£150,000 road surface at Southampton's Guildhall Square 'an embarrassment'

The £150,000 road that’s ‘an embarrassment to Southampton’

The £150,000 road that’s ‘an embarrassment to Southampton’

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

IT IS THE bumpy £150,000 road that has been branded “an embarrassment” to Southampton.

Council chiefs are being urged to carry out urgent work to the section of Above Bar outside the new arts complex that was only laid four years ago.

It was part of the £4.6million revamp of Guildhall Square that scooped design awards after being completed in 2010.

Daily Echo:

But just 18 months after it was completed, large parts of the road began to fall away, leaving its surface uneven and bumpy to drive over.

Now Cllr Royston Smith, who was leader of the council when the new Guildhall Square was completed, is calling for urgent action to prevent the problem getting any worse.

He said: “I have been asking for Above Bar Street to be repaired for over two years.

“There is no excuse.

“Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was invested in the Guildhall Square and in laying this road and it now one of the worst in the city.

“It is irrelevant who is to blame, the city council should sort it out and then take legal action if it is appropriate to recover the money.

“It is quite frankly an embarrassment.”

The city council says safety repairs are being carried out to the road to make it safe, but ultimately the responsibility and cost of repairing it will be given to contractor Aggregate Industries, who carried out the original work.

Council transport chief Jacqui Rayment said: “Investigations have been carried out to determine the reason for the failure.

“The contractor and designer of the scheme have been presented with these findings and are being tasked with correcting the road.”

Comments (57)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:02am Tue 22 Apr 14

For pity sake says...

If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.
If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour. For pity sake
  • Score: 24

11:37am Tue 22 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

For pity sake wrote:
If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.
Agreed. But sadly he's right, it *is* irrelevant who is to blame. Just fix the damned thing.
[quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.[/p][/quote]Agreed. But sadly he's right, it *is* irrelevant who is to blame. Just fix the damned thing. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 24

11:45am Tue 22 Apr 14

Lone Ranger. says...

For pity sake wrote:
If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.
I think that Cllr Smiths comment identifies the culprit . ......
.
QUOTE:- "He said: “I have been asking for Above Bar Street to be repaired for over two years.
.
I think that you will find that OVER two years ago it was his party that failed !!
[quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.[/p][/quote]I think that Cllr Smiths comment identifies the culprit . ...... . QUOTE:- "He said: “I have been asking for Above Bar Street to be repaired for over two years. . I think that you will find that OVER two years ago it was his party that failed !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 9

11:47am Tue 22 Apr 14

dartman says...

most of the roads in southamptom are a disgracemeggason ave is one that needs urgent attention. typical of this labour council higher council tax less services and spending on things that matter zero.
most of the roads in southamptom are a disgracemeggason ave is one that needs urgent attention. typical of this labour council higher council tax less services and spending on things that matter zero. dartman
  • Score: 10

11:53am Tue 22 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
For pity sake wrote:
If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.
Agreed. But sadly he's right, it *is* irrelevant who is to blame. Just fix the damned thing.
Pity Rayment is still "investigating" who to blame instead of the fix. Waste of space that woman.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: If Smiffy is saying “It is irrelevant who is to blame..." then I suspect he is the most likely culprit. He is not normally so reticent to blame Labour.[/p][/quote]Agreed. But sadly he's right, it *is* irrelevant who is to blame. Just fix the damned thing.[/p][/quote]Pity Rayment is still "investigating" who to blame instead of the fix. Waste of space that woman. camerajuan
  • Score: 16

12:04pm Tue 22 Apr 14

sotonboy84 says...

The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past!

There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it. sotonboy84
  • Score: 54

12:28pm Tue 22 Apr 14

IanRRR says...

Hooray! Four years after this nonsense was laid and began to sink, someone has noticed! Block paving does not work, especially with heavy vehicles. Just tarmac it properly. Give us our roads back, instead of trying to fancy it up.
Hooray! Four years after this nonsense was laid and began to sink, someone has noticed! Block paving does not work, especially with heavy vehicles. Just tarmac it properly. Give us our roads back, instead of trying to fancy it up. IanRRR
  • Score: 38

12:45pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Big Mac says...

The complte road network in and around Southampton is a total embarressment – and we just put up with it!
The complte road network in and around Southampton is a total embarressment – and we just put up with it! Big Mac
  • Score: 41

12:56pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past!

There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists. bigfella777
  • Score: -2

1:16pm Tue 22 Apr 14

boilerman says...

The contractors should be made to guarantee their work, Millbrook rd and Mountbatten way are the same full of pot holes yet large parts of it were repaired not too long ago.
If the contractors were made to repair these shoddy jobs at their own cost they might do a decent job in the first place.
The contractors should be made to guarantee their work, Millbrook rd and Mountbatten way are the same full of pot holes yet large parts of it were repaired not too long ago. If the contractors were made to repair these shoddy jobs at their own cost they might do a decent job in the first place. boilerman
  • Score: 34

1:29pm Tue 22 Apr 14

sotonbusdriver says...

Yet again our Council have egg on their faces..
They complain about lack of funds. Make totally off the wall ideas, where neither pedestrian or vehicle knows who has right of way. Which I would have thought they had learn't that lesson after London Road, where pavement and road merges to appear as one, no-one knowing who goes first....
Clear defined crossings are needed to start with, and why not stick to traditional materials such as Tarmac? After all the block paving my have looked nicer to start with, but it was obvious that it wouldn't last.. Looking back to Victorian history, cobbled roads, are just smaller blocks of paving than what they used, and that didn't do too well with the lighter vehicles, which existed then.
This Council is just about lining their pockets with backhanders for jobs they contract out, and making this City, so called pretty, where as we really need it to be practical and without the loss of what little Historical bits the Council haven't destroyed already of the decades.
Yet again our Council have egg on their faces.. They complain about lack of funds. Make totally off the wall ideas, where neither pedestrian or vehicle knows who has right of way. Which I would have thought they had learn't that lesson after London Road, where pavement and road merges to appear as one, no-one knowing who goes first.... Clear defined crossings are needed to start with, and why not stick to traditional materials such as Tarmac? After all the block paving my have looked nicer to start with, but it was obvious that it wouldn't last.. Looking back to Victorian history, cobbled roads, are just smaller blocks of paving than what they used, and that didn't do too well with the lighter vehicles, which existed then. This Council is just about lining their pockets with backhanders for jobs they contract out, and making this City, so called pretty, where as we really need it to be practical and without the loss of what little Historical bits the Council haven't destroyed already of the decades. sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 28

1:31pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Zexagon says...

IanRRR wrote:
Hooray! Four years after this nonsense was laid and began to sink, someone has noticed! Block paving does not work, especially with heavy vehicles. Just tarmac it properly. Give us our roads back, instead of trying to fancy it up.
Spot on. Same with pavements.just Tarmac them. Bedford place all nicely paved not that long ago, now slabs are trip hazards
[quote][p][bold]IanRRR[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Four years after this nonsense was laid and began to sink, someone has noticed! Block paving does not work, especially with heavy vehicles. Just tarmac it properly. Give us our roads back, instead of trying to fancy it up.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Same with pavements.just Tarmac them. Bedford place all nicely paved not that long ago, now slabs are trip hazards Zexagon
  • Score: 12

2:06pm Tue 22 Apr 14

funchal says...

It would appear that any contractors doing work on the roads in Southampton are not professional in anyway. The workmanship is appalling!
It would appear that any contractors doing work on the roads in Southampton are not professional in anyway. The workmanship is appalling! funchal
  • Score: 28

2:14pm Tue 22 Apr 14

fat_doughnut says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past!

There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
Or just stop buses from using it. Or make sure pedestrians have the right-of-way over buses.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]Or just stop buses from using it. Or make sure pedestrians have the right-of-way over buses. fat_doughnut
  • Score: 9

2:23pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Shirley_Girl says...

bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?... Shirley_Girl
  • Score: 25

2:45pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Chipster says...

Usual council ****-up!
Usual council ****-up! Chipster
  • Score: 7

2:58pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time. Torchie1
  • Score: 18

3:08pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Outside of the Box says...

“It is irrelevant who is to blame, the city council should sort it out and then take legal action if it is appropriate to recover the money. That'll be you then Roy
“It is irrelevant who is to blame, the city council should sort it out and then take legal action if it is appropriate to recover the money. That'll be you then Roy Outside of the Box
  • Score: 7

3:10pm Tue 22 Apr 14

elvisimo says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
yaaaawnnnnn
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]yaaaawnnnnn elvisimo
  • Score: -13

3:16pm Tue 22 Apr 14

MrZoolook says...

Pedestrianise it and leave it clear for cyclists..?

This attitude is exactly wht cyclists should use roads the sane as any other wheeled vehicle. If its pedestrianised, cyclusts will not be alliwed to use it as they are cyclists and NOT pedestrians. Nice to see that you disregard the rules for your on gain. Hopefully you'll end up under a bus before you get someone killed.
Pedestrianise it and leave it clear for cyclists..? This attitude is exactly wht cyclists should use roads the sane as any other wheeled vehicle. If its pedestrianised, cyclusts will not be alliwed to use it as they are cyclists and NOT pedestrians. Nice to see that you disregard the rules for your on gain. Hopefully you'll end up under a bus before you get someone killed. MrZoolook
  • Score: 12

3:18pm Tue 22 Apr 14

The Phantomerer says...

fat_doughnut wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past!

There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
Or just stop buses from using it. Or make sure pedestrians have the right-of-way over buses.
I think it is supposed to work like the junction of Bernard Street and High Street, next to the Holyrood Church. The zebra crossing was removed and so were any clues as to who has right of way, there are no giveway lines or anything. The idea is that pedestrians have the right of way and motorists will just stop and wave people across. But it is, of course, a nonsense, just imagine the concept of pedestrians being waved across, at rush hour, in November, in the pouring rain. Motorists sometimes give way to pedestrians, often not. If you are a pedestrian and start crossing because someone stopped for you, you better hope the person travelling in the opposite direction stops too, or you will be stranded in the middle of the road. A fair proportion of motorists just drive at pedestrians, either because they are confused by the road layout and have to concentrate on too many things at once, or they assume the have right of way because pedestrians are going to come of worse in the event of a collision. If you throw in cyclists and buses into the mix it becomes an awful mess. I tried complaining, but the Council's representative (Balfour Beatty if I remember correctly) just says there have been no reported casualties. I have personally witnessed many near misses in this location, along with many instances of aggression. I have spoken to others who have witnessed accidents here, however, they are not classed as serious enough to warrant appearing on accident statistics. They only way that any changes will be made to these roads is for people to be killed or seriously injured.
[quote][p][bold]fat_doughnut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]Or just stop buses from using it. Or make sure pedestrians have the right-of-way over buses.[/p][/quote]I think it is supposed to work like the junction of Bernard Street and High Street, next to the Holyrood Church. The zebra crossing was removed and so were any clues as to who has right of way, there are no giveway lines or anything. The idea is that pedestrians have the right of way and motorists will just stop and wave people across. But it is, of course, a nonsense, just imagine the concept of pedestrians being waved across, at rush hour, in November, in the pouring rain. Motorists sometimes give way to pedestrians, often not. If you are a pedestrian and start crossing because someone stopped for you, you better hope the person travelling in the opposite direction stops too, or you will be stranded in the middle of the road. A fair proportion of motorists just drive at pedestrians, either because they are confused by the road layout and have to concentrate on too many things at once, or they assume the have right of way because pedestrians are going to come of worse in the event of a collision. If you throw in cyclists and buses into the mix it becomes an awful mess. I tried complaining, but the Council's representative (Balfour Beatty if I remember correctly) just says there have been no reported casualties. I have personally witnessed many near misses in this location, along with many instances of aggression. I have spoken to others who have witnessed accidents here, however, they are not classed as serious enough to warrant appearing on accident statistics. They only way that any changes will be made to these roads is for people to be killed or seriously injured. The Phantomerer
  • Score: 15

3:36pm Tue 22 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Of course other road users obey all traffic laws at all times, exemplified by the lack of fatalities, injuries, and crashes right?!

Bore off. You really need a hobby.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Of course other road users obey all traffic laws at all times, exemplified by the lack of fatalities, injuries, and crashes right?! Bore off. You really need a hobby. camerajuan
  • Score: -6

4:04pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be. bigfella777
  • Score: -1

4:10pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.
In that case the road could be open to electric cars as well if the goal has shifted from pedestrianisation to low carbon footprint.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.[/p][/quote]In that case the road could be open to electric cars as well if the goal has shifted from pedestrianisation to low carbon footprint. Torchie1
  • Score: -1

4:11pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

camerajuan wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Of course other road users obey all traffic laws at all times, exemplified by the lack of fatalities, injuries, and crashes right?!

Bore off. You really need a hobby.
I do need a new hobby as the old one of getting you to react has become predictable and boring.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Of course other road users obey all traffic laws at all times, exemplified by the lack of fatalities, injuries, and crashes right?! Bore off. You really need a hobby.[/p][/quote]I do need a new hobby as the old one of getting you to react has become predictable and boring. Torchie1
  • Score: -5

4:35pm Tue 22 Apr 14

KSO16R says...

Torchie1 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.
In that case the road could be open to electric cars as well if the goal has shifted from pedestrianisation to low carbon footprint.
Clutching at straws torchie?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.[/p][/quote]In that case the road could be open to electric cars as well if the goal has shifted from pedestrianisation to low carbon footprint.[/p][/quote]Clutching at straws torchie? KSO16R
  • Score: 1

4:49pm Tue 22 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Of course other road users obey all traffic laws at all times, exemplified by the lack of fatalities, injuries, and crashes right?!

Bore off. You really need a hobby.
I do need a new hobby as the old one of getting you to react has become predictable and boring.
Agreed. Boring. Change the record or back up your nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Of course other road users obey all traffic laws at all times, exemplified by the lack of fatalities, injuries, and crashes right?! Bore off. You really need a hobby.[/p][/quote]I do need a new hobby as the old one of getting you to react has become predictable and boring.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Boring. Change the record or back up your nonsense. camerajuan
  • Score: 3

4:50pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Big Mac says...

See the new Portsmouth 'Park and Ride' is up and running,
1-0 to them then.
See the new Portsmouth 'Park and Ride' is up and running, 1-0 to them then. Big Mac
  • Score: 8

4:59pm Tue 22 Apr 14

downfader says...

I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice.

But complaints seem to be ignored.

I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored.

http://goo.gl/maps/9
fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light.

As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them
I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice. But complaints seem to be ignored. I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored. http://goo.gl/maps/9 fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light. As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them downfader
  • Score: 1

5:06pm Tue 22 Apr 14

downfader says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
..so I take it you haven't noticed all the buses travelling down there, then? Its not really pedestrianised. They just put in paving for some odd aesthetic reason that didn't make any sense.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]..so I take it you haven't noticed all the buses travelling down there, then? Its not really pedestrianised. They just put in paving for some odd aesthetic reason that didn't make any sense. downfader
  • Score: 4

5:16pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Tulyar says...

Just around the corner from where I type this is a road which was built over 160 years ago with flush top setts, laid with a tight jointed simple bond running transverse to the direction of the traffic, with the exception of the self clearing gullies which are a single course of the same blocks laid 10mm lower than the main road surface and along the face of the kerb. Even in a light shower the water sheds through an imperceptible camber into the gullies and forms a powerful torrent that flushes clear the leaves and other debris.

The setts are at around 20cm deep, unlike the blockwork used for most modern schemes, and the tight bond means that they are very closely held in place. Sadly the lack of control over utility contractors has caused some areas to be ruined, as the sealed bed - probably of high grade puddle clay or cold tar has been punctured and not repaired when the hole was back-filled. Where untouched the surface is as good to use now as it was 160 years ago with practically nothing done by way of maintenance.

I look at modern 'cod' cobbles or setts, often laid with open joints which are then filled by brushing in a weak dry-mix mortar, and on a easy to regulate bed of sand (which will leach away when the water gets down through the open joints). If you are aiming to put down a low maintenance stone block surface then you have to do this properly, and the pictures suggest that the materials used are not really of sufficient thickness, and probably laid in too loose a bond to really provide a robust and long lasting surface.

Done properly stone setts should last well over 100 years and require almost no attention. Done cheaply or with no attention to detail and you get a surface that moves around and breaks up within a year or two.
Just around the corner from where I type this is a road which was built over 160 years ago with flush top setts, laid with a tight jointed simple bond running transverse to the direction of the traffic, with the exception of the self clearing gullies which are a single course of the same blocks laid 10mm lower than the main road surface and along the face of the kerb. Even in a light shower the water sheds through an imperceptible camber into the gullies and forms a powerful torrent that flushes clear the leaves and other debris. The setts are at around 20cm deep, unlike the blockwork used for most modern schemes, and the tight bond means that they are very closely held in place. Sadly the lack of control over utility contractors has caused some areas to be ruined, as the sealed bed - probably of high grade puddle clay or cold tar has been punctured and not repaired when the hole was back-filled. Where untouched the surface is as good to use now as it was 160 years ago with practically nothing done by way of maintenance. I look at modern 'cod' cobbles or setts, often laid with open joints which are then filled by brushing in a weak dry-mix mortar, and on a easy to regulate bed of sand (which will leach away when the water gets down through the open joints). If you are aiming to put down a low maintenance stone block surface then you have to do this properly, and the pictures suggest that the materials used are not really of sufficient thickness, and probably laid in too loose a bond to really provide a robust and long lasting surface. Done properly stone setts should last well over 100 years and require almost no attention. Done cheaply or with no attention to detail and you get a surface that moves around and breaks up within a year or two. Tulyar
  • Score: 15

5:30pm Tue 22 Apr 14

downfader says...

Tulyar wrote:
Just around the corner from where I type this is a road which was built over 160 years ago with flush top setts, laid with a tight jointed simple bond running transverse to the direction of the traffic, with the exception of the self clearing gullies which are a single course of the same blocks laid 10mm lower than the main road surface and along the face of the kerb. Even in a light shower the water sheds through an imperceptible camber into the gullies and forms a powerful torrent that flushes clear the leaves and other debris.

The setts are at around 20cm deep, unlike the blockwork used for most modern schemes, and the tight bond means that they are very closely held in place. Sadly the lack of control over utility contractors has caused some areas to be ruined, as the sealed bed - probably of high grade puddle clay or cold tar has been punctured and not repaired when the hole was back-filled. Where untouched the surface is as good to use now as it was 160 years ago with practically nothing done by way of maintenance.

I look at modern 'cod' cobbles or setts, often laid with open joints which are then filled by brushing in a weak dry-mix mortar, and on a easy to regulate bed of sand (which will leach away when the water gets down through the open joints). If you are aiming to put down a low maintenance stone block surface then you have to do this properly, and the pictures suggest that the materials used are not really of sufficient thickness, and probably laid in too loose a bond to really provide a robust and long lasting surface.

Done properly stone setts should last well over 100 years and require almost no attention. Done cheaply or with no attention to detail and you get a surface that moves around and breaks up within a year or two.
Well said. The cobbles in York have been there for over a hundred years also.
[quote][p][bold]Tulyar[/bold] wrote: Just around the corner from where I type this is a road which was built over 160 years ago with flush top setts, laid with a tight jointed simple bond running transverse to the direction of the traffic, with the exception of the self clearing gullies which are a single course of the same blocks laid 10mm lower than the main road surface and along the face of the kerb. Even in a light shower the water sheds through an imperceptible camber into the gullies and forms a powerful torrent that flushes clear the leaves and other debris. The setts are at around 20cm deep, unlike the blockwork used for most modern schemes, and the tight bond means that they are very closely held in place. Sadly the lack of control over utility contractors has caused some areas to be ruined, as the sealed bed - probably of high grade puddle clay or cold tar has been punctured and not repaired when the hole was back-filled. Where untouched the surface is as good to use now as it was 160 years ago with practically nothing done by way of maintenance. I look at modern 'cod' cobbles or setts, often laid with open joints which are then filled by brushing in a weak dry-mix mortar, and on a easy to regulate bed of sand (which will leach away when the water gets down through the open joints). If you are aiming to put down a low maintenance stone block surface then you have to do this properly, and the pictures suggest that the materials used are not really of sufficient thickness, and probably laid in too loose a bond to really provide a robust and long lasting surface. Done properly stone setts should last well over 100 years and require almost no attention. Done cheaply or with no attention to detail and you get a surface that moves around and breaks up within a year or two.[/p][/quote]Well said. The cobbles in York have been there for over a hundred years also. downfader
  • Score: 8

6:21pm Tue 22 Apr 14

THE12THMAN says...

Big Mac wrote:
See the new Portsmouth 'Park and Ride' is up and running,
1-0 to them then.
Who cares!
[quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: See the new Portsmouth 'Park and Ride' is up and running, 1-0 to them then.[/p][/quote]Who cares! THE12THMAN
  • Score: 1

6:22pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.
In that case the road could be open to electric cars as well if the goal has shifted from pedestrianisation to low carbon footprint.
No because the carbon footprint of building an electric car especially it's batteries and constant charging is huge and offset any gains.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]If it was made shared use it would be perfectly OK. Pedestrians and cyclists both sharing a common goal of a low carbon footprint when traveling and making the city a nicer place to be.[/p][/quote]In that case the road could be open to electric cars as well if the goal has shifted from pedestrianisation to low carbon footprint.[/p][/quote]No because the carbon footprint of building an electric car especially it's batteries and constant charging is huge and offset any gains. bigfella777
  • Score: 2

6:54pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Soton_lad says...

Try walking down Bedford Place without twisting your ankle on the badly set slabs.

The majority of the pavement was pulled up and put back down after repair works only 4/6 months ago.
Within days slabs we're uneven, and rain had washed most of the material used to set the slabs in place. I use material as a general term, it was probably just sand from the gritting box.

Now walking down that section of pavement is like playing a game of hopscotch, trying to avoid the loose stones.

A desperately poor job was done, and signed off on.
Try walking down Bedford Place without twisting your ankle on the badly set slabs. The majority of the pavement was pulled up and put back down after repair works only 4/6 months ago. Within days slabs we're uneven, and rain had washed most of the material used to set the slabs in place. I use material as a general term, it was probably just sand from the gritting box. Now walking down that section of pavement is like playing a game of hopscotch, trying to avoid the loose stones. A desperately poor job was done, and signed off on. Soton_lad
  • Score: 12

8:30pm Tue 22 Apr 14

bucktoom says...

Southampton City council seem to only employ cowboys for road repairs.
I've complained countless times about potholes and you're lucky if even one gets repaired.
Southampton City council seem to only employ cowboys for road repairs. I've complained countless times about potholes and you're lucky if even one gets repaired. bucktoom
  • Score: 3

9:00pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
Nope, not all pedestrianised areas are like that, some even still allow motor vehicles, also, above bar is, or is going to be part of a National cycle route.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]Nope, not all pedestrianised areas are like that, some even still allow motor vehicles, also, above bar is, or is going to be part of a National cycle route. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

9:48pm Tue 22 Apr 14

chimneysweep 1234 says...

Royston Smith is a true hero leave him alone he saved lives on board the submarine in the docks .. He didnt build the rd
Royston Smith is a true hero leave him alone he saved lives on board the submarine in the docks .. He didnt build the rd chimneysweep 1234
  • Score: -3

10:13pm Tue 22 Apr 14

redsnapper says...

Blame the so called Transport "Chief". Rayment who regularly does nothing on a daily basis let alone plan ahead with any vision for improving the whole cities awful transport problems.
Blame the so called Transport "Chief". Rayment who regularly does nothing on a daily basis let alone plan ahead with any vision for improving the whole cities awful transport problems. redsnapper
  • Score: 4

10:43pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

10:47pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

I am not sure whether I find it strangely comforting or annoying but just about every item of news in Southampton comes down to an argument that is either Labour v Tories or Cyclists v Motorists.

If news reaches the Echo of a lost dog in Thornhill the usual suspects would soon be along to blame:

* the tories for cutting the dog warden budget
* labour for mis-management of the search
* cars for running the dog over
* cyclist for scaring the dog off with their ghastly lycra

And if we are really lucky we get some UKIP loonies around for a while blaming the dogs disappearance on a rising in the number of foreign breeds flooding into the country!

I thought this years ago and I think nothing's changed - politics in Southampton needs to grow up and stop being like some kind of over aged student union politics.
I am not sure whether I find it strangely comforting or annoying but just about every item of news in Southampton comes down to an argument that is either Labour v Tories or Cyclists v Motorists. If news reaches the Echo of a lost dog in Thornhill the usual suspects would soon be along to blame: * the tories for cutting the dog warden budget * labour for mis-management of the search * cars for running the dog over * cyclist for scaring the dog off with their ghastly lycra And if we are really lucky we get some UKIP loonies around for a while blaming the dogs disappearance on a rising in the number of foreign breeds flooding into the country! I thought this years ago and I think nothing's changed - politics in Southampton needs to grow up and stop being like some kind of over aged student union politics. Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 13

8:34am Wed 23 Apr 14

elvisimo says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
I am not sure whether I find it strangely comforting or annoying but just about every item of news in Southampton comes down to an argument that is either Labour v Tories or Cyclists v Motorists.

If news reaches the Echo of a lost dog in Thornhill the usual suspects would soon be along to blame:

* the tories for cutting the dog warden budget
* labour for mis-management of the search
* cars for running the dog over
* cyclist for scaring the dog off with their ghastly lycra

And if we are really lucky we get some UKIP loonies around for a while blaming the dogs disappearance on a rising in the number of foreign breeds flooding into the country!

I thought this years ago and I think nothing's changed - politics in Southampton needs to grow up and stop being like some kind of over aged student union politics.
Spot on!
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: I am not sure whether I find it strangely comforting or annoying but just about every item of news in Southampton comes down to an argument that is either Labour v Tories or Cyclists v Motorists. If news reaches the Echo of a lost dog in Thornhill the usual suspects would soon be along to blame: * the tories for cutting the dog warden budget * labour for mis-management of the search * cars for running the dog over * cyclist for scaring the dog off with their ghastly lycra And if we are really lucky we get some UKIP loonies around for a while blaming the dogs disappearance on a rising in the number of foreign breeds flooding into the country! I thought this years ago and I think nothing's changed - politics in Southampton needs to grow up and stop being like some kind of over aged student union politics.[/p][/quote]Spot on! elvisimo
  • Score: 4

8:49am Wed 23 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.
I love when people get voted down for stating facts!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.[/p][/quote]I love when people get voted down for stating facts! camerajuan
  • Score: 1

9:26am Wed 23 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.
I love when people get voted down for stating facts!
I'd put money on it being downvoted simply because of who wrote it. It's painfully obvious some of us - myself, you, Ginger Cyclist included - are on several people's downvote-on-sight list. Quite amusing really.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.[/p][/quote]I love when people get voted down for stating facts![/p][/quote]I'd put money on it being downvoted simply because of who wrote it. It's painfully obvious some of us - myself, you, Ginger Cyclist included - are on several people's downvote-on-sight list. Quite amusing really. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 3

9:42am Wed 23 Apr 14

Niel says...

The city councillors would do well to read this: http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/info/ele
ctedmembersguide.pdf


As for the general state of Southampton's roads, blame can be laid at the council and more at their contractors doors. They allowed University Road to be altered and pedestrian crossings to be put in that are paved with stone 'setts', the approach and departure angles were not in accordance with National road design guidance, so had to be modified, now the Uni-Link buses have caused most to subside, so water pools in wet weather, further eroding the underlying structure. Recently the road surface at the junction of Salisbury Road and University Road broke up, again, no doubt caused by the air-suspension of the buses pounding it. The sub-surface structure being unable to cope, resulted in a 2-3 FOOT diameter pothole, some 4-5 inches deep, the contractors put some cold lay in the hole, having spread the loose stone within all over the junction first, so the depression is only 2 inches deep, but with all the loose stone riding any mono-track vehicle is interesting to put it mildly.

Too long the councils appointed contractors profit margins have lead to cheap shoddy repairs, often far to late to stop the rest of the road from being damaged, thus ensuring repeat chargeable work. The utilities are little better, but unless the roads are properly 'managed' no-one will ever be called back to repair their bodges...
The city councillors would do well to read this: http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/info/ele ctedmembersguide.pdf As for the general state of Southampton's roads, blame can be laid at the council and more at their contractors doors. They allowed University Road to be altered and pedestrian crossings to be put in that are paved with stone 'setts', the approach and departure angles were not in accordance with National road design guidance, so had to be modified, now the Uni-Link buses have caused most to subside, so water pools in wet weather, further eroding the underlying structure. Recently the road surface at the junction of Salisbury Road and University Road broke up, again, no doubt caused by the air-suspension of the buses pounding it. The sub-surface structure being unable to cope, resulted in a 2-3 FOOT diameter pothole, some 4-5 inches deep, the contractors put some cold lay in the hole, having spread the loose stone within all over the junction first, so the depression is only 2 inches deep, but with all the loose stone riding any mono-track vehicle is interesting to put it mildly. Too long the councils appointed contractors profit margins have lead to cheap shoddy repairs, often far to late to stop the rest of the road from being damaged, thus ensuring repeat chargeable work. The utilities are little better, but unless the roads are properly 'managed' no-one will ever be called back to repair their bodges... Niel
  • Score: 4

11:50am Wed 23 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.
I love when people get voted down for stating facts!
I know, just shows the sort of morons who comment here don't like being proven wrong.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.[/p][/quote]I love when people get voted down for stating facts![/p][/quote]I know, just shows the sort of morons who comment here don't like being proven wrong. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

11:52am Wed 23 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.
I love when people get voted down for stating facts!
I'd put money on it being downvoted simply because of who wrote it. It's painfully obvious some of us - myself, you, Ginger Cyclist included - are on several people's downvote-on-sight list. Quite amusing really.
Several people including Geoffry and Torchie.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Actually, it depends on what road planners see fit, the road running between Gateway and the Guildhall is pedestrianised but motor vehicles and cyclists are allowed to access it from one direction(doesn't seem to stop all the motorists who go the wrong way though), so you are completely wrong.[/p][/quote]I love when people get voted down for stating facts![/p][/quote]I'd put money on it being downvoted simply because of who wrote it. It's painfully obvious some of us - myself, you, Ginger Cyclist included - are on several people's downvote-on-sight list. Quite amusing really.[/p][/quote]Several people including Geoffry and Torchie. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

2:09pm Wed 23 Apr 14

southy says...

funchal wrote:
It would appear that any contractors doing work on the roads in Southampton are not professional in anyway. The workmanship is appalling!
Well this is what you got to expect now days though out the whole of industry poor workmanship and what is doing it is because of a law from the 1980's and the change in regulations at the same time, Skilled workmanship has no place where profits are concerned they are not needed according to the profiteers so out went the skilled people in there jobs and incame a much lower form of workmanship the multi trader masters of no trade.
Also in the 1980's cuts to councils hit them hard with all income controlled by government and the turnaround refacing pavements and roads every 5 to 8 years came to an end and now its costing a lot more in repairs than it would of done if the 5 to 8 year turnaround refacing roads and pavements had carried on
[quote][p][bold]funchal[/bold] wrote: It would appear that any contractors doing work on the roads in Southampton are not professional in anyway. The workmanship is appalling![/p][/quote]Well this is what you got to expect now days though out the whole of industry poor workmanship and what is doing it is because of a law from the 1980's and the change in regulations at the same time, Skilled workmanship has no place where profits are concerned they are not needed according to the profiteers so out went the skilled people in there jobs and incame a much lower form of workmanship the multi trader masters of no trade. Also in the 1980's cuts to councils hit them hard with all income controlled by government and the turnaround refacing pavements and roads every 5 to 8 years came to an end and now its costing a lot more in repairs than it would of done if the 5 to 8 year turnaround refacing roads and pavements had carried on southy
  • Score: 2

2:17pm Wed 23 Apr 14

southy says...

downfader wrote:
I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice.

But complaints seem to be ignored.

I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored.

http://goo.gl/maps/9

fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light.

As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them
The trouble is that all your doing voting Labour is voting for another Tory party the policys are not much different.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice. But complaints seem to be ignored. I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored. http://goo.gl/maps/9 fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light. As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them[/p][/quote]The trouble is that all your doing voting Labour is voting for another Tory party the policys are not much different. southy
  • Score: -3

5:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Jesus_02 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
I certainly doesn’t look as if its intended for Buses... I think the Square looks great and i agree that pedestrianisation would be the solution

You may have got more thumbs up if you hadn’t mentioned cyclists
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]I certainly doesn’t look as if its intended for Buses... I think the Square looks great and i agree that pedestrianisation would be the solution You may have got more thumbs up if you hadn’t mentioned cyclists Jesus_02
  • Score: 2

5:55pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Jesus_02 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Its a flexable law isn't it?

a bit like speeding, or parking on double yellow lines, mounting the pavement, entering the yellow box, entering the cycle box, edging out into moving traffic, or pulling out over the cycle lane.

Funny though I agree that cyclists should be fined for riding on the pavement but I bet there are more people fined for cycling on the pavement than there are for parking on it
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Its a flexable law isn't it? a bit like speeding, or parking on double yellow lines, mounting the pavement, entering the yellow box, entering the cycle box, edging out into moving traffic, or pulling out over the cycle lane. Funny though I agree that cyclists should be fined for riding on the pavement but I bet there are more people fined for cycling on the pavement than there are for parking on it Jesus_02
  • Score: 1

5:56pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Jesus_02 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Shirley_Girl wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.
It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.
If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...
One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.
Its a flexable law isn't it?

a bit like speeding, or parking on double yellow lines, mounting the pavement, entering the yellow box, entering the cycle box, edging out into moving traffic, or pulling out over the cycle lane.

Funny though I agree that cyclists should be fined for riding on the pavement but I bet there are more people fined for cycling on the pavement than there are for parking on it
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley_Girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The design itself is unsafe. The part of the road between Guildhall Square & the old Tyrrell & Green is paved brick which just looks like an extension of the pavement. I've seen a number of people not aware of this & jumping back when a bus comes flying past! There needs to be a clear distinction between what's the pavement & what's the road which is more important than the visuals of it.[/p][/quote]It's a deathtrap, no distinction between road and pavement. Isn't it about time they pedestrianised the whole of below bar? There is no need for vehicles to be going through there, plenty of other routes, leave it clear for cyclists.[/p][/quote]If this area was pedestrianised, surely there should be no cyclists?...[/p][/quote]One of the skills that the bicycle brigade seem to have mastered is knowing when a rule that others have to abide by, is convenient to ignore or rigidly enforced, whichever suits them at the time.[/p][/quote]Its a flexable law isn't it? a bit like speeding, or parking on double yellow lines, mounting the pavement, entering the yellow box, entering the cycle box, edging out into moving traffic, or pulling out over the cycle lane. Funny though I agree that cyclists should be fined for riding on the pavement but I bet there are more people fined for cycling on the pavement than there are for parking on it Jesus_02
  • Score: 1

8:03am Thu 24 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice.

But complaints seem to be ignored.

I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored.

http://goo.gl/maps/9


fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light.

As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them
The trouble is that all your doing voting Labour is voting for another Tory party the policys are not much different.
AND HE'S DONE IT! WYATT HAS PULLED IT OFF! HE'S TURNED A STORY ABOUT A POORLY LAID ROAD INTO AN EXCUSE TO TELL EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR HIS TINPOT MORON PARTY!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice. But complaints seem to be ignored. I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored. http://goo.gl/maps/9 fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light. As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them[/p][/quote]The trouble is that all your doing voting Labour is voting for another Tory party the policys are not much different.[/p][/quote]AND HE'S DONE IT! WYATT HAS PULLED IT OFF! HE'S TURNED A STORY ABOUT A POORLY LAID ROAD INTO AN EXCUSE TO TELL EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR HIS TINPOT MORON PARTY! Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 2

10:40am Thu 24 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
southy wrote:
downfader wrote:
I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice.

But complaints seem to be ignored.

I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored.

http://goo.gl/maps/9



fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light.

As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them
The trouble is that all your doing voting Labour is voting for another Tory party the policys are not much different.
AND HE'S DONE IT! WYATT HAS PULLED IT OFF! HE'S TURNED A STORY ABOUT A POORLY LAID ROAD INTO AN EXCUSE TO TELL EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR HIS TINPOT MORON PARTY!
Is anyone else reading this in Dr. Cox's voice from Scrubs?!

"HE'S THE MOST ANNOYING PERSON IN THE WOOOORRRLLLDD!"
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: I did at one point last summer put in several complaints about this stretch of road but they've been ignored. Its nearly had me off several times. When it rains the bricks become like ice. But complaints seem to be ignored. I've pin pointed several lights that don't sense bikes, and some that could even be converted to filter lights... but all ignored. http://goo.gl/maps/9 fbTn is a good example of an opportunity for a filter light. As a Labour voter this sort of stuff puts me off them[/p][/quote]The trouble is that all your doing voting Labour is voting for another Tory party the policys are not much different.[/p][/quote]AND HE'S DONE IT! WYATT HAS PULLED IT OFF! HE'S TURNED A STORY ABOUT A POORLY LAID ROAD INTO AN EXCUSE TO TELL EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR HIS TINPOT MORON PARTY![/p][/quote]Is anyone else reading this in Dr. Cox's voice from Scrubs?! "HE'S THE MOST ANNOYING PERSON IN THE WOOOORRRLLLDD!" camerajuan
  • Score: -1

11:29am Thu 24 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

End of the day, this road was never going to last, was a complete waste of time and money as a result and it is horrifically dangerous to all road users, especially those on 2 feet and 2 wheels.
End of the day, this road was never going to last, was a complete waste of time and money as a result and it is horrifically dangerous to all road users, especially those on 2 feet and 2 wheels. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

1:00pm Thu 1 May 14

allsaintsnocurves says...

I love it you put facts in front of people's eyes and they attack the person highlighting them. The roads are falling apart and in the main part of town and nothing is being done about it?? That asks serious questions about the ability of those in power to fix things right on their doorstep!
But it's okay maybe they are getting Guildhall square in the right shape before Pound World appears in the Marlands and the clientelle really starts to fit in!

It's a clear decision if you want the city centre to attract ****'s keep Labour in power!
I love it you put facts in front of people's eyes and they attack the person highlighting them. The roads are falling apart and in the main part of town and nothing is being done about it?? That asks serious questions about the ability of those in power to fix things right on their doorstep! But it's okay maybe they are getting Guildhall square in the right shape before Pound World appears in the Marlands and the clientelle really starts to fit in! It's a clear decision if you want the city centre to attract ****'s keep Labour in power! allsaintsnocurves
  • Score: 0

7:22am Sun 11 May 14

skeptik says...

Labour v Tory nonsense again - what was the topic for debate again?
Labour v Tory nonsense again - what was the topic for debate again? skeptik
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree