Hare-brained safety 'improvement' scheme results in tragedy
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
Guybrush said:
designed to create congestion
No they haven't. Guybrush said:
So when the idiot schemes do result in more congestion, I can now safely assume that the schemes were in error. Interesting. Is anyone held to account with such waste of taxpayer's money, or are the mistakes simply ignored?
There is evidence that some councils do make things worse some times it would be fair to suspect deliberately.The A38 between Bristol and Gloucester was NSL between most villages, wide roads. Now cycle paths have been painted on each side around 3/4s of a car width with hatching. Cars are now forced into the centre where they are inches apart. So after an accident most of the road is now 50mph. They may have not thought that through but the odd bikes that are on there have plenty of room cars have not compared with before.
Portsmouth designed a roundabout lights system that was so complicated the once free moving junction became a night mare (designed by a cyclist incidentely). They have now got all roads in what they call residential areas down to 20mph. the congestion is awful, was that planned a long time ago to stop car use.
spaximus said:
There is evidence that some councils do make things worse some times it would be fair to suspect deliberately.
I think its a much larger issue than that - there is a lot of politicking involved and local pressure groups/ loudmouths to appease.Many motorists don't like to accept the stark truth that, in many of the major cities, there are more cars that want to use the road space than there is road space to fit them all in. But even when there is enough road space, there might not be enough parking space for the buggers at the end of their journey. Hence the policy of some larger councils to restrict road space by the use of liberally applied white paint and/or bus lanes.
None of this applies to Cotswold Road Chipping Sodbury (or the A38 come to that or many other places where DCs have been singled and the former NSL has been reduced). This is part of the "slow traffic down" mantra, which of course is not just promoted by the likes of BRAKE, but also many local residents who frequently fail to grasp the fact that vehicles are not actually travelling as fast as they think they are. And this attitude, rather surprisingly, often appears on PH - I should have copied it into Word for posterity, but I recall a post on PH from many years ago where some bloke was ranting on about the proliferation of speed cameras in the UK and wanted it stopped - but before it stopped, he wanted one installed in the street where he lived...
Then you have the problem of councils needing "to be seen to be doing something" when something has gone wrong. We had an example of this down the road from me a couple of years ago when a 12-year-old got killed outside a school. There were all the usual noises about "speeding" and "drunk drivers" and the press launched a local campaign, but it came out in the wash that the driver was under the speed limit and stone cold sober, and that the kid had simply run into the road without looking, and paid the ultimate penalty. So what did the council do? They widened the pavement... My council tax, and that of other people in Wiltshire, has therefore been spent on a totally useless bit of infrastructure that only has the effect of allowing kids in the future to get a bit more speed up before they run into the road and get whacked by a passing vehicle.
You said or implied in an earlier post on this thread that the railings went up to try to stop kids crossing the road rather than use the underpass to get to the school (my ex-wife went there incidentally
). So South Gloucestershire council or their predecessors Northavon appear to have spent taxpayers money to stop kids doing something, and now they're jumping the railings that were put there to stop them doing it. Yet another example of no true benefit to anybody, except to the council who has been "seen to be doing something."Now that we have had a fatal on that junction at Hounds Road, the council we need to be "seen to be doing something" again. Will they accept that the current junction layout was at least partially to blame for what happened, and so reconfigure it? Doubtful, because that would allow the press to have a field day with them for their incompetence or short-sightedness in doing it that way in the first place.
What do you think the chances are of that former NSL former 50 reduced to 40 former DC being dropped to 30 because of the accident? I know where my money would be going here....
Guybrush said:
OpulentBob said:
Guybrush said:
designed to create congestion
No they haven't. Describing them as "idiot schemes", when I'll bet you have pretty much zero understanding of the background or issues to be addressed, says more to me about you than the schemes.
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.
Opulent Bob,Can you please elaborate? Here is a link to an NSL dual carriageway where the central reservation is clearly less than 5m wide, yet there is no fence or barrier.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9146755,-1.43990...
spaximus said:
There is evidence that some councils do make things worse some times it would be fair to suspect deliberately.
Please provide it? I've been in council/local authority/HA offices my entire career and I've never, ever EVER seen any evidence, or even heard any rumblings, that congestion is deliberately caused.rs1952 said:
Will they accept that the current junction layout was at least partially to blame for what happened
Was it? Really? How...?By having a bike lane and only one traffic lane? Don't be daft.
Surely the ONLY way in which the layout could be held to blame is if there is insufficient visibility. I've not been there (and don't plan to), but are you alleging that the visibility is not good enough for an emerging car driver to see an oncoming truck?
The brow is apparently ~200m away.
At 70mph, that's still six seconds of visibility of any oncoming traffic, and still well within the HC stopping distance.
At 50mph, it's nine.
At 40mph, it's eleven.
At 30mph, it's fourteen.
So the brow's irrelevant. Unless the Google images are VERY misleading, there's not masses of road furniture blocking the view.
Apart from that, the only possible way in which a car can emerge from a junction into the path of a truck - and result in a heavy enough impact for two occupants of a relatively modern car to be killed - is quite simply that the "elderly" driver of the car did not look properly.
Orillion said:
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.
Opulent Bob,Can you please elaborate? Here is a link to an NSL dual carriageway where the central reservation is clearly less than 5m wide, yet there is no fence or barrier.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9146755,-1.43990...
Para 3.57
"3.57 A safety barrier must be provided on dual carriageway roads where the width of the central reserve measured between opposing edges of carriageway road markings (or kerb faces where no markings) is 10 m or less. Where the central reserve is wider than 10 m, the Design Organisation must assess the need for safety barriers and record any findings using the RRRAP, and agree the provision of safety barriers with the Overseeing Organisation."
It does say at the very beginning that it's mandatory for Trunk Roads/Motorways only, but it's equally applicable to local authority high-speed roads - a car doing 50mph+ will behave the same regardless of whether it's on a trunk or a standard non-Trunk dual carriageway. The requirement can be removed, but the authority need a damn good reason/high level of confidence (and have them recorded) for doing so.
ETA every non-HA local authority I've worked for has used the DMRB as a "bible".
TooMany2cvs said:
Was it? Really? How...?
By having a bike lane and only one traffic lane? Don't be daft.
You appear to be getting in to a habit this week of reading my posts and then managing to read things that aren't there.By having a bike lane and only one traffic lane? Don't be daft.
I was not saying, or implying, that I thought the junction layout was to blame for the accident. I don't know and, to be perfectly honest, I don't care. I just raised the question that, if it was, would the council accept that it was? My contention is that they would not, and would take other measures to "resolve" the problem, rather than correct any existing one.
Please try reading my posts better in future and, to quote you, don't be daft with your replies
OpulentBob said:
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.
OpulentBob said:
spaximus said:
There is evidence that some councils do make things worse some times it would be fair to suspect deliberately.
Please provide it? I've been in council/local authority/HA offices my entire career and I've never, ever EVER seen any evidence, or even heard any rumblings, that congestion is deliberately caused.It's interesting that OP BOB and TypeRTom are listed as "Highway engineers" so probably have some idea how the system works. I only work with Highway engineers and technical specialists every day so i know nothing
Especially less than the PUB talk specialists in here OpulentBob said:
Read the quote. They are never designed to create congestion. If congestion occurs, then simply more people want to use the road than there is capacity for. You can assume whatever you like, but I'd expect your assumptions to be wrong.
Describing them as "idiot schemes", when I'll bet you have pretty much zero understanding of the background or issues to be addressed, says more to me about you than the schemes.
I find this interesting and, at the risk of flying right off topic, I would like to provide you with a little scenario (a true one by the way).Describing them as "idiot schemes", when I'll bet you have pretty much zero understanding of the background or issues to be addressed, says more to me about you than the schemes.
There is a mini-roundabout down the road from me that suffers from congestion at peak times. Nothing special about that - a bit of a snarl up for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening but apart from those times, quite free-running. Some locals have been wanting traffic lights installed for years but the council has always said no.
Now there is a plan to redevelop a former factory site just adjacent to this roundabout with housing and a retail park. The plans include traffic lights being installed at this roundabout. Some of us who have lived around here since Noah was a lad can remember when the factory was in full swing and, in those days, at factory chucking-out time there was a bit of congestion for half an hour and that was that. It seems highly unlikely that the level of traffic generated by the new development, even at peak times, is likely to be anywhere near the levels that were generated by the factory back in the 80s. But never mind about that, say the proponents of the scheme, we need traffic lights to alleviate the congestion.
Being a semi-retired nosy curmudgeon at times, I have parked myself on the "old geezers" seat next to the roundabout at peak times and observed for myself. The major cause of the congestion is not the additional volume of traffic in itself, it is the fact that traffic gets blocked back at a pinch-point pedestrian crossing a few more yards down, and then a set of lights at the bottom of the hill (this is one way, BTW). There are three options for onward travel at these lights - left, right and straight on, with the right hand lane for right and straight on and the left hand lane for left only. Most traffic wants to go right or straight on, meaning that the queue in the right lane is usually two or three times the length of the queue in the left hand lane, and this too then blocks back up to the pedestrian crossing and the roundabout.
What is actually needed here is better traffic management to equalise the usage of the two lanes blocking back from the lights, not another set of bleedin' traffic lights that will have people sitting around behind a red light at two in the morning, and will not resolve any congestion at the peak because the traffic still won't be able to get away.
The council have now approved the plan for traffic lights but appear to be doing nothing about the congestion being caused further down. I wonder whether they are looking at the whole picture here or just these proposed new lights in isolation.
What would you do in these circumstances?
speedyguy said:
This is the great thing everyone wants EVIDENCE which is difficult to provide. The congestion may not be DELIBERATE but is usually an OUTCOME.
True. In this country, most urban places are as developed as they can be. The highway boundary extends up to someone's (privately owned) front garden. In order to make space for extra cars, quite often would mean stealing it from footways (not really a good idea due to DDA etc), cycleways, etc. This is - partially at least - why some bus stops don't have laybys any more, or why some cycle-lanes are on-road where off-road would clearly be better. You can't fit a pint in to a half pint pot. If we had USA-levels of space, then there would be minimal issues. But we don't, so issues arise, and conflicts can occur. It's managing the conflicts that is the difficult bit.rs1952 said:
What is actually needed here is better traffic management to equalise the usage of the two lanes blocking back from the lights, not another set of bleedin' traffic lights that will have people sitting around behind a red light at two in the morning, and will not resolve any congestion at the peak because the traffic still won't be able to get away.
The council have now approved the plan for traffic lights but appear to be doing nothing about the congestion being caused further down. I wonder whether they are looking at the whole picture here or just these proposed new lights in isolation.
What would you do in these circumstances?
Typical disclaimer: I know not the specifics, but according to what's written, and a 5 minute brainstorm:The council have now approved the plan for traffic lights but appear to be doing nothing about the congestion being caused further down. I wonder whether they are looking at the whole picture here or just these proposed new lights in isolation.
What would you do in these circumstances?
I'd probably ask the developer for funding to provide a co-ordinated design, which links the ped crossing with the junction at the new development, linking the signals to allow a better flow. Or, depending on the ped counts, look at reemoving the ped crossing and integrating a ped crossing area in the new junction. However, if the crossing is used by, for example, hordes of schoolkids, then it's not worth doing because they'll just cross at the old location, shortest route etc.
You might be able to request details of something called the "Section 106 agreement" which is the agreement for the developer to fund any highway improvements required by the impact of the development. I'm not sure how commercially sensetive it is, so it may be a hiding to nothing.
A streetview link would be interesting. Not saying I'd come up with a magic answer, people more intelligent and more qualified than me would have no doubt looked at it in the past!
OpulentBob said:
A streetview link would be interesting. Not saying I'd come up with a magic answer, people more intelligent and more qualified than me would have no doubt looked at it in the past!
Happy to oblige https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.463937,-2.116970...
No schoolkids to speak of, but the crossing is heavily used, there being a Post Office right next to it and it is one of the major walking routes to the railway station
OpulentBob said:
Please provide it? I've been in council/local authority/HA offices my entire career and I've never, ever EVER seen any evidence, or even heard any rumblings, that congestion is deliberately caused.
Several have mentioned on here the that the Brighton and Hove area has had many schemes fitted designed to hinder traffic movement. Bristol has turned the centre into a one way nightmare to use, this from a Mayor who "wants to reclaim the streets for pedestrians".Individuals do not have the resource to fight to prove things with Data, but just sit at some junctions when they have been altered to see how they have been at best badly designed at worst deliberately designed so.
There are some junctions in Bristol, when the traffic lights fail the traffic moves better.
South Glos every week seem to come up with new improved schemes, maybe if they did not would the council be able to cut staff from that department? Most probably. Nothing is joined up. With new houses being built, part of the planning should be roads wide enough for traffic and cycles, but instead they allow the developers to do as little as possible.
I am sure you will never agree with mine or many others view but it does not make it incorrect.
rs1952 said:
OpulentBob said:
A streetview link would be interesting. Not saying I'd come up with a magic answer, people more intelligent and more qualified than me would have no doubt looked at it in the past!
Happy to oblige https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.463937,-2.116970...
No schoolkids to speak of, but the crossing is heavily used, there being a Post Office right next to it and it is one of the major walking routes to the railway station
The ped crossing already looks quite heavily engineered to funnel pedestrians to a particular crossing point (a good thing). The nature of the road, with the station, colleges etc nearby (according to the signs) plus the retail park, the houses with on-street parking, the fact it's an A road - therefore strategically important, and most likely a signed route into/out of/through town - all count against it. Streetview, I'm assuming, shows typical congestion? Presumably a major bus route too, and the station will generate lots of dropping off/picking up movements - not unexpected but will not be helping the situation.
It looks like what I was talking about above - development has taken place right up to the boundary of the highway, and now traffic is increasing, people want to get in and out of the retail area (soon to be flats/houses), and in and out of town much more quickly. And the road network hasn't got capacity for all of the traffic. There's only so much you can do with what's available. There would be potential to increase throughput if the viaduct at the bottom of the road had capacity for more than 2 lanes beneath it's arches. I mean, look at all that green space. Loads of that could be given over to tarmac!
ETA PS is this you...?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4636961,-2.11723...
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 21st November 13:59
spaximus said:
Several have mentioned on here the that the Brighton and Hove area has had many schemes fitted designed to hinder traffic movement. Bristol has turned the centre into a one way nightmare to use, this from a Mayor who "wants to reclaim the streets for pedestrians".
Individuals do not have the resource to fight to prove things with Data, but just sit at some junctions when they have been altered to see how they have been at best badly designed at worst deliberately designed so.
Pedestrianising an area is not the same as designing to hinder traffic. Again, I've never ever seen anything designed to hinder traffic, apart from the usual width restrictions etc, and they are put in because of a known and recognised problem. You/One would certainly never install infrastructure to deliberately cause congestion. Individuals do not have the resource to fight to prove things with Data, but just sit at some junctions when they have been altered to see how they have been at best badly designed at worst deliberately designed so.
One way systems make junctions esier and quicker to use, as you only have to deal with traffic coming from one direction. I would have thought this was obvious? It also increases flow - and speeds - as it provides generally a much-simplified road environment.
There is the effect of slowing traffic to increase throughput (think 50mph average speed zones on major trunks). Some argue for it, some against it. But it works, and is quite often misunderstood.
No we will probably never agree, but I think that's because I work in the industry, and you appear to think we're all out to slow you down.
This isn't the case at all, I promise. The guys that design and implement the road schemes are drivers too. We're not voted for, we've got no agenda. The schemes I design, I have to sit in. It's in my own interests to make my commute home as quick and carefree as possible.
Don't look at it as "them" and "us". Look at it as all "us" and we're just trying to make everyone get through more quickly, easily and safely.
Financially, most authorities are making people redundant left, right and centre, and really don't have the money to go around wasting it on pointless schemes, or schemes to deliberately shaft the motorist. Trust me, I'm reapplying for my existing job for the third time in 9 years. We have ZERO money to waste.
Roads engineering really is trying to keep everyone happy all of the time. If it's not drivers complaining, it's cyclists (aaaargh) or pedesterons or wheelchair users or bus companies or taxi companies etc. Everyone has a right to use the road, but people appear to only recognise THEIR right to use the road.
It's not easy!
OpulentBob said:
No - I'm a lot thinner with more hair And my observation point was on the seat on the other side of the road https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4637753,-2.11710...
By the look of it I would say that the Google car was down there early peak - say about 1530
OpulentBob said:
spaximus said:
There is evidence that some councils do make things worse some times it would be fair to suspect deliberately.
Please provide it? I've been in council/local authority/HA offices my entire career and I've never, ever EVER seen any evidence, or even heard any rumblings, that congestion is deliberately caused.Spin and opinion from lobby groups with vested interests. Interesting reading, but hardly unbiased and very little in there that actually stands up to scrutiny. Why are ped crossings given longer green times? It could be that people don't have enough time to cross, rather than making the road/route/car unattractive.
I stand by my statement. I think the other highway engineers on here would too.
I stand by my statement. I think the other highway engineers on here would too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff