Changes planned at busy York junctions (From York Press)

City transport bosses plan to make changes at the Fishergate Gyratory, where a woman was killed five years ago

In 2007, 22-year-old Lucie Brabyn died after being struck by a taxi at the junction, leading to calls for safety upgades.

Thank God our council was up to speed on this one, who knows what could have happened if they hadn't acted so quickly? It's lucky for the dozens of people who've already walked to the Barbican centre in perfect safety since it re-opened that they've found this money now.

I sense a Water End fiasco approaching - have they paid the consultants yet for this one?

There already is a perfectly safe way to reach the Barbican by means of four light controlled crossings.How many more do we need?

Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

If people used that lane properly and allowed people to filter as apposed to somebody taking it upon themselves to blocking it and stopping any vehicle to use it, then it would work just fine.

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

maybe you should learn how to use a filter lane

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Are you one of those drivers who speed up to prevent other cars overtaking and merging. It's about time all drivers realise it's a 60MPH road and not 40!

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

My pick up's made by Ford and it is as equally capable of driving in a straight line in the right of two lanes as German made cars until the idiot in the left lane driving parallel to me and staring straight ahead is forced to give way as the highway code states just before they begin to drive on the grass verge.

These proposals have been kept minor and low-cost, but will hopefully provide some improvement to the accident rate in the interim period .”
I was not aware of any horrendous accident rate?
Its very unfortunate someone was killed in 2007 but was that the fault of the junction or a genuine accident
Sometimes accident happen regardless. i think something like 8 people a year are killed by their trousers [dont ask me how!!}but that does not mean we modify their design!!

meme says...
4:48pm Mon 12 Nov 12

I think something like 8 people a year are killed by their trousers (dont ask me how?) but that does not mean we modify their design!”

For God's sake don't give this council any more encouragement to spend money looking after our safety, before you know it despite cuts they'll have hundreds of yellow jacketed, clipboard wielding idiots walking the streets ensuring all of our legwear is of appropriate length and fits correctly with the power to fine us if it doesn't.

To be honest if they're interested in road safety, why would they spend £200k on Fishergate when they could round up all those tethered horses to the East of York which have been involved in several times the number of incidents, some near fatal since 2007 and sell them to recover the costs?

Fishergate/Merrett types won't be satisfied until the whole of the area between Castle Mills bridge and the army barracks is completely pedestrianised with cafe culture and cycle tracks etc.

Improved road markings in Exhibition Square would be useful - it's incredible how many people take the left hand lane before trying to turn across the junction into Gillygate, against oncoming traffic. Why do cyclists need even more space at the front of the queue in Bootham?

Surely the easist way of sorting St Leonards Place/Gillygate/Boot
ham junction is to stop all the bloody tourist buses that insist on bullying their way across to get from Exhibition Square to Gillygate

The phasing of the lights at the end of Walmgate where it meets Lawrence Street needs attention too, if the traffic turning right from Lawrence onto Foss Islands road has to slow down then anyone turning left onto Walmgate often meets traffic coming head on from the just-turned-green signal on Walmgate

I have no confidence in what Janet Looker has to say any more . What a mess she made of the Credit Union Bank .
She should resign .

surely this is a backward step could they not extend pedestrianisation and add a park and ride or two

I think it would be safer at the Bootham junction if the double length park and ride buses didn't go through an amber/red light from Duncombe Place into Bootham, making it necessary for pedestrians crossing on the green man across Bootham to jump back onto the pavement.
Also the green man timing at Gillygate is far too short to enable safe passage.

From what I remember of the accident in 2007, it was late at night and the taxi was turning into Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford Road when he hit a pedestian who was stood in the middle of the road near the City Arms. The pedestian was inebriated.
The road layout had nothing to do with the accident.

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Spending anything on the ORR is way beyond CoYC Council Tax income, and would require significant Govt. grants.

And to Brabus says, I say..I often see buses waiting to depart from roadside stops. Like many other courteous road users, I offer them right of way where possible, because they use road space far more efficiently.

No comments on the Fulford Road cyclist crash victim?

I hope these 'improvements' are better thought out!!

angryofyork says:
I think it would be safer at the Bootham junction if the double length park and ride buses didn't go through an amber/red light from Duncombe Place into Bootham,

That's impossible. Exhibition Square and St Leonard's are in the way :D

Aside from that slip you are spot on.

The park n ride bendy buses also cause issues when cyclists set off from the lights on Bootham and cars passing the cyclists meet that mahusive bendy bus taking its extra wide swing to get round.

Many a near miss/dodgy moment.

pedalling paul wrote:
And to Brabus says, I say..I often see buses waiting to depart from roadside stops. Like many other courteous road users, I offer them right of way where possible, because they use road space far more efficiently.

The often empty open-top not for transport but for jollies tour buses do not in any way use road space more efficiently.

I too like to be courteous and offer buses right of way, however I don't often get the chance there because as Brabus says they *bully their way across*

Are there no depths to which this shower will sink to?
Using the death os this poor girl as a reason to inflict another of their traffic "calming" measures is disgraceful.

Gillygate and Bootham runs best when the lights go out. Cars move better and pedestrians cross safely because the cars are slow moving and give way to pedestrians.

ouseswimmer wrote:
Gillygate and Bootham runs best when the lights go out. Cars move better and pedestrians cross safely because the cars are slow moving and give way to pedestrians.

I agree completely with this.
But sadly this will never happen, as motorists we have had all our decision making abilities legislated away from us over the last few years.

meme wrote:
These proposals have been kept minor and low-cost, but will hopefully provide some improvement to the accident rate in the interim period .”
I was not aware of any horrendous accident rate?
Its very unfortunate someone was killed in 2007 but was that the fault of the junction or a genuine accident
Sometimes accident happen regardless. i think something like 8 people a year are killed by their trousers

This smacks of impending doom.. drunken evening/brewery.

I know I'm probably bashing these keys for no good reason.. but before the council go ahead and waste even more of our money on ill thought out ideas why don't they consult the people that spend all day every day driving the city's roads. Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association.. but of course, as we all know the problem with taking the common sense approach is that common sense isn't really that common any more.

Mullarkian wrote:
From what I remember of the accident in 2007, it was late at night and the taxi was turning into Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford Road when he hit a pedestian who was stood in the middle of the road near the City Arms. The pedestian was inebriated. The road layout had nothing to do with the accident.

You are completely wrong, the taxi driver was found guilty of careless driving and Lucy was not a drunken lout crossing the road, she had had one half of lager that night.
It is an awful crossing at times. Yes there are some lights to cross, but it is sometimes the fact that we are used to crossing safely in one place so often that we become complacent.
Please don't try to blame it on the pedestrian when you weren't there.

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

sheps lad wrote:
There already is a perfectly safe way to reach the Barbican by means of four light controlled crossings.How many more do we need?

I agree...and they(pedestrians) don't use it correctly!

Mullarkian wrote:
From what I remember of the accident in 2007, it was late at night and the taxi was turning into Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford Road when he hit a pedestian who was stood in the middle of the road near the City Arms. The pedestian was inebriated.
The road layout had nothing to do with the accident.

correct

ouseswimmer wrote:
Gillygate and Bootham runs best when the lights go out. Cars move better and pedestrians cross safely because the cars are slow moving and give way to pedestrians.

What a load of twaddle. You are merely trying to justify the removal of traffic signals so that your private car journeys are less restricted. I'm surprised that you didn't also come up with the other hoary old chestnut viz. "slow moving traffic causes more pollution"
Try crossing the road as a pedestrian against the "flowing" traffic that exists in your utopia, and see how far you get before being squished.

yorkborn66 wrote:

Mullarkian wrote:
From what I remember of the accident in 2007, it was late at night and the taxi was turning into Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford Road when he hit a pedestian who was stood in the middle of the road near the City Arms. The pedestian was inebriated.
The road layout had nothing to do with the accident.

correct

Not correct as my last post ,made in error

Yet again the 'it's everyone's fault but ours' attitude from the poor suffering motorists, who find that sadly they have to share 'their' roads with other people occasionally and make allowances. What's the matter with you lot, don't you ever walk anywhere? The Fishergate gyratory is a complete mess: it serves nobody well, with pedestrians very much at the bottom of the heap. Just try crossing the roads there: nothing but badly-placed and insufficient crossings and motorists who are incapable of merging, changing lanes or managing their speeds effectively. If something is being done about it at last, that's good! If that something is annoying motorists, that's almost certainly better!

As for trying to score points over a tragic accident in which a young woman was killed, shame on you.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

Seems reasonable to me, what are your reasons to make that statement then Buzz?

P3TER1 wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Are you one of those drivers who speed up to prevent other cars overtaking and merging. It's about time all drivers realise it's a 60MPH road and not 40!

I think you need to look again at the speed limits at the roundabouts again P3TER1, because the approaches and exits are not 60 mph that's for sure. The problem at Rawcliffe roundabout is that drivers interpret the lanes, and for that matter the Highway Code in different ways. Negotiating the roundabout whislt crossing for the A19 is a nightmare with the lane confusion!!

Brabus wrote:
Surely the easist way of sorting St Leonards Place/Gillygate/Boot

ham junction is to stop all the bloody tourist buses that insist on bullying their way across to get from Exhibition Square to Gillygate

I agree Barabus. I also suggested long ago, whilst in the employ of CYC, that there should be a sign in Union Terrace CP, directing the hoards of caterpillar tourists into the city via Lord Mayor's Walk, rather than down Gillygate on the left hand side, which results in pedestrian suicide at the lights at the Bootham Junction.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

OMG ! I will have nightmares now thinking that my life on the roads might be influenced anymore than it is now by taxi drivers! I must remember this the next time I see the row of taxis double parked outside Clifton Bingo at 9-00 pm

Well seems the strike is working as this website has so little news, no letters published.

Once upon a time we had a solid white line on the bend of the Fawcett street and the Fishergate loop, opposite the Mecca bingo. The solid white line is not to be crossed over as per the Highway Code.
The right lane of the loop is for traffic using the loop for example coming from Paragon Street or Kent Street wishing to use the loop to go back along Paragon Street, likewise traffic merging from Fishergate Fulford direction travelling onto Paragon Street. NOT for all forms of transport using the right lane as a speed track to try and overtake someone on the bend and cut across them. You know who you are!
Put back the single solid white line on that bend and a camera to catch these idiots please city of York Council.
If I remember correctly the lady in question died after stepping from the pavement on the corner of Paragon Street and Fawcett Street after I think dinning in the restaurant on that corner. A barrier on that corner to stop pedestrians crossing at that point and a road barrier on that bend to protect pedestrians would be allot better. If I have got this wrong regarding the lady, I do apologize, but it would protect pedestrians.
City of York council, please stop spending our money on unnecessary schemes, when you plead poverty and put up our council tax against Government policy.

yorkborn66 wrote:
Once upon a time we had a solid white line on the bend of the Fawcett street and the Fishergate loop, opposite the Mecca bingo. The solid white line is not to be crossed over as per the Highway Code. The right lane of the loop is for traffic using the loop for example coming from Paragon Street or Kent Street wishing to use the loop to go back along Paragon Street, likewise traffic merging from Fishergate Fulford direction travelling onto Paragon Street. NOT for all forms of transport using the right lane as a speed track to try and overtake someone on the bend and cut across them. You know who you are! Put back the single solid white line on that bend and a camera to catch these idiots please city of York Council. If I remember correctly the lady in question died after stepping from the pavement on the corner of Paragon Street and Fawcett Street after I think dinning in the restaurant on that corner. A barrier on that corner to stop pedestrians crossing at that point and a road barrier on that bend to protect pedestrians would be allot better. If I have got this wrong regarding the lady, I do apologize, but it would protect pedestrians. City of York council, please stop spending our money on unnecessary schemes, when you plead poverty and put up our council tax against Government policy.

Actually two solid white lines with a coloured section (green?) inbetween to keep cars well apart. The white lines have worn away and, despite requests, not been re-painted.

yorkborn66 wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

Seems reasonable to me, what are your reasons to make that statement then Buzz?

Any organisation whose members unilaterlly decide they can double park in the middle of the road when ever and where ever they like can, I would suggest, hardly hold themselves out as the most suitable.

The lights between Lawrence Street and Foss islands are an accident waiting to happen. Traffic is encouraged to go forward (from the Hull Road towards central York direction), but cannot cross because traffic is still flowing away from town. Then (instead of the separate go right signal as you expect) traffic is opened up in the opposite direction. However they (the cars going right from Foss Islands) can't pass because of cars who haven't cleared. Has the person who designed this junction actually looked at it?

The key problem with the Bootham junction is the fact it is staggered in quite a severe way. There would not be anywhere near as much trouble if Gillygate and St Lenoards Place were directly opposite each other.

Here's the current problems: pedestrians run across on a red man and nearly get taken out by a number 1 bus coming from the city, then other pedestrians run across on a red man and nearly get taken out by cars setting off on a green man from gillygate, then as the traffic from gillygate is coming round into St Lenoards there are more suicide pedestrians crossing on a red man signal. The railings on the corner of gillygate create a pig pen effect whilst the outcrop of the buildings make a tight bottleneck when there's any more than 6 people waiting to cross gillygate. Traffic from bootham can only turn right at first because of pedestrians waiting to cross the top of gillygate, and that's the only time a green man shows for them, and so if the lead vehicle on bootham is waiting to turn left it delays everybody else, and when the all-green light does show on bootham it is only on for about 8 seconds. Problems are then compouned when you have vehicles waiting/loading directly outside bootham bar.

A partial solution I had would be to get rid of the pedestrian crossing at the top of gillygate and replace it with a signallised one a bit further down the road, one that is sequenced with the junction so it only goes red for traffic at the instant the light for traffic exiting gillygate gets a red - and that way you've got at least 15 seconds for people to cross it before turning traffic from bootham has backed up to the junction... and because it'd be an 'old school' signallised crossing and not a work-of-the-devil 'puffin' crossing, it'd only be on green man for a set period of time and not be extended because somebody can't work out what a red man means and runs out in the road hoping the traffic will wait a bit longer.
This would get rid of the need for a filter for traffic leaving bootham and so would reduce congestion there by about 20-30% over a period of 20 minutes.

Also whilst we're at it, since cyclists are now allowed to cycle through bootham bar and into the firsts ection of Petergate, as is directed by the CTC signage on the junction, I'd revise the VMS sign at bootham bar so it is amended to only prohibit motor vehicles.

yorkborn66 wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

Seems reasonable to me, what are your reasons to make that statement then Buzz?

Y'know now you mention it it's just as reasonable as asking the Catholic church to be in charge of Islam and Buddhism or asking Starbucks to be in charge of city retail planning.
What was I thinking?

Gillygate needs sorting out at both ends
the left turn from Lord Mayor's Walk should be scraped with the number of cars that push there way through in to the yellow box then wind up holding up traffic in Clarence Street
Lights at Bootham need to have the strait on and left turn as it gives no real benefit as soon as a car wants to turn left the traffic comes to a stop till the filter comes on

bearsticks wrote:

P3TER1 wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Are you one of those drivers who speed up to prevent other cars overtaking and merging. It's about time all drivers realise it's a 60MPH road and not 40!

I think you need to look again at the speed limits at the roundabouts again P3TER1, because the approaches and exits are not 60 mph that's for sure. The problem at Rawcliffe roundabout is that drivers interpret the lanes, and for that matter the Highway Code in different ways. Negotiating the roundabout whislt crossing for the A19 is a nightmare with the lane confusion!!

"..because the approaches and exits are not 60 mph that's for sure. "

But they are!!!

I would have thort the railway station is the worst place in york to enter or depart ,everyone who has used the departure says how dangerous it is both for cars, taxis, busses and pedestrians, but no one seems interested in making this place safe

Sage9 wrote:

yorkborn66 wrote:
Once upon a time we had a solid white line on the bend of the Fawcett street and the Fishergate loop, opposite the Mecca bingo. The solid white line is not to be crossed over as per the Highway Code. The right lane of the loop is for traffic using the loop for example coming from Paragon Street or Kent Street wishing to use the loop to go back along Paragon Street, likewise traffic merging from Fishergate Fulford direction travelling onto Paragon Street. NOT for all forms of transport using the right lane as a speed track to try and overtake someone on the bend and cut across them. You know who you are! Put back the single solid white line on that bend and a camera to catch these idiots please city of York Council. If I remember correctly the lady in question died after stepping from the pavement on the corner of Paragon Street and Fawcett Street after I think dinning in the restaurant on that corner. A barrier on that corner to stop pedestrians crossing at that point and a road barrier on that bend to protect pedestrians would be allot better. If I have got this wrong regarding the lady, I do apologize, but it would protect pedestrians. City of York council, please stop spending our money on unnecessary schemes, when you plead poverty and put up our council tax against Government policy.

Actually two solid white lines with a coloured section (green?) inbetween to keep cars well apart. The white lines have worn away and, despite requests, not been re-painted.

thanks Saga9 , I did mean 2 solid white lines , but wrote it wrong

this is a joke.the fulford rd,fishergate area already gets gridlocked so why can t this pathetic council see that it is caused by pedestrian crossings and traffic lights.of course they are only interested in visitors to the barbican and cyclists.

heworth.28 wrote:
The phasing of the lights at the end of Walmgate where it meets Lawrence Street needs attention too, if the traffic turning right from Lawrence onto Foss Islands road has to slow down then anyone turning left onto Walmgate often meets traffic coming head on from the just-turned-green signal on Walmgate

I've noticed this, it's the same at Micklegate Bar. I actually contacted the council about both junctions because the timing isn't very good at all, 2 months later I got an e-mail saying it looks fine to me!
If you're turning right onto Nunnery Lane and the traffic is slow you often get cyclists coming at you from Nunnery Lane as they tend to go as soon as the light is on amber.

P3TER1 wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Are you one of those drivers who speed up to prevent other cars overtaking and merging. It's about time all drivers realise it's a 60MPH road and not 40!

There's filtering then there's flying past queuing traffic to push in just because you think you have a divine right.

The day BMW and Audi drivers start indicating, stop tailgating and generally driving in an anti social manner is the day I let them nip in to my braking space on a two lane filter roundabout.

Magicman! wrote:
The key problem with the Bootham junction is the fact it is staggered in quite a severe way. There would not be anywhere near as much trouble if Gillygate and St Lenoards Place were directly opposite each other.

Here's the current problems: pedestrians run across on a red man and nearly get taken out by a number 1 bus coming from the city, then other pedestrians run across on a red man and nearly get taken out by cars setting off on a green man from gillygate, then as the traffic from gillygate is coming round into St Lenoards there are more suicide pedestrians crossing on a red man signal. The railings on the corner of gillygate create a pig pen effect whilst the outcrop of the buildings make a tight bottleneck when there's any more than 6 people waiting to cross gillygate. Traffic from bootham can only turn right at first because of pedestrians waiting to cross the top of gillygate, and that's the only time a green man shows for them, and so if the lead vehicle on bootham is waiting to turn left it delays everybody else, and when the all-green light does show on bootham it is only on for about 8 seconds. Problems are then compouned when you have vehicles waiting/loading directly outside bootham bar.

A partial solution I had would be to get rid of the pedestrian crossing at the top of gillygate and replace it with a signallised one a bit further down the road, one that is sequenced with the junction so it only goes red for traffic at the instant the light for traffic exiting gillygate gets a red - and that way you've got at least 15 seconds for people to cross it before turning traffic from bootham has backed up to the junction... and because it'd be an 'old school' signallised crossing and not a work-of-the-devil 'puffin' crossing, it'd only be on green man for a set period of time and not be extended because somebody can't work out what a red man means and runs out in the road hoping the traffic will wait a bit longer.
This would get rid of the need for a filter for traffic leaving bootham and so would reduce congestion there by about 20-30% over a period of 20 minutes.

Also whilst we're at it, since cyclists are now allowed to cycle through bootham bar and into the firsts ection of Petergate, as is directed by the CTC signage on the junction, I'd revise the VMS sign at bootham bar so it is amended to only prohibit motor vehicles.

You are not quite correct in respect of cycle access via High Petergate.
CoYC agreed to a trial relaxation of the daytime cycle ban, to test current DfT advice on shared use. However the Traffic Order to permit this has yet to be actioned. Someone is keeping their cards close to their chest, as to the reason for this delay.

The "CTC signage" that you refer to is in fact Sustrans National Cycle Route signage, as High Petergate and Deangate both form part of their "Way of the Roses" route from Morecambe to Bridlington. wayoftheroses.co.uk
Touring cyclists who use this route bring a useful income into the area. While they can pedal along Deangate during the day, they must for the moment wheel their luggage laden bikes along the above section of High Petergate.

Tom6187 wrote:

P3TER1 wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Are you one of those drivers who speed up to prevent other cars overtaking and merging. It's about time all drivers realise it's a 60MPH road and not 40!

There's filtering then there's flying past queuing traffic to push in just because you think you have a divine right.

The day BMW and Audi drivers start indicating, stop tailgating and generally driving in an anti social manner is the day I let them nip in to my braking space on a two lane filter roundabout.

All you're doing is showing that you don't understand how a filter lane works or the fact that overtaking in this lane is permissible!

Buzz Light-year wrote:

yorkborn66 wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

Seems reasonable to me, what are your reasons to make that statement then Buzz?

Y'know now you mention it it's just as reasonable as asking the Catholic church to be in charge of Islam and Buddhism or asking Starbucks to be in charge of city retail planning.
What was I thinking?

Well thank you for your unifying theory on life, the universe and everything Buzz. Perhaps, rather than being quite so objectionable you could come up with a better idea on how the council could liaise with the motorist before spending OUR money - or perhaps you thought the Water End saga was an outright roaring success?

Never have I seen so much drivel and inconsequential rubbish as posted in these comments.

There's a world out there...with millions starving... financial crises...etc and the above topic is a BIG issue?

Please, for your own sanity, get a life!!!

yawn.. wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

yorkborn66 wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

Seems reasonable to me, what are your reasons to make that statement then Buzz?

Y'know now you mention it it's just as reasonable as asking the Catholic church to be in charge of Islam and Buddhism or asking Starbucks to be in charge of city retail planning. What was I thinking?

Well thank you for your unifying theory on life, the universe and everything Buzz. Perhaps, rather than being quite so objectionable you could come up with a better idea on how the council could liaise with the motorist before spending OUR money - or perhaps you thought the Water End saga was an outright roaring success?

When you've quite finished, I'm not being objectionable at all. Not as much as you anyway. Water End is nowt to do with this.

City transport is important to a wide variety of users.
Pedestrians.
Cyclists.
Private car users.
Delivery companies.
Bus companies.
Taxi companies.
Emergency services.
Tourists and visitors.
Tradesmen and women with tools to carry.
Refuse vehicles and other municipal vehicles.
I'm bored of the list now.

Why on earth would anyone think that just one of those vested interests (taxi association) would hold a fair and balanced view that would benefit all parties?

Like I say. Laughable.

retribution wrote:
Never have I seen so much drivel and inconsequential rubbish as posted in these comments. There's a world out there...with millions starving... financial crises...etc and the above topic is a BIG issue? Please, for your own sanity, get a life!!!

Interesting comment. Given the content of your posting, and the substance of this newspaper on a day to day basis, I'm surprised you have read the article, let alone wasted time posting a comment on it. Go back to saving the world - us insane people will just deal with the mundance, non-important things that effect our day to day lives.

Oops, should read "mundane" in my last posting!

As an aside, does anyone know the purpose of all the scribble in the kaleidoscope of colours which has appeared on the road and footpath, a little further up Bootham than the junction this story covers, at the junction of St Mary's/Bootham Park Hospital with Bootham? The scribble appears to mark out all the services underneath and is usually indicative of impending road works of some sort or other?

Any answers happily rec'd!!!

There were a couple of comments at the start of this topic discussion about the extra lane on the York outer ring road not being used properly.

That was a waste of money because cars cannot flow any more freely over the bridges due to the roundabout at the end of Boroughbridge Road / A59 causing the traffic bottleneck.

sonorbloke wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:

P3TER1 wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
Try concentrating on that god awful outer ring road. It is still the biggest problem road in York, in fact it's worse since the council added the BMW and Audi pushing in lanes near Rawcliffe.

Are you one of those drivers who speed up to prevent other cars overtaking and merging. It's about time all drivers realise it's a 60MPH road and not 40!

There's filtering then there's flying past queuing traffic to push in just because you think you have a divine right.

The day BMW and Audi drivers start indicating, stop tailgating and generally driving in an anti social manner is the day I let them nip in to my braking space on a two lane filter roundabout.

All you're doing is showing that you don't understand how a filter lane works or the fact that overtaking in this lane is permissible!

No, all I'm doing is annoying impatient pushy drivers which is something I go out of my to do on a regular basis and I enjoy it. I love a good speed up slow down game with a tailgating Audi or BMW idiot, as soon as they get too close to my rear end (which lets face it is virtually every time) I slow to a virtual stop and then speed up again when they attempt to overtake, I suggest other people try it, it's very satisfying.

If our beloved council installed junction infringement cameras and charged every offender £30 we could all stop paying council tax.

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:

ouseswimmer wrote:
Gillygate and Bootham runs best when the lights go out. Cars move better and pedestrians cross safely because the cars are slow moving and give way to pedestrians.

I agree completely with this.
But sadly this will never happen, as motorists we have had all our decision making abilities legislated away from us over the last few years.

Another vote for ouseswimmer here. The lights cause frustration and lead to impatience and red light-jumping. Make people have to think for themselves and use judgement and courtesy and generally, they do.

Interesting that this news comes on the same day as an article about the recovery of a cyclist nearly killed soon after the completion of another major City council road scheme. The Fulford Road scheme which cost hundreds of thousands of pounds was appallingly planned like many other road schemes in York. Is the competence of those involved ever questioned by councilors ? . Unfortunately we will probably get another Fulford Road, Clifton Green or Hopgrove Roundabout debacle all over again

Buzz Light-year wrote:

yawn.. wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

yorkborn66 wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Two organisations exist within York who understand the problems faced by road users better than any self proclaimed council expert or planner, and they are York taxi association and York private hire association..

One of the most laughable things I've ever read on this website.

Seems reasonable to me, what are your reasons to make that statement then Buzz?

Y'know now you mention it it's just as reasonable as asking the Catholic church to be in charge of Islam and Buddhism or asking Starbucks to be in charge of city retail planning. What was I thinking?

Well thank you for your unifying theory on life, the universe and everything Buzz. Perhaps, rather than being quite so objectionable you could come up with a better idea on how the council could liaise with the motorist before spending OUR money - or perhaps you thought the Water End saga was an outright roaring success?

When you've quite finished, I'm not being objectionable at all. Not as much as you anyway. Water End is nowt to do with this.

City transport is important to a wide variety of users.
Pedestrians.
Cyclists.
Private car users.
Delivery companies.
Bus companies.
Taxi companies.
Emergency services.
Tourists and visitors.
Tradesmen and women with tools to carry.
Refuse vehicles and other municipal vehicles.
I'm bored of the list now.

Why on earth would anyone think that just one of those vested interests (taxi association) would hold a fair and balanced view that would benefit all parties?

Like I say. Laughable.

Buzz..

I usually quite enjoy your comments here in the press, but fear this time you have mistaken objective for objectionable. The former is something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish, in my case suggesting that the City of York Council could do worse than speak to people who spend 8 - 10 hrs a day DRIVING the streets of York. The latter is causing or tending to cause an objection, disapproval, or protest, which, forgive me if I'm wrong, I fail to see where precisely you feel I could stand accused.

Why bring up Water End? True it has no bearing on junctions in question, but it is a shining example of how a council can waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of OUR money if they act without thinking of the consequences of their actions. Similarly too there was the Fulford bus lane, a wonderful feat of civil engineering that back in May 2010 led to the serious injury of a 40 year old female cyclist (who fortunately and eventually went on to make a full recovery). Then of course I would defy anyone who actually uses the railway station at certain times of the day to say the 'improvement' there was anything but a complete disaster. Here we find traffic turning out of tea room square taking commuters from the station to their destination have to navigate through 3 zebra crossings within the space of what, 30 yards?, not only that, when they're eventually ready to turn out into the main stream of traffic they need to have x-ray eyes to see through the articulated bus parked in the middle of the road with its lights on high beam.! Clearly only someone who's ever seen York on a map could have been responsible for this catastrophic error, and mark my words, if not addressed it's only a matter of time until there's a fatality there.

As you so rightly point out, our city is used by a great number of people going about their daily business.

Pedestrians.
Cyclists.
Private car users.
Delivery companies.
Bus companies.
Taxi companies.
Emergency services.
Tourists and visitors.
Tradesmen and women with tools to carry.
Refuse vehicles and other municipal vehicles.

Surprisingly enough I'm not entirely blinkered to this.

What makes me think that PERHAPS above Delivery and Bus companies as well as even Emergency vehicles, a taxi association would be better qualified to understand the roads of York is because its members spend more time on a much wider variety of routes around the city than perhaps a bus driver, and certainly 3 or 4 times longer on the road per day than the majority of normal commuters.

Now of course it would be easy to yank the old 'idiot/lunatic cab driver' iron out of the fire at this stage, and true enough there are SOME deplorable examples of driving perpetrated by people who simply should not be licensed to carry the general public, but to make such a broad and sweeping generalisation that all these professional drivers are in some way psychologically unbalanced and incapable of independent thought would be the same as saying all people who comment on these websites are drooling imbeciles.. simply and clearly not so. Among their number (over 1000), there are Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), driving instructors and members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, people who take their position in the community very seriously. If you're stuck in rush hour traffic waiting to turn into a stream of slow moving traffic it will generally be a taxi or bus driver that will let you pull out.. why, because he/she understands that you gain absolutely NOTHING from sucking up to the exhaust pipe in front - and it helps to keep ALL the traffic moving.

It may be a shot in the dark, but before the council make any more hasty decisions regarding the finite amount of road space available they could at least say.. 'here is a PROPOSAL put forward by Yorks Taxi/Private Hire Association', and people could make up their own minds.?

Respect, live long and prosper, and above all.. to infinity and beyond.. :)

Re Fulford Road, there are zillions of situations around the UK where right turning drivers or cyclists must cross two opposite lanes.
Both lanes might be general purpose. Or as on Fulford Rd, one might be general purpose and one for buses.
Or the second lane might be an advisory one for cyclists.
Whatever the combination, the same rule applies to right turners. Satisfy yourself that BOTH lanes are clear. If someone courteously waves you across one lane, don't assume that the second one is also clear. Continue to turn right with caution and check the second lane for yourself BEFORE crossing it. Fundemental....!
The safety issue has simply been hijacked by opponents of bus priority measures, who want to bury their heads in the sand and believe that gridlock will never come to York.
Without more priority for sustainable alternatives, gridlock will happen!

Paul, with all due respect and with the greatest of wishes to keep the roads safe for the vulnerable road users such as cyclists that operate within the confines/requirement
s of the law, indeed even those who don't seem to need lights on these dark winter nights - with reference to Fulford Road - to take a direct quote from Fishergate councillor Andy D’Agorne in 'the press' on Wednesday 27th October 2010 “Safety has to come first, especially when you are talking about vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists.

“The feeling is that the expected benefits of the bus lane are not sufficiently great as to outweigh safety concerns, and I believe the current situation is unsafe for cyclists, as well as for those who are not familiar with the road layout".

Indeed further to this it could be argued that there should NEVER have been a safety concern to be outweighed.!

At 7:11 this morning on the Press website the 'live traffic' section reported 5 incidents. Four of these were "Traffic moving well".

So there we have it - 'Traffic moving well' is now considered to be an incident!!

pedalling paul wrote:

Magicman! wrote:
The key problem with the Bootham junction is the fact it is staggered in quite a severe way. There would not be anywhere near as much trouble if Gillygate and St Lenoards Place were directly opposite each other.

Here's the current problems: pedestrians run across on a red man and nearly get taken out by a number 1 bus coming from the city, then other pedestrians run across on a red man and nearly get taken out by cars setting off on a green man from gillygate, then as the traffic from gillygate is coming round into St Lenoards there are more suicide pedestrians crossing on a red man signal. The railings on the corner of gillygate create a pig pen effect whilst the outcrop of the buildings make a tight bottleneck when there's any more than 6 people waiting to cross gillygate. Traffic from bootham can only turn right at first because of pedestrians waiting to cross the top of gillygate, and that's the only time a green man shows for them, and so if the lead vehicle on bootham is waiting to turn left it delays everybody else, and when the all-green light does show on bootham it is only on for about 8 seconds. Problems are then compouned when you have vehicles waiting/loading directly outside bootham bar.

A partial solution I had would be to get rid of the pedestrian crossing at the top of gillygate and replace it with a signallised one a bit further down the road, one that is sequenced with the junction so it only goes red for traffic at the instant the light for traffic exiting gillygate gets a red - and that way you've got at least 15 seconds for people to cross it before turning traffic from bootham has backed up to the junction... and because it'd be an 'old school' signallised crossing and not a work-of-the-devil 'puffin' crossing, it'd only be on green man for a set period of time and not be extended because somebody can't work out what a red man means and runs out in the road hoping the traffic will wait a bit longer.
This would get rid of the need for a filter for traffic leaving bootham and so would reduce congestion there by about 20-30% over a period of 20 minutes.

Also whilst we're at it, since cyclists are now allowed to cycle through bootham bar and into the firsts ection of Petergate, as is directed by the CTC signage on the junction, I'd revise the VMS sign at bootham bar so it is amended to only prohibit motor vehicles.

You are not quite correct in respect of cycle access via High Petergate.
CoYC agreed to a trial relaxation of the daytime cycle ban, to test current DfT advice on shared use. However the Traffic Order to permit this has yet to be actioned. Someone is keeping their cards close to their chest, as to the reason for this delay.

The "CTC signage" that you refer to is in fact Sustrans National Cycle Route signage, as High Petergate and Deangate both form part of their "Way of the Roses" route from Morecambe to Bridlington. wayoftheroses.co.uk
Touring cyclists who use this route bring a useful income into the area. While they can pedal along Deangate during the day, they must for the moment wheel their luggage laden bikes along the above section of High Petergate.

... Well then it's not a cycle route is it! If a cyclist has to dismount and walk along High Petergate then they have changed transport mode from 'cyclist' to 'pedestrian' and so the Sustrans signage is incorrect and should either be removed or amended - as currently it is confusing and will be leading to people cycling along High Petergate when they're not supposed to; essentially it's promoting cyclists riding illegally.

I cross the roads at Paragon Street and Fawcett daily and through awareness of oncoming traffic by using my eyes and correct usage of the pedestrian buttons, have managed to cross the road/s safely. Why do YCC feel the need to waste money on this project? Absolutely ridiculous!!

Mullarkian wrote:
From what I remember of the accident in 2007, it was late at night and the taxi was turning into Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford Road when he hit a pedestian who was stood in the middle of the road near the City Arms. The pedestian was inebriated. The road layout had nothing to do with the accident.

While I agree that one accident is not necessarily a good reason for changing the layout, it's unnecessary to be untruthful about the circumstances of her death. It was a dreadful accident and difficult for all involved to deal with but the coroner's report showed clearly that she was not inebriated nor was there any suggestion throughout any of the hearings that she was standing in the middle of the road.