Hare-brained safety 'improvement' scheme results in tragedy

[V8 Fettler]

Type R Tom said:

V8 Fettler said:

Engage with the Highways Agency and LA re: existing roads? I do, but it's an uphill struggle. The concept of contacting HA or LA is flawed, should be one contact point for the punter who pays for it all (me!). IME, HA and LA do not always accept there are safety-related maintenance issues unless photos issued, which is difficult when driving. Had some success with LA when emails copied to LA CEO. Also HA and LA have fundamentally flawed approaches to communicating eg they typically don't reply in a reasonable time frame. I could go on ...

V8 Fettler said:

a punter who pays for it all and then suffers the endless delays due to incompetence at all stages from initial design until year dot.

Can't for the life of me think why you can't get anywhere with the local Highway department

I must admit that I expect the same customer service standards as I offer to my clients. The difference being that my clients (that's the people who pay me) can sack me, that generally concentrates the mind and ensures that issues are resolved quickly. Do I therefore need to lower my expectations of customer service when dealing with the HA and LA because I can't sack them?

[Type R Tom]

V8 Fettler said:

I must admit that I expect the same customer service standards as I offer to my clients. The difference being that my clients (that's the people who pay me) can sack me, that generally concentrates the mind and ensures that issues are resolved quickly. Do I therefore need to lower my expectations of customer service when dealing with the HA and LA because I can't sack them?

And if said clients called you incompetent and claimed to know more about the product / service etc. than you just because they are paying you how would you react? I assume doff your cap followed by “yes sir, no sir” and not stand up for what you believe to be right?

You are dealing with fellow humans, when I receive ranting correspondents full of hearsay, factual inaccuracies, terrible language (both written and on the phone) and accusations it can be hard to maintain this high level of customer services that you expect. Lay out a structured argument and you’ll get an appropriate response, my point being mate, based on some of the post here you come across as a rather rude pub expert and it doesn’t surprise me if you’ve struggled if your correspondents are anything like the above.

[V8 Fettler]

Type R Tom said:

V8 Fettler said:

I must admit that I expect the same customer service standards as I offer to my clients. The difference being that my clients (that's the people who pay me) can sack me, that generally concentrates the mind and ensures that issues are resolved quickly. Do I therefore need to lower my expectations of customer service when dealing with the HA and LA because I can't sack them?

And if said clients called you incompetent and claimed to know more about the product / service etc. than you just because they are paying you how would you react? I assume doff your cap followed by “yes sir, no sir” and not stand up for what you believe to be right?

You are dealing with fellow humans, when I receive ranting correspondents full of hearsay, factual inaccuracies, terrible language (both written and on the phone) and accusations it can be hard to maintain this high level of customer services that you expect. Lay out a structured argument and you’ll get an appropriate response, my point being mate, based on some of the post here you come across as a rather rude pub expert and it doesn’t surprise me if you’ve struggled if your correspondents are anything like the above.

I expect a product/service that I pay for to work efficiently and effectively first time, is that too much to expect? If a client called me incompetent then there's clearly a management issue on my side; relationships with a client should never reach that stage, good communications as issues arise being important. If I had to doff my cap and "yes sir, no sir" to retain a client then that would probably happen, how else do you maintain an income flow? Unless your income doesn't rely on clients of course,

Which part of the endless widening works of the M25 since construction is "right"? Northern 4 lane section has just opened, this must be the first time in at least 10 years that the Dartford to Heathrow section section hasn't had long term road works in place or imminent.

Why do you receive ranting correspondence? Can you not prevent issues reaching that stage by actively managing processes to meet the client's requirements? Most client ranting occurs when the contractor/supplier has a communication issue eg doesn't reply to emails swiftly. Good management can turn client ranting into an opportunity, maybe you could try that.

Rude? Why? Merely highlighting issues and responding to comments, why would you have a problem with that?

[Type R Tom]

V8 Fettler said:

I expect a product/service that I pay for to work efficiently and effectively first time, is that too much to expect? If a client called me incompetent then there's clearly a management issue on my side; relationships with a client should never reach that stage, good communications as issues arise being important. If I had to doff my cap and "yes sir, no sir" to retain a client then that would probably happen, how else do you maintain an income flow? Unless your income doesn't rely on clients of course,

Which part of the endless widening works of the M25 since construction is "right"? Northern 4 lane section has just opened, this must be the first time in at least 10 years that the Dartford to Heathrow section section hasn't had long term road works in place or imminent.

Why do you receive ranting correspondence? Can you not prevent issues reaching that stage by actively managing processes to meet the client's requirements? Most client ranting occurs when the contractor/supplier has a communication issue eg doesn't reply to emails swiftly. Good management can turn client ranting into an opportunity, maybe you could try that.

Rude? Why? Merely highlighting issues and responding to comments, why would you have a problem with that?

You aren’t the only one paying though are you; we have to weigh up lots of different user groups, not just getting you from A to B in the optimum way.

What happens when your client doesn’t like the answer? Sounds like you eventually back down, have you even the slightest idea of what would happen if we backed down and implemented every scheme that people ask us? One half would be illegal and the other would bankrupt the country.

I’m afraid you really have no clue how things work. Typical examples of the type off rants we receive have absolutely nothing to do with us and usually are down to the human behaviour, things like “I was nearly hit by a car today as I crossed the road, you need to do something before someone gets killed”. Or “cycling is dangerous, we need segregated cycle lanes”.

I still can’t understand why just because you have a licence you think you’re right and know better than people often with decades of experience in this field, not that I’m saying we all have to accept decisions Councils etc. make but use the political systems that are set up for exactly these reasons.

I’m sure if someone questioned you in the same way (using language like incompetent) you’d stand up for yourself. As for the M25, that is outside of my area of knowledge and more of a Central Government decision.

[anonymous-user]

Type R Tom said:

You are dealing with fellow humans, when I receive ranting correspondents full of hearsay, factual inaccuracies, terrible language (both written and on the phone) and accusations it can be hard to maintain this high level of customer services that you expect. Lay out a structured argument and you’ll get an appropriate response, my point being mate, based on some of the post here you come across as a rather rude pub expert and it doesn’t surprise me if you’ve struggled if your correspondents are anything like the above.

That's the reason I gave up. He's not willing to listen to anything other than "Yes, you're 100% right, of course, we should all lose our jobs".

[V8 Fettler]

Type R Tom said:

V8 Fettler said:

I expect a product/service that I pay for to work efficiently and effectively first time, is that too much to expect? If a client called me incompetent then there's clearly a management issue on my side; relationships with a client should never reach that stage, good communications as issues arise being important. If I had to doff my cap and "yes sir, no sir" to retain a client then that would probably happen, how else do you maintain an income flow? Unless your income doesn't rely on clients of course,

Which part of the endless widening works of the M25 since construction is "right"? Northern 4 lane section has just opened, this must be the first time in at least 10 years that the Dartford to Heathrow section section hasn't had long term road works in place or imminent.

Why do you receive ranting correspondence? Can you not prevent issues reaching that stage by actively managing processes to meet the client's requirements? Most client ranting occurs when the contractor/supplier has a communication issue eg doesn't reply to emails swiftly. Good management can turn client ranting into an opportunity, maybe you could try that.

Rude? Why? Merely highlighting issues and responding to comments, why would you have a problem with that?

You aren’t the only one paying though are you; we have to weigh up lots of different user groups, not just getting you from A to B in the optimum way.

What happens when your client doesn’t like the answer? Sounds like you eventually back down, have you even the slightest idea of what would happen if we backed down and implemented every scheme that people ask us? One half would be illegal and the other would bankrupt the country.

I’m afraid you really have no clue how things work. Typical examples of the type off rants we receive have absolutely nothing to do with us and usually are down to the human behaviour, things like “I was nearly hit by a car today as I crossed the road, you need to do something before someone gets killed”. Or “cycling is dangerous, we need segregated cycle lanes”.

I still can’t understand why just because you have a licence you think you’re right and know better than people often with decades of experience in this field, not that I’m saying we all have to accept decisions Councils etc. make but use the political systems that are set up for exactly these reasons.

I’m sure if someone questioned you in the same way (using language like incompetent) you’d stand up for yourself. As for the M25, that is outside of my area of knowledge and more of a Central Government decision.

I am but a humble road user and tax payer. Income derived from road users vs expenditure vs road user value added to economy http://www.roadusers.org.uk/chapters/infrastructur... That's how important road users are as a group.



Manage the client's expectations and the answer should meet the client's expectations, should never reach confrontation.

I'm not asking "you" to implement new schemes; learn from previous mistakes and ensure that new projects currently in the early stages of design are right first time, unlike the M25.

Re: "nearly killed by car today" and "segregated cycle lanes", you must surely have standard responses on the shelf for these? Issue relevant risk assessments and cost benefit analyses?

Nothing to with "having a licence" and everything to do with paying for something and expecting it to work efficiently and effectively first time.

Always rings alarms bells for me when I'm told to accept someone's opinion because of their "decades of experience", rather than accept someone's opinion because they have a demonstrable track record of success.

This isn't particularly a political issue, although politicians will no doubt meddle, it's about accountability and value for money.

If a client accused me of being incompetent then I would seek to resolve this, but it should never reach this stage.

I see you're ducking the M25 issue, if only I could do likewise...

[V8 Fettler]

OpulentBob said:

Type R Tom said:

You are dealing with fellow humans, when I receive ranting correspondents full of hearsay, factual inaccuracies, terrible language (both written and on the phone) and accusations it can be hard to maintain this high level of customer services that you expect. Lay out a structured argument and you’ll get an appropriate response, my point being mate, based on some of the post here you come across as a rather rude pub expert and it doesn’t surprise me if you’ve struggled if your correspondents are anything like the above.

That's the reason I gave up. He's not willing to listen to anything other than "Yes, you're 100% right, of course, we should all lose our jobs".

You are confusing "listen to" with "accept poor value, lack of accountability and incompetence without question".

[singlecoil]

As someone said earlier, this is not a man to be argued with.

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

As someone said earlier, this is not a man to be argued with.

That's very kind of you singlecoil, thank you

[Type R Tom]

V8 Fettler said:

I am but a humble road user and tax payer. Income derived from road users vs expenditure vs road user value added to economy http://www.roadusers.org.uk/chapters/infrastructur... That's how important road users are as a group.



Manage the client's expectations and the answer should meet the client's expectations, should never reach confrontation.

I'm not asking "you" to implement new schemes; learn from previous mistakes and ensure that new projects currently in the early stages of design are right first time, unlike the M25.

Re: "nearly killed by car today" and "segregated cycle lanes", you must surely have standard responses on the shelf for these? Issue relevant risk assessments and cost benefit analyses?

Nothing to with "having a licence" and everything to do with paying for something and expecting it to work efficiently and effectively first time.

Always rings alarms bells for me when I'm told to accept someone's opinion because of their "decades of experience", rather than accept someone's opinion because they have a demonstrable track record of success.

This isn't particularly a political issue, although politicians will no doubt meddle, it's about accountability and value for money.

If a client accused me of being incompetent then I would seek to resolve this, but it should never reach this stage.

I see you're ducking the M25 issue, if only I could do likewise...

I’m not ducking the M25; I’ve already said it’s outside my area of expertise and hold my hands up to not knowing the answer. My area is schemes similar to OP.

In a way you’ve answered your own question with cost benefit analyses, which still doesn’t stop people feeling passionate about their local problem and accusing Engineers of not taking them seriously or failing to prevent a road safety risk. Of course people “learn from their mistakes” but hindsight is a wonderful thing and considering we don’t seem to be building that much major infrastructure like the M25 anymore the point is largely moot and the major roads we are building, how many lanes should they have?

As for political influence, again you show your ignorance of the system. Pretty much every highway scheme will go through some sort of consultation & political decision making. If you have a major issue with a proposal then you need to approach your local councillor (and possibly MP) to gauge their opinion on the proposal. Ask her/him if they support it and explain your objections; ask them to justify it etc. Using the internet now it is much easier to keep in touch with what’s going on than 10+ years ago. As for the experience point, I normally thought it was a good thing, generally you wouldn’t have decades of experience if you can’t demonstrable track record of success

I’m still struggling to understand why your opinion on highway schemes are any more valid than mine, someone who also “pays for something and expecting it to work efficiently and effectively first time”

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

You are confusing "listen to" with "accept poor value, lack of accountability and incompetence without question".

Who are you to accuse of incompetence? What experience and knowledge do you have to give you the competence to judge the professional abilities of others?

(Note: Saying "I'm a road user/tax payer, so that gives me all the experience I need" is the wrong answer.)

As Tom says above, if you try and contact professional people with that sort of language, your email/letter etc will be filed under "B". If you use that sort of language/attitude with your customers, then I'm afraid I can't see how you get business at all.

PS You're not the "client" of any highways dept. Seriously, get over yourself.

Edited by OpulentBob on Wednesday 26th November 13:37

[JumboBeef]

Phatboy317 said:

And both people in the car were killed.

Were they? Or did one die and one was killed?

I'm a Paramedic and I have been to a number of accidents over the years involving elderly drivers. More than a few have been caused by the driver being taken unwell/died at the wheel BEFORE the accident (and indeed this was the cause of the subsequent accident) and then crashed (sometimes with foot still on the accelerator/cruise control on).

There was one accident near me about six months ago where a car ran off the road on a nasty bend and the driver died. The local papers were shouting about "the killer road" but the driver was dead before the accident (witnessed by his passenger). But hey lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story....

No one knows what has happened here, but you cannot discount that the accident wasn't caused by the road junction at all.

Edited by JumboBeef on Wednesday 26th November 13:50

[singlecoil]

JumboBeef said:

No one knows what has happened here, but you cannot discount that the accident wasn't caused by the road junction at all.

I'll go further than that, and say that only one person really thought that it was caused by the layout in the first place (or said he did) but he hasn't for a while posted on the thread he started. He's still reading it, though.

[V8 Fettler]

Type R Tom said:

I’m not ducking the M25; I’ve already said it’s outside my area of expertise and hold my hands up to not knowing the answer. My area is schemes similar to OP.

In a way you’ve answered your own question with cost benefit analyses, which still doesn’t stop people feeling passionate about their local problem and accusing Engineers of not taking them seriously or failing to prevent a road safety risk. Of course people “learn from their mistakes” but hindsight is a wonderful thing and considering we don’t seem to be building that much major infrastructure like the M25 anymore the point is largely moot and the major roads we are building, how many lanes should they have?

As for political influence, again you show your ignorance of the system. Pretty much every highway scheme will go through some sort of consultation & political decision making. If you have a major issue with a proposal then you need to approach your local councillor (and possibly MP) to gauge their opinion on the proposal. Ask her/him if they support it and explain your objections; ask them to justify it etc. Using the internet now it is much easier to keep in touch with what’s going on than 10+ years ago. As for the experience point, I normally thought it was a good thing, generally you wouldn’t have decades of experience if you can’t demonstrable track record of success

I’m still struggling to understand why your opinion on highway schemes are any more valid than mine, someone who also “pays for something and expecting it to work efficiently and effectively first time”

The answer for the design of the M25 was to get it right first time, surely you can see that?

Risk assessments and cost benefit analyses demonstrate that you are taking the safety issues seriously and measuring risk, also usefully provides an objective view for balance. Do you not take this approach?

Future major road infrastructure projects? Two spring readily to mind: another Dartford crossing (should have got that right with the bridge) and a new A14 (should have been a 3 lane m/way when first built, but was constructed on a shambolic piecemeal basis).

Re: political involvement, why should I have to monitor the planning process in depth and check the calcs? The responsibility for getting the design right should remain with the designers (paid for by me).

Unfortunately, there are many who rely on claims of "decades of experience" to support competence when the opposite is true: they've stagnated as part of an insular little empire and lost sight of the key objective of providing a good service to the end user and the person who pays for it all.

Differing opinion of highway's schemes? I don't know what your opinion of any particular scheme is, I've quoted several where the design has been sadly lacking. For balance, I'll mention the improvements to the A1 as generally good design, although more works needed in some sections (Black Cat!). I suspect that you have been institutionalised by your profession to expect and accept mediocrity in road design (eg M25).

[rs1952]

V8 Fettler said:

Type R Tom said:

V8 Fettler said:

Engage with the Highways Agency and LA re: existing roads? I do, but it's an uphill struggle. The concept of contacting HA or LA is flawed, should be one contact point for the punter who pays for it all (me!). IME, HA and LA do not always accept there are safety-related maintenance issues unless photos issued, which is difficult when driving. Had some success with LA when emails copied to LA CEO. Also HA and LA have fundamentally flawed approaches to communicating eg they typically don't reply in a reasonable time frame. I could go on ...

V8 Fettler said:

a punter who pays for it all and then suffers the endless delays due to incompetence at all stages from initial design until year dot.

Can't for the life of me think why you can't get anywhere with the local Highway department

I must admit that I expect the same customer service standards as I offer to my clients. The difference being that my clients (that's the people who pay me) can sack me, that generally concentrates the mind and ensures that issues are resolved quickly. Do I therefore need to lower my expectations of customer service when dealing with the HA and LA because I can't sack them?

There is another side to this.

As a private individual running your own business if whatever type, ultimately you have the discretion over whether you want somebody as a customer. If one of your customers is persistently rude, arrogant, continually complaining about things of little substance or being generally otherwise obnoxious, you have the discretion to suggest to them that they might like to consider buying their widgets, grommets and whimples from the supplier down the road.

Local authorities do not have that choice.

Off topic I know, but this thread is beginning to remind me of a conversation I overheard when sitting in the cashiers office of a local council back in the early 1980s:

Tenant: "When's the fecking council going to get off its fecking arse and come and repair my fecking .. (whatever he wanted repairing - can't remember)"

Cashier: "When did you report it?"

Tenant: "I haven't fecking reported it - they won't fecking come out anyway"

Putting up with cretins like that is all part of an LA's job.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I blame the Romans. I mean, they should have done their calculations properly and realised that in 2000 years we were obviously going to need 4 lane highways everywhere.

[spaximus]

Swervin_Mervin said:

I blame the Romans. I mean, they should have done their calculations properly and realised that in 2000 years we were obviously going to need 4 lane highways everywhere.

Some of the roman roads seem better designed than what we have now.

[Phatboy317]

JumboBeef said:

Were they? Or did one die and one was killed?

News report

[V8 Fettler]

OpulentBob said:

V8 Fettler said:

You are confusing "listen to" with "accept poor value, lack of accountability and incompetence without question".

Who are you to accuse of incompetence? What experience and knowledge do you have to give you the competence to judge the professional abilities of others?

(Note: Saying "I'm a road user/tax payer, so that gives me all the experience I need" is the wrong answer.)

As Tom says above, if you try and contact professional people with that sort of language, your email/letter etc will be filed under "B". If you use that sort of language/attitude with your customers, then I'm afraid I can't see how you get business at all.

PS You're not the "client" of any highways dept. Seriously, get over yourself.

Edited by OpulentBob on Wednesday 26th November 13:37

I thought you'd left this thread Bob, but welcome back anyway.

I base my accusation re: design team incompetence with reference to the M25 on 30 years or so of trundling around said orbital and observing the endless widening projects and resultant jams. Also far too many miles on the M11 (ridiculous junction at the Norf Circular) and the A14 (2 lanes and no hard shoulder for the major route into Felixstowe). Let me know if you want any more examples of design incompetence.

What language do you find so offensive? Is it my gratuitous use of the word "accountability"? Or perhaps the disgraceful phrase "get it right first time"? Or maybe even the concept of competency alarms you?

It may distress you to realise that - ultimately - I am your customer. No tax money from me = no highways dept. I would guess that you've been in your position at highways for several decades.

[V8 Fettler]

rs1952 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Type R Tom said:

V8 Fettler said:

Engage with the Highways Agency and LA re: existing roads? I do, but it's an uphill struggle. The concept of contacting HA or LA is flawed, should be one contact point for the punter who pays for it all (me!). IME, HA and LA do not always accept there are safety-related maintenance issues unless photos issued, which is difficult when driving. Had some success with LA when emails copied to LA CEO. Also HA and LA have fundamentally flawed approaches to communicating eg they typically don't reply in a reasonable time frame. I could go on ...

V8 Fettler said:

a punter who pays for it all and then suffers the endless delays due to incompetence at all stages from initial design until year dot.

Can't for the life of me think why you can't get anywhere with the local Highway department

I must admit that I expect the same customer service standards as I offer to my clients. The difference being that my clients (that's the people who pay me) can sack me, that generally concentrates the mind and ensures that issues are resolved quickly. Do I therefore need to lower my expectations of customer service when dealing with the HA and LA because I can't sack them?

There is another side to this.

As a private individual running your own business if whatever type, ultimately you have the discretion over whether you want somebody as a customer. If one of your customers is persistently rude, arrogant, continually complaining about things of little substance or being generally otherwise obnoxious, you have the discretion to suggest to them that they might like to consider buying their widgets, grommets and whimples from the supplier down the road.

Local authorities do not have that choice.

>other stuff<

Putting up with cretins like that is all part of an LA's job.

There is another side to this.

When dealing with a non-public sector organisation as a punter, I generally (but not always) have the option of taking my money elsewhere. I don't have this option with HA/LA highways.

Putting up with incompetent service from unaccountable LAs is all part of a taxpayer's existence.