fat pigeon]

It is essential this scheme is implemented as soon as possible. It has taken long enough to get to this point, and the scheme is the minimum level of calming that is acceptable.

It is so scary to walk young children to school along Moor Lane's narrow pavements, with speeding traffic (much of it in excess of 40mph) passing inches away. It is a very narrow and twisting road with blind summits and bends.

To those who have posted on here expressing opposition to the scheme, I am so sorry that it will now take you a few seconds to drive from one end of Moor Lane to the other (if the time penalty is greater than that then you are speeding currently), but I rather think it is more important that my children or other pedestrians are not killed or seriously injured by a speeding motorist. Also, I think you will find that if you drove slower, the speed humps will not damage your suspension. If you really think the humps are that bad, you can always choose to drive to Ilkley or Airedale via the main valley roads.

The previous humps should have never been removed without any consultation and without a replacement scheme being implemented immediately.

[catbazza]

fat pigeon, on 12 December 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

It is essential this scheme is implemented as soon as possible. It has taken long enough to get to this point, and the scheme is the minimum level of calming that is acceptable.

It is so scary to walk young children to school along Moor Lane's narrow pavements, with speeding traffic (much of it in excess of 40mph) passing inches away. It is a very narrow and twisting road with blind summits and bends.

To those who have posted on here expressing opposition to the scheme, I am so sorry that it will now take you a few seconds to drive from one end of Moor Lane to the other (if the time penalty is greater than that then you are speeding currently), but I rather think it is more important that my children or other pedestrians are not killed or seriously injured by a speeding motorist. Also, I think you will find that if you drove slower, the speed humps will not damage your suspension. If you really think the humps are that bad, you can always choose to drive to Ilkley or Airedale via the main valley roads.

The previous humps should have never been removed without any consultation and without a replacement scheme being implemented immediately.

Full report on Moor Lane on obsever web site-;

http://www.wharfedal...ors____backing/

[appropriatebridge]

appropriatebridge, on 28 November 2010 - 09:24 PM, said:

Burley has an infamous reputation well beyond village boundaries because of the preponderance of speed bumps through Burley Woodhead and Station Road. Nobody likes them, they present discomfort and they do cause damage to suspension over a period. There is a viable footpath from the village to the moor so pedestrians are not at risk with the possible exception of where they have to cross at Scalebor where perhaps a speedbump might be justified. I am not aware of any accidents involving damage to people or vehicles since the previous speed bumps disappeared unless someone (Matt?) confirms otherwise - who/when?

However, before reaching for the sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut, why not try just the electronic warning signs first. I believe they are very successful in other areas - Eldwick for instance and I have seen press reports in the past confirming such signs do work. This would save expense in these cash strapped times. If the signs alone do not work then alternatives including speed bumps could be looked at but let us at least try the least cost and least misery option before going in with all health and safety guns blazing.

To judge from the article in this weeks Ilkley Gazette, the full monty of speed bumps, cushions and signs is going ahead regardless. As suggested in my post quoted above, why can't we try the electronic signs first. If they work great. If not, there is still the option for the speed bumps afterwards. If the signs alone do work, then the cash strapped council will have made a saving and the rest of us will be saved the inconvenience/discomfort.

[Flas# #arry]

This is an insult to all of us who are tightening our belts due to government cuts!

Please stop wasting our money, things are absolutely fine as they are.

Send some Burley kids to university with this cash instead.

[bikerbabe]

Quote

. It is a very narrow and twisting road with blind summits and bends.

Are you talking about the same road as we are?? There are no blind summits and its not exactly a narrow, twisting road?? You can 2 cars easily side by side - thats not exactly narrow..

Still it makes your post sound more dramatic, by making the road sound more dangerous than it actually is - with cars driving 'inches' away. As they do on most roads with pavements...


I think at the bottom of station road - 30mph is a good speed, past the houses etc but further up my thought are that 40mph And I also think the electronic signs would be a good idea...

[fat pigeon]

bikerbabe, on 20 December 2010 - 05:01 PM, said:

Are you talking about the same road as we are?? There are no blind summits and its not exactly a narrow, twisting road?? You can 2 cars easily side by side - thats not exactly narrow..

Still it makes your post sound more dramatic, by making the road sound more dangerous than it actually is - with cars driving 'inches' away. As they do on most roads with pavements...


I think at the bottom of station road - 30mph is a good speed, past the houses etc but further up my thought are that 40mph And I also think the electronic signs would be a good idea...

The section of the road just below the junction leading to Scalebor Park is narrow, has a very narrow pavement on one side and a wall on the other and there is a blind summit just before it.  IMG00199-20101221-0943.jpg   812.45K   8 downloads

You obviously have a strange view of what constitues a safe speed for such a road if you think 40mph above the railway bridge is OK. The current speed limit is 30mph and increasing it is not an option. The traffic calming scheme will not cause anything more than a minor delay to motorists that currently stick to the speed limit.

I am not trying to be over dramatic. I am being factual. If you want evidence, see the huge hole in the wall on the opposite side of the road to the Moor Lane Centre (see attached). A car ploughed across the pavement into this wall on Saturday, very narrowly missing a mother walking with her two children. This was very very close to being a horific accident. Is it going to take such an accident for people to realise that this is a dangerous road, and needs traffic calming?

[bikerbabe]

Quote

You obviously have a strange view of what constitues a safe speed for such a road if you think 40mph above the railway bridge is OK.

I didn't actually say above the bridge. I think between the bridge and Scalebor Park 30mph is enough - I meant above that area where there are very few houses and the road is straighter!

I think the chicane by the bridge is very dodgy in icy/snowy conditions - not good changing directions on that sort of surface, but it does slow down vehicles so I suppose its doing its job.

And obviously I cannot comment on the accident as I have no idas what caused it - conditions of driving/road/car etc etc.. but glad nobody was hurt.

[appropriatebridge]

fat pigeon, on 21 December 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

The section of the road just below the junction leading to Scalebor Park is narrow, has a very narrow pavement on one side and a wall on the other and there is a blind summit just before it. IMG00199-20101221-0943.jpg

You obviously have a strange view of what constitues a safe speed for such a road if you think 40mph above the railway bridge is OK. The current speed limit is 30mph and increasing it is not an option. The traffic calming scheme will not cause anything more than a minor delay to motorists that currently stick to the speed limit.

I am not trying to be over dramatic. I am being factual. If you want evidence, see the huge hole in the wall on the opposite side of the road to the Moor Lane Centre (see attached). A car ploughed across the pavement into this wall on Saturday, very narrowly missing a mother walking with her two children. This was very very close to being a horific accident. Is it going to take such an accident for people to realise that this is a dangerous road, and needs traffic calming?

Your assumption is that the driver must have been speeding to narrowly miss the mother. Perhaps it was ice that caused the problem. OK, I know that even if icy, speed ultimately is what causes a skid but these have been exceptional times for ice and even 30 mph would have been far too fast on Moor Lane if it was icy. We cannot apply rules to roads on the basis of an odd near miss. There have been lots of actual fatal accidents on roads over the years and following this logic would have resulted in cars being banned years ago. The A59 is still regarded as one of the most dangerous roads in the country but there are stil no speed bumps or calls for its closure as far as I know.

As a matter of interest, one of the speed bumps on Station Road actually caused my car to skid in the icy weather and I was only doing 10mph!

I quite agree that 40 mph is too fast and that 30mph is more appropriate for Moor Lane. All I say is let us try the measured response of electronic warning signs alone first rather than launching into the ultimate solution immediately.

[fat pigeon]

Great news. The Shipley Area Committee has voted to implement the traffic calming scheme!

Of course it has taken far too long to get to this point. The original humps should never have been removed without a replacement there and then. Shame that the scheme proposed originally was watered down.

I hope the traffic calming is in place for September so children can walk to school in greater safety.

I hope the scheme actually works.