Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

New Esplanade road layout


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#1 suuusssiiieee

suuusssiiieee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 288 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 05:05 PM

This somewhat potty project far from improving safety will in my opinion do the exact opposite. I base this thought on observations seen by myself in the town centre.

 

The removal of the traffic lights in lieu of raised humps raises more questions than answers - Does traffic give way to pedestrians? Are they obliged to do so?

 

What happens when large groups of say cruise passengers face crossing the road? - Your going to get a snarl up of traffic as they are (hopefully) allowed to cross. 

 

The hump at the bottom of Church road will be an unfriendly help to large coaches or lorries aiming for some momentum in getting up the steep brae, emissions will no doubt increase in this area, you couldn't make it up.

 

Iv'e also seen cars actually move into the centre of the road to avoid the red speed bumps outside the Alexandra Buildings, and as for the red strips going across the road, well that just plain baffles me!

 

I sadly predict someone will get seriously injured or god for bid killed due to this idiotic scheme.


Edited by suuusssiiieee, 02 June 2017 - 05:06 PM.

  • Urabug and Wha wida tout like this

#2 Berserker

Berserker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 05:26 PM

Have to agree with you here. I've seen the same with cars and bikes driving in the middle of the road, one car went completely on the wrong side of the road presumably thinking the white triangles meant the ramp was only on his side, and i've seen a huge amount of cars drive on the pavement at the middle of Church road to avoid driving over the hump. This is right beside the disabled parking space.

 

What's with these red and brown swirls? I heard they're 'courtesy crossings'. never heard of those before so I googled it and all I can see is that they seem to lead to confusion. Pedestrians do not have right of way but they are there to aid finding a safe crossing point.

 

I understood they were going to install zebra crossings. I hope they are not going to put in a mix of the two where pedestrians have right of way at one type, but not at the other! That can only lead to confusion and accidents. Especially in a area often full of foreign tourists whose gut reaction is to look the wrong way for oncoming traffic. 

 

Sadly have to agree with your fear that this will lead to a higher accident rate.


  • suuusssiiieee and Wha wida tout like this

#3 Lerwick antiques

Lerwick antiques

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 01:18 AM

There are more problems now than before. Those coloured parts are going to cause trouble, they have made the road quite narrow at some places, so that will lead to accidents like mirrors being knocked. Zebra crossing, that's a ok idea, but what was wrong with the old crossings? could they no be bothered to fix them? I have stopped going by the esplanade, until it all gets sorted. Be interesting to hear the reports in the coming months.



#4 Kavi Ugl

Kavi Ugl

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1390 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 12:53 PM

I have to agree with all that's being said.

 

Previously, you just drove from A-B along Church Rd/The Esplanade but now it's a confusing mass of various bumps, chicanes and road markings.  

 

I agree 100% that it's now a driving hazard rather than a simple piece of road and I dread to think what it'll be like with 2000 cruise passengers in the area.

 

I also genuinely fear that it's going to lead to a serious accident   :(  


Edited by Kavi Ugl, 03 June 2017 - 01:01 PM.


#5 davie-L

davie-L

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 01:47 PM

Look a like our 'educated' and forward thinking council are a bit behind the times. There is a good chance they will have to remove them due to increased pollution!!

https://www.google.c...-pollution/amp/

#6 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 03:49 PM

Remember when roundabouts were confusing?  Other than the odd case of granny, handbag hanging from the choke, contra-flowing around the roundabout, most people have got to grips with them now.

 

<insert deity> help us if the SIC ever put in a yellow box junction

 

:razz:



#7 menkeeeaneahi

menkeeeaneahi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 04:54 PM

i have not witnessed these latest local government lego on the roads creations

 

i have no plans to either - there was nothing on the street not even a cheap hooker to tempt me there last i checked and installing an automotive obstacle course to get there can only contribute to hell freezing over first before i bother looking again

 

such a shame ex councillor wills no longer drives a renault 4 - shed have made him think he was riding a bucking bronco with their sponge suspension when doing no more than 5 mph over his pet creations

 

they could have saved thermselves all the expense and hassle anyway as theyll have naturally occuring calming measures on most roads in a few years anyway - all they need to do is just continue not spending on maintenance and repair like theyve not spent the last few years - then when the potholes come just not repair them - they calm traffic just fine



#8 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3722 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 05:15 PM

The thing is, I just don't see why they did this.  The Esplanade was hardly a rat-run.

 

If they wanted to build road humps, the best place would've been, imho, the road past the Clickmin which will soon have all the school children as well looking for a halfway decent chip shop rather than the canteen.



#9 Kavi Ugl

Kavi Ugl

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1390 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 05:24 PM

Well, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse it has.

 

They've plastered a heap of roads in Lerwick with that awful looking red covering and the parts I've seen are in the most pointless of places.

 

Harbour Street(of all places) has no less than two and it's even on the South Road at the old Baptist Church.

 

What was an authentic looking old town has been turned into an eyesore.

 

Words fail me....... 


Edited by Kavi Ugl, 03 June 2017 - 05:26 PM.

  • Wha wida tout likes this

#10 Ian_H

Ian_H

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 08:03 PM

The thing is, I just don't see why they did this.  The Esplanade was hardly a rat-run.

It was because people were regularly getting injured here. Apparently, an average of about 2 people per year had been injured along this section of road, according to police records, and that had been the case for the last umpteen years.

So the Council decided to do something where folk were actually being injured, rather than where they just might get injured.



#11 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3168 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 09:46 PM

2 people per year is hardly regular. And according to the SIC report they were minor. I travel along both the Esplanade and the Black Gaet just about every day. I have regularly passed smashed cars on the Black Gaet but I have once seen an accident on the Esplanade in all my years.



#12 Ian_H

Ian_H

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 07:58 AM

Okay, 2 per year isn’t a big number, but these are people injured, not just a bit of bent metalwork on a car. More accurately, the SIC report gave the numbers as 22 injury accidents in 14 years, so while that isn’t quite 2 per year, I cannot think of a word better than regular when it keeps repeating year after year after year.

 

More importantly, what is an acceptable number of people being injured for the Council to say fine, we will just ignore it? Out in other parts of Shetland it only needs to be “an accident waiting to happen” (i.e. no accidents have occurred) to bring on demands for million-pound road improvements.



#13 Windwalker

Windwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 10:38 AM

Several questions come to mind and it would be interesting to know:

How many of these accidents were caused by vehicles driving over 20 mph?
How many accident were caused by vehicles driving in or out of parking spaces?
How many accidents were caused by pedestrians crossing the road without looking?
How many accidents involved drink or drugs? Etc. Etc.

The reason I ask is that the "road improvements" with the exception of speed, will not solve these other issues. The alterations seems to be aimed at reducing the speed from 30 to 20 or under, so if your telling me that most of the 22 accidents were caused by drivers moving at over 20mph then I would agree the work was needed. Somehow I doubt this will be the case.

#14 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 11:29 AM

If they are handing out any accolades for "unnecessary work" this must rank very high,almost certain to win. 


  • waarigeo likes this

#15 suds

suds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 02:15 PM

A few 20mph road signs could of saved nearly 300k that could sort a few potholes!

Edited by suds, 04 June 2017 - 02:16 PM.


#16 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 03:34 PM

There was money from the EU that they simply had to have!  You can bet that if such money hadn't been available, the SIC wouldn't have done these 'improvements'.


Edited by Suffererof1crankymofo, 04 June 2017 - 03:35 PM.


#17 menkeeeaneahi

menkeeeaneahi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 04:32 PM

Okay, 2 per year isn’t a big number, but these are people injured, not just a bit of bent metalwork on a car. More accurately, the SIC report gave the numbers as 22 injury accidents in 14 years, so while that isn’t quite 2 per year, I cannot think of a word better than regular when it keeps repeating year after year after year.

 

More importantly, what is an acceptable number of people being injured for the Council to say fine, we will just ignore it? Out in other parts of Shetland it only needs to be “an accident waiting to happen” (i.e. no accidents have occurred) to bring on demands for million-pound road improvements.

 

how many of the 22 injury accidents in 14 years were the fault of a driver the fault of a pedestrian or the fault of the highway and associated facilities?

 

how will these current every other town thats anything have some so we need them too so called improvements assist in reducing the accident statistics - primarily on account of the only time anybody ever managed to go faster than these measures will slow traffic to could only manage it when there was nothing else to hit?

 

the stretch of road concerned almost certainly encompasses the highest ratio probably by some margin of traffic numbers/pedestrian numbers/pedestrian road crossers in shetland - iow its as congested as hell made doubly so by endless additions on silly little pointless kerbs and wavy pavements over the last 25 years a fact by default of which it is almost inevitably going to rank top of the accident table

 

there is an equal an opposite argument that it is an issue caused not by speed carelessness etc but one caused by sheer volume and rather than lessen it the slowing down any contributor is only going to exacerbate it and measures to speed up pass through times should be employed instead to decrease the volume involved at any given moment in time 

 

then the increasing of response times by emergency vehicles to incidents due to they having to negotiate these obstacles and in the case of ambulances the potential to exacerbate an onboard patients condition is a whole other debate in itself

 

as are the increases in pollution from vehicles taking longer to traverse the same distance and from more and harder acclelerations

 

Ian_H would you care to confirm that the opinions you have offered above are your personal ones only and not simply a case of echoing the party line regardless of your personal pov on account of current/previous professional involvement in the project



#18 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 06:12 PM

What gets me is that, despite widespread objection to the scheme, "they" still went ahead head with it.

 

I don't care how much money came from "outside" Shetland.  Just spending it "because they can" on an unnecessary scheme that no sensible person wanted is just "stupid".


  • waarigeo likes this

#19 menkeeeaneahi

menkeeeaneahi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 06:22 PM

^ havent you noticed that thats council policy across the board for senior employees

 

make up their minds ahead of time - trot out the same propaganda whenever an objection is raised regardless whether it comes from a member of the public or a councillor - and if that doesn't shut folk up just ignore/stonewall them and do it anyway



#20 Lerwick antiques

Lerwick antiques

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:55 AM

It's been nothing but trouble since they started working on the esplanade and church road. I could not even get into my shop one day for the road works. They think this is supposed to make things better or help folk.

 

What are they making better for who?

 

Does not seem to be the general public or road users.

 

Also it has had and still having a damaging effect on trade for the shops on Commercial street. 


  • Frances144 likes this