Hare-brained safety 'improvement' scheme results in tragedy
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
CAPP0 said:
If it is at all possible for anyone to take any comfort from this incident, I spoke with a local councillor this week about a particularly-badly laid out junction near where I live. He said that the matter had been taken up with the county council and the police, but it has apparently been specifically stated that nothing will change until/unless there is a fatality! Which does rather beggar belief - but we probably won't have to wait long, I myself have been the victim of an RTC there (someone ran a red light at high speed and t-boned me) and accidents occur with boring frequency. Still seems a bizarre stance to take.
I fail to see the relevance. How is that the fault of the highway designers/engineers? Or do you accept that it's the fault of the driver who ran the red light? Do you think there should be no traffic lights at all, and that would be safer or more dangerous?You could always provide a link to the junction in question so that those of us in the game can have a look and suggest why things may or may not need to change, or offer an explanation to the CLOWNCIL'S response? That would, of course, mean that there may be some defence to the current layout and that's not what this thread is intended to be about, but hey ho, you put it on the table, it would be remiss to ignore it.
Yes, I could have excluded any detail about how my accident occurred. Get me, I'm such an attention-seeker. But the point I was trying to make. and not to argue about, was that I have very recently been told by someone in a position of some authority that fatalities at dangerous junctions may be the only catalyst for change, therefore the sad tale from the OP may actually lead to something.
Phatboy317 said:
Type R Tom said:
If it had been me I might have done it slightly differently but ignoring for a second the fact it used to be a dual, in it's current layout how is it any different from any other left turn onto a single lane across a cycle lane on a 40 mph speed limit?
For one thing, single lane roads usually don't have a big barrier running down the centre, so people have room to swerve out if necessary.And you now have to go halfway across the road at an angle to cross the cycle lane in order to get into the driving lane.
What used to be a left-turn slip lane is now a parking place for scamera vans.
Roads around me have similar clowncil meddling, designed to create congestion and which have resulted in accidents - ghost islands appearing in the middle of a road ensuring slow moving lines of traffic are stuck behind the slowest vehicle (a biker was killed within days having hit one of these obstructions), dual carriageways being narrowed (lanes lost or white lines added in right hand lane forcing traffic to pinch into left lane), traffic lights being added (unnecessary and less congestion when they are not working), approaches to roundabouts being narrowed. It goes on - every single change resulting in more congestion. What are these pointless people on who decide these schemes with our money and time being wasted?
CAPP0 said:
OpulentBob said:
CAPP0 said:
If it is at all possible for anyone to take any comfort from this incident, I spoke with a local councillor this week about a particularly-badly laid out junction near where I live. He said that the matter had been taken up with the county council and the police, but it has apparently been specifically stated that nothing will change until/unless there is a fatality! Which does rather beggar belief - but we probably won't have to wait long, I myself have been the victim of an RTC there (someone ran a red light at high speed and t-boned me) and accidents occur with boring frequency. Still seems a bizarre stance to take.
I fail to see the relevance. How is that the fault of the highway designers/engineers? Or do you accept that it's the fault of the driver who ran the red light? Do you think there should be no traffic lights at all, and that would be safer or more dangerous?You could always provide a link to the junction in question so that those of us in the game can have a look and suggest why things may or may not need to change, or offer an explanation to the CLOWNCIL'S response? That would, of course, mean that there may be some defence to the current layout and that's not what this thread is intended to be about, but hey ho, you put it on the table, it would be remiss to ignore it.
Yes, I could have excluded any detail about how my accident occurred. Get me, I'm such an attention-seeker. But the point I was trying to make. and not to argue about, was that I have very recently been told by someone in a position of some authority that fatalities at dangerous junctions may be the only catalyst for change, therefore the sad tale from the OP may actually lead to something.
A councillor may be in an elected position of authority, but trust me, they are NOT an expert on highway engineering. I receive many emails from councillors every day, and some of their requests and suggestions (put forward by MOPs) are laughable.
Phatboy317 said:
For one thing, single lane roads usually don't have a big barrier running down the centre, so people have room to swerve out if necessary.
And you now have to go halfway across the road at an angle to cross the cycle lane in order to get into the driving lane.
What used to be a left-turn slip lane is now a parking place for scamera vans.
Assuming it has been built as per the drawing, you clearly don’t. The give way line has moved out to the new edge of carriageway markings. You are not “driving halfway across the road” if everyone is following the new markings. Granted the angle is a bit much but looking right still shouldn’t be beyond the capability of a drive to see if the road is clear (especially with the streetview sight lines). They have lowered the speed limit; therefore you shouldn’t need a slip to join a 40mph road. And you now have to go halfway across the road at an angle to cross the cycle lane in order to get into the driving lane.
What used to be a left-turn slip lane is now a parking place for scamera vans.
And as for “escape space”, swerving onto the other side of the road to avoid someone who has pulled out in front of you potentially causing head on, brilliant idea!
Sad and rather pointless loss if you ask me.
Gloucestershire council are at it to, the Fromebridge Mill roundabout on the A38 was previously a dual carriage way which in the last couple of months has seen similar changes made.
The inside lane now has a huge picture of a bicycle encouraging everyone to shift over into the right hand lane which within 400yards becomes a RIGHT turn lane allowing access to the smallest little lane that I don't recall ever seeing a car use!!
Watching people come off the roundabout and swerve into the right lane only to swerve back into the left lane is hardly an improvement to road safety.
Gloucestershire council are at it to, the Fromebridge Mill roundabout on the A38 was previously a dual carriage way which in the last couple of months has seen similar changes made.
The inside lane now has a huge picture of a bicycle encouraging everyone to shift over into the right hand lane which within 400yards becomes a RIGHT turn lane allowing access to the smallest little lane that I don't recall ever seeing a car use!!
Watching people come off the roundabout and swerve into the right lane only to swerve back into the left lane is hardly an improvement to road safety.
The problem (OP) with making sweeping assertions without any supporting evidence is that anyone can play that game.
So - my assertion is that given the same actors (the elderly couple and the chap in the lorry) and the OLD layout, leading to a higher closing speed, both members of the couple in the car would have been killed, and the chap in the lorry seriously injured.
Therefore this is a positive story of risk-reduction, and a pat on the back to the road designer is in order.
Is that the truth? Probably not, we don't know if the lorry was speeding either as we are not privy to the accident investigation report.
But what comes blazing through from your childish use of language (scamera vans etc) is that you are looking for anything that supports your own position, and will cast the most nebulous of occurrences in your own light.
So - my assertion is that given the same actors (the elderly couple and the chap in the lorry) and the OLD layout, leading to a higher closing speed, both members of the couple in the car would have been killed, and the chap in the lorry seriously injured.
Therefore this is a positive story of risk-reduction, and a pat on the back to the road designer is in order.
Is that the truth? Probably not, we don't know if the lorry was speeding either as we are not privy to the accident investigation report.
But what comes blazing through from your childish use of language (scamera vans etc) is that you are looking for anything that supports your own position, and will cast the most nebulous of occurrences in your own light.
OpulentBob said:
FYI, a dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit requires central reservation safety fence if the central reservation is less than 10m wide (iirc - it might be 5m) to prevent crossover accidents at huge closing speeds. So, your "single lane roads usually don't have a big barrier running down the centre, so people have room to swerve out if necessary" above is incorrect. You are confusing single lane with single carriageway.
Single-lane dual carriageways are, or at least used to be, very few and far between, and the few that do exist usually don't have the lane right next to the barrier.OTOH, single carriageway roads with 40, 50 and 60 limits are ubiquitous, and those certainly have no barrier down the centre.
singlecoil said:
The convention is that if a person wants to make a point about a particular situation, then the point maker himself supplies all the appropriate information and links. You seem to be expecting your audience to do all of that.
It's good manners to take people at their word, unless you have good cause to show they're not being truthful.TooMany2cvs was making out that rs1952 was lying, so I suggested that he check it out for himself.
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
The convention is that if a person wants to make a point about a particular situation, then the point maker himself supplies all the appropriate information and links. You seem to be expecting your audience to do all of that.
It's good manners to take people at their word, unless you have good cause to show they're not being truthful.TooMany2cvs was making out that rs1952 was lying, so I suggested that he check it out for himself.
But maybe you are here just to have a little rant and to get the agreement of a few posters who hold similar views to your own, and are happy to leave the rest of us utterly unconvinced, you are 'preaching to the converted', in other words.
Dammit said:
The problem (OP) with making sweeping assertions without any supporting evidence is that anyone can play that game.
So - my assertion is that given the same actors (the elderly couple and the chap in the lorry) and the OLD layout, leading to a higher closing speed, both members of the couple in the car would have been killed, and the chap in the lorry seriously injured.
Therefore this is a positive story of risk-reduction, and a pat on the back to the road designer is in order.
Is that the truth? Probably not, we don't know if the lorry was speeding either as we are not privy to the accident investigation report.
But what comes blazing through from your childish use of language (scamera vans etc) is that you are looking for anything that supports your own position, and will cast the most nebulous of occurrences in your own light.
If the layout was as before, the lorry would probably have simply changed lanes, and no harm would have been done.So - my assertion is that given the same actors (the elderly couple and the chap in the lorry) and the OLD layout, leading to a higher closing speed, both members of the couple in the car would have been killed, and the chap in the lorry seriously injured.
Therefore this is a positive story of risk-reduction, and a pat on the back to the road designer is in order.
Is that the truth? Probably not, we don't know if the lorry was speeding either as we are not privy to the accident investigation report.
But what comes blazing through from your childish use of language (scamera vans etc) is that you are looking for anything that supports your own position, and will cast the most nebulous of occurrences in your own light.
And both people in the car were killed.
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
The convention is that if a person wants to make a point about a particular situation, then the point maker himself supplies all the appropriate information and links. You seem to be expecting your audience to do all of that.
It's good manners to take people at their word, unless you have good cause to show they're not being truthful.TooMany2cvs was making out that rs1952 was lying, so I suggested that he check it out for himself.
Roo said:
I'm struggling to see what the problem is with the cycle lane. It's not as if it blocks your view of traffic coming from the right.
It obviously stops the OP from passing slower vehicles which he is very annoyed about.Also why should those greenie, leftie none tax paying cyclists get a lane all for themselves? Outrageous!
OP, I put it to you that the accident had little or nothing to do with the changes to the road layout.
singlecoil said:
But you are not stating facts, you are offering opinions, which will clearly be different to those of the people you are complaining about. You are putting your opinions as facts but that doesn't make them into facts. If you want to do that, you need to provide evidence.
But maybe you are here just to have a little rant and to get the agreement of a few posters who hold similar views to your own, and are happy to leave the rest of us utterly unconvinced, you are 'preaching to the converted', in other words.
EvidenceBut maybe you are here just to have a little rant and to get the agreement of a few posters who hold similar views to your own, and are happy to leave the rest of us utterly unconvinced, you are 'preaching to the converted', in other words.
What are you here for?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff