Stafford Traffic.

[kyoto49]

Hang on. Whilst I understand your point about dangerous/speeding drivers using Alliance Street or similar streets, you cannot deny law abiding drivers from using a public highway.

@cj1's post doesn't say he/she was speeding so what is wrong in saving time and causing less pollution by taking a different route?

Or have I got it wrong and Alliance Street should be a local street for local people?

I think the rights of car drivers over everyone one and everything is wrong. Why should car drivers have the right to cause noise, distress, and worse just to save a few mins off their journey? I know for certain that children are always out playing on cj1s cut through. Why should his need to save a few mins be more important than the needs of the children to be safe to play? Residential streets should prioritise the rights and needs of the residents, cars should be kept where possible on trunk and main roads designed for moving high volumes of traffic. Residential roads should not become pressure valves to release traffic at the expense of the locals. Why are the rights of the car drivers more important than the right of the residents?

 

[Steve_b]

It's totally possible to hit 60. It's happening as I write. No one deals with anything. If it was a street populated by Tory voters and rich people it would have been shut long before now, see Lancaster / Windsor Road for evidence.

Glad your 19 minutes was more important than the quality of people's lives, well done yo

It's totally possible to hit 60. It's happening as I write. No one deals with anything. If it was a street populated by Tory voters and rich people it would have been shut long before now, see Lancaster / Windsor Road for evidence.

Glad your 19 minutes was more important than the quality of people's lives, well done you.

WOW, wasn’t Windsor Rd blocked of in the 80s,

 

[proactive]

Windsor was Tory until the Barrons defected.

I know. But who held the ward in the 80s when Windsor became a no through road.

 

[GNM67]

Today for some reason both A513 Beaconside and a34 towards Redhill were closed in both directions With traffic being diverted via a34 south towards Stafford...

Abnormal load movement

 

[proactive]

Abnormal load movement

A chemist can probably help you with that.

 

[Mudgie]

LOL, it would have taken traffic away from Baswich Lane.

But the Eastern Distributor Road would bring traffic near to the posh houses in Baswich Lane with the fear that it would ignore the weight prohibition signs.

 

[Steve_b]

But the Eastern Distributor Road would bring traffic near to the posh houses in Baswich Lane with the fear that it would ignore the weight prohibition signs.

The weight prohibition refers to the current bridges, which would have been removed with the construction of new bridges. There is no weight restriction on Baswich Lane, hence the cement works on Tilcon Industrial Estate.

The council(s) couldn't agree over the funding for the EDR so unfortunately the project was dropped, in favour of spending the money on the Rugeley bypass, apparently.

 

[cj1]

The EDR was not taken forward due to poor cost benefit ratio the cost was forecast to exceed 100million but carry fewer than 2000 vehicles per day. A cheeper option is being carried forward that involves extending hydrant way to st Thomas lane and placing traffic lights on 2 of the bridges.

 

[Steve_b]

The EDR was not taken forward due to poor cost benefit ratio the cost was forecast to exceed 100million but carry fewer than 2000 vehicles per day. A cheeper option is being carried forward that involves extending hydrant way to st Thomas lane and placing traffic lights on 2 of the bridges.

Hydrant way is being extended at a cost to the developers, who I believe the Council are currently in dispute with.

I doubt they will impose traffic lights, although this is Stafford.

 

[Thehooperman]

.

 

[Thehooperman]

I think the rights of car drivers over everyone one and everything is wrong. Why should car drivers have the right to cause noise, distress, and worse just to save a few mins off their journey? I know for certain that children are always out playing on cj1s cut through. Why should his need to save a few mins be more important than the needs of the children to be safe to play? Residential streets should prioritise the rights and needs of the residents, cars should be kept where possible on trunk and main roads designed for moving high volumes of traffic. Residential roads should not become pressure valves to release traffic at the expense of the locals. Why are the rights of the car drivers more important than the right of the residents?

But surely kids should be playing in parks, playgrounds or fields not in the road, especially if it really is as dangerous as you say.

Don't get me wrong roads should be safe for all pedestrians especially kids travelling to play areas and I fully support speed reduction measures where necessary but car drivers have as much right to use the road as anybody else.

Finally who is it that (theoretically*) pays for the upkeep of the roads? It is the car tax payer not the pedestrians so why shouldn't they use what they've paid to maintain?

*I say theoretically because I don't trust this government to direct funding to where it should go to.

 

[DoggedWalker]

I think the rights of car drivers over everyone one and everything is wrong. Why should car drivers have the right to cause noise, distress, and worse just to save a few mins off their journey? I know for certain that children are always out playing on cj1s cut through. Why should his need to save a few mins be more important than the needs of the children to be safe to play? Residential streets should prioritise the rights and needs of the residents, cars should be kept where possible on trunk and main roads designed for moving high volumes of traffic. Residential roads should not become pressure valves to release traffic at the expense of the locals. Why are the rights of the car drivers more important than the right of the residents?

I’ve just realised who you are… you’re that angry cyclist chap aren’t you?

 

[Thehooperman]

I’ve just realised who you are… you’re that angry cyclist chap aren’t you?

That's a bit unkind, both on @kyoto49 and the cyclist chap.

@kyoto49 is making some valid points about idiot drivers that speed recklessly along residential areas.

I appreciate some of her concerns especially as I am not fully mobile myself and some drivers show no consideration for the safety of other non-car users.

 

[DoggedWalker]

That's a bit unkind, both on @kyoto49 and the cyclist chap.

@kyoto49 is making some valid points about idiot drivers that speed recklessly along residential areas.

I appreciate some of her concerns especially as I am not fully mobile myself and some drivers show no consideration for the safety of other non-car users.

Kyoto’s point is lost on me when they seem to have an issue with legitimate use of a public road by drivers. It’s not just speeding drivers that are a problem apparently but ALL drivers who might want to save theirselves a bit of time.

As an aside I doubt many of the cars that travel along Alliance Street can actually reach 60mph between the speed bumps, given the distance between them and likely damage it would cause to their cars in doing so.

If you’re concerned about driving standards, collect video evidence and send it to Staffordshire police. More and more forces are happily investigating and prosecuting driving matters from public reporting, you can use this link here to go to a portal lots of areas use; https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

 

[kyoto49]

Kyoto’s point is lost on me when they seem to have an issue with legitimate use of a public road by drivers. It’s not just speeding drivers that are a problem apparently but ALL drivers who might want to save theirselves a bit of time.

As an aside I doubt many of the cars that travel along Alliance Street can actually reach 60mph between the speed bumps, given the distance between them and likely damage it would cause to their cars in doing so.

If you’re concerned about driving standards, collect video evidence and send it to Staffordshire police. More and more forces are happily investigating and prosecuting driving matters from public reporting, you can use this link here to go to a portal lots of areas use; https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

I'm going to end by saying there have been numerous bad crashes on the Eccleshall Road in the past 12 months. One caused structural damage on someone's house, couple of weeks back a nasty one at the junction with the Holmcroft road. The police were there and I asked them when something was going to be done about the speeds I witness almost daily along there and the number of nasty accidents. People come flying off the motorway, boy racers overtaking all along. The policemen was generally shocked that there was an issue with speed or bad driving and said speed was the responsibility of the council. So no one gives two f*cks basically.

Yep, the fact that the whole population is beholden to car drivers, everything is planned around car drivers, no other from of transport or concerns over air quality, peoples quality of life, the safety of children, it matter not one jot. All that matters is not inconveniencing the motorist and their selfish wants. More civilised and community minded countries have long since realised how backward this is and shifted focus on the needs of the residents. The streets and neighbourhoods are much better places for it. Maybe if car drivers couldn't make the lives of residents miserable and access restrictions were imposed they might use alternative forms of transport that benefit everyone. LTNs all round please

 

[Glam]

I doubt they will impose traffic lights, although this is Stafford.

 

[littleme]

I'm going to end by saying there have been numerous bad crashes on the Eccleshall Road in the past 12 months. One caused structural damage on someone's house, couple of weeks back a nasty one at the junction with the Holmcroft road. The police were there and I asked them when something was going to be done about the speeds I witness almost daily along there and the number of nasty accidents. People come flying off the motorway, boy racers overtaking all along. The policemen was generally shocked that there was an issue with speed or bad driving and said speed was the responsibility of the council. So no one gives two f*cks basically.

Yep, the fact that the whole population is beholden to car drivers, everything is planned around car drivers, no other from of transport or concerns over air quality, peoples quality of life, the safety of children, it matter not one jot. All that matters is not inconveniencing the motorist and their selfish wants. More civilised and community minded countries have long since realised how backward this is and shifted focus on the needs of the residents. The streets and neighbourhoods are much better places for it. Maybe if car drivers couldn't make the lives of residents miserable and access restrictions were imposed they might use alternative forms of transport that benefit everyone. LTNs all round please

The same with Stone Rd/ A34 I go out at 6.20am most days, drivers treat it like it's an extension on the motorway, I know there's much fewer cars at that time, but they drive so dangerously....

 

[littleme]

But surely kids should be playing in parks, playgrounds or fields not in the road, especially if it really is as dangerous as you say.

Don't get me wrong roads should be safe for all pedestrians especially kids travelling to play areas and I fully support speed reduction measures where necessary but car drivers have as much right to use the road as anybody else.

I agree with this, I have 3 kids, age 30, 29 and 17. The 2 eldest played in the road on front of our house with all the neighbourhood kids ......but that was 20 years ago....probably only about 8 people in our street owned cars then, and it was a quiet side road that wasn't used as the school rat run.

My youngest has never 'played out', kids dont do that anymore (unless you count the feral kids around the corner that are abandoned onto the street in the summer holidays), they sit in their rooms on their laptops/iPhones/Xboxes. The road is way to dangerous for them to be out playing kerby now, to many cars, driving to fast fir a side Rd, and around what is now a blind bend.

 

[Mudgie]

The weight prohibition refers to the current bridges, which would have been removed with the construction of new bridges. There is no weight restriction on Baswich Lane, hence the cement works on Tilcon Industrial Estate.

The council(s) couldn't agree over the funding for the EDR so unfortunately the project was dropped, in favour of spending the money on the Rugeley bypass, apparently.

Thanks.
My mistake. I had seen a 7½ ton limit at the start of Baswich Lane but not noticed that it's advance notice of the canal bridge ¾ mile ahead.
The EDR replacing the two narrow bridges would though have meant a through route for HGVs that residents might then fear would use Baswich Lane hence their opposition.
I didn't know that the money instead had gone on the Rugeley bypass, something of a modern version of Western Springs Road.

​

 

[Mudgie]

The EDR was not taken forward due to poor cost benefit ratio the cost was forecast to exceed 100million but carry fewer than 2000 vehicles per day. A cheeper option is being carried forward that involves extending hydrant way to st Thomas lane and placing traffic lights on 2 of the bridges.

Thanks.
I had noticed a gap in the new housing that allows Hydrant Way to be extended beyond the Tixall Road.
I think the canal bridge is listed but wouldn't have though relacing the bridge by St Thomas Priory Farm with a wider one would cost a great deal of money.