Hare-brained safety 'improvement' scheme results in tragedy
Discussion
When highway "engineers" make a change and congestion is noticeably worsened and / or accidents ensue, it's not road users' imagination, or pub talk; it's actual users' experience. And no, traffic volumes haven't increased suddenly - congestion is worse. If highway engineers wish to over complicate their job to justify making things worse, then maybe the selection process for these 'engineers' warrants examination.
Guybrush said:
When highway "engineers" make a change and congestion is noticeably worsened and / or accidents ensue, it's not road users' imagination, or pub talk; it's actual users' experience. And no, traffic volumes haven't increased suddenly - congestion is worse. If highway engineers wish to over complicate their job to justify making things worse, then maybe the selection process for these 'engineers' warrants examination.
Yes because no accidents ever happened before and of course congestion was on a downward trend which has suddenly reversed. 
I am sure they get it wrong and it must be rife with unintended consequences but to suggest that one accident happening or relying on anecdotes shows a laughable ignorance about how decisions are made in the real world.
V8 Fettler said:
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."The accusation is vehemently denied by Transport for London (TfL), the mayoral body in charge of major roads and all the capital's traffic lights. But TfL has now admitted, in a written answer to Conservative members of the Greater London Authority that more than 300 traffic lights have been altered in the past eight months – but for a variety of reasons none of which, it says, are to deliberately create traffic chaos."
An accusation which was vehemently denied. I think Opulent Bob was asking for evidence, not accusations.
Every single group of road users (which pedestrians also are) believes that every other type of traffic is being prioritised ahead of their interests.
Motorised vehicles are pandered too extraordinarily, however, when you compare how the different groups are treated.
This may help to explain the astounding sense of entitlement that many people display - Phatboy being a great example of this.
If people would like to play a part in reducing congestion then they need to stop being part of it - there is a finite amount of road space and trying to cram more and more large vehicles into it is going to only produce one result.
If you return to your bench in the near future, make a note of how many vehicles are single-occupant, then imagine what the traffic situation would look like if you removed half the vehicles (e.g. to simulate a situation wherein people only take the car if they have a passenger).
I have a large car, and use it - this was yesterday:
It's turbo-charge I5 petrol, and has around 340 bhp after being extensively modified, which is why I'm on this site.
However, I'm not blind to the problems that it, and all other vehicles cause - so I commute on my bike, and walk to most places that it makes sense to reach in that way.
I quite honestly can't think of anything worse than trying to drive to work and back, from Zone 3 to Zone 1 - but that opinion is clearly not shared by a lot of others, who crawl though town at 9mph every rush-hour.
But a lot of people won't ever consider getting out of the car and trying another means of travel, so congestion will keep on mounting- despite what people like Opulent Bob do to try to make the roads more efficient.
Motorised vehicles are pandered too extraordinarily, however, when you compare how the different groups are treated.
This may help to explain the astounding sense of entitlement that many people display - Phatboy being a great example of this.
If people would like to play a part in reducing congestion then they need to stop being part of it - there is a finite amount of road space and trying to cram more and more large vehicles into it is going to only produce one result.
If you return to your bench in the near future, make a note of how many vehicles are single-occupant, then imagine what the traffic situation would look like if you removed half the vehicles (e.g. to simulate a situation wherein people only take the car if they have a passenger).
I have a large car, and use it - this was yesterday:
It's turbo-charge I5 petrol, and has around 340 bhp after being extensively modified, which is why I'm on this site.
However, I'm not blind to the problems that it, and all other vehicles cause - so I commute on my bike, and walk to most places that it makes sense to reach in that way.
I quite honestly can't think of anything worse than trying to drive to work and back, from Zone 3 to Zone 1 - but that opinion is clearly not shared by a lot of others, who crawl though town at 9mph every rush-hour.
But a lot of people won't ever consider getting out of the car and trying another means of travel, so congestion will keep on mounting- despite what people like Opulent Bob do to try to make the roads more efficient.
Live in Yate and while I had a good old rant about the Sodbury bypass being reduced to one lane both ways and a 40 limit (and the obligatory appearance of speed camera vans, usually parked very close to where this accident happened), I can't say that this contributed to this sad accident. ITV website had a picture where it looks fairly clear that the car simply pulled out infront of the lorry.
Certainly didn't stop it happening though.
Certainly didn't stop it happening though.
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
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."The accusation is vehemently denied by Transport for London (TfL), the mayoral body in charge of major roads and all the capital's traffic lights. But TfL has now admitted, in a written answer to Conservative members of the Greater London Authority that more than 300 traffic lights have been altered in the past eight months – but for a variety of reasons none of which, it says, are to deliberately create traffic chaos."
An accusation which was vehemently denied. I think Opulent Bob was asking for evidence, not accusations.
Phatboy317 said:
Sadly, an elderly couple have now died as a result of this Harebrained scheme
They have blood on their hands!
They have blood on their hands!
Phatboy317 said:
Drivers make mistakes - the big difference here is that they changed the road layout to one which is far less forgiving of mistakes.
And this was arguably done by professionals, who you'd think should know better.
This accident is the first fatal accident ever at that junction, and it comes just months after these changes were made.
Maybe they altered the jnc due to political pressure maybe lots of small accidents will now become less frequent major accidents ?And this was arguably done by professionals, who you'd think should know better.
This accident is the first fatal accident ever at that junction, and it comes just months after these changes were made.
mooseracer said:
ITV website had a picture where it looks fairly clear that the car simply pulled out infront of the lorry.
Certainly didn't stop it happening though.
As Phatboy States drivers make mistakes? Certainly didn't stop it happening though.
In Cappos case a driver went through a red light, in this case "car pulled out on front of lorry"?
Best blame the highway engineers though ?
OpulentBob said:
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.
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!
I have never said that I want priority over other road users, I also do not think that all speed reductions are wrong. I walk and cycle, I also use public transport infrequently, what I and others want is well thought out schemes that are necessary not a knee jerk or in response to hysterical campaigns. 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!
The scheme that started this thread is one of the worst I have seen, but I do not think they have blood on their hands as I said we need the facts not speculation. The way this one has been designed is silly, the cycle lane is wide but starts next to the pavement then moves out towards the centre, then cars are forced into one lane as the cycle path moves out. This then comes back across up the hill until the junction where it moves over again towards the centre then back until the speed camera bay where it now is forced out to the narrowest point between the traffic lane. It then cuts back in for a few yards then the road is back to dual carrigeway so the cycle path ends.
The justification to do it was gained by extending the length to take up two accidents out towards Old Sodbury, one of which was the BIL of a friend who walked out of the Bell inn straight into the road and was killed. Speed limit would not have had any effect there.
Some of the schemes around South Glos have been objected to by police, but the councils still force them through.
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
The evidence is in the timings quoted in the article. Or do longer reds = quicker traffic flow?
Of course the timings have been changed, for reasons that Dammit has already pointed out. But the question was about motive, not results.V8 Fettler said:
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
The evidence is in the timings quoted in the article. Or do longer reds = quicker traffic flow?
Of course the timings have been changed, for reasons that Dammit has already pointed out. But the question was about motive, not results.
jules_s said:
For all the comments here, I have to (an extent) agree with the OP
Moving the double broken lines further into the highway 'might' have been a contributing factor in the fatal accident, although 'blood on their hands' was/is OTT
In retrospect, my comment was probably a bit OTT, then again, I've had several run-ins with the SGC over the years.Moving the double broken lines further into the highway 'might' have been a contributing factor in the fatal accident, although 'blood on their hands' was/is OTT
V8 Fettler said:
Dammit said:
Welcome to what??V8 Fettler said:
What have "EMG pick-ups" (?) and appendectomies got to do with traffic congestion? Bizarre.
Dammit said:
Dammit is helping you with the concept of analogy.This may be more difficult than I at first thought.
Your contention is that because something has changed (red lights for vehicles are slightly longer) the reason for this is to increase congestion.
This is a paranoid fantasy, and is untrue.
What you are observing is a side effect of giving pedestrians a longer period of time in which to cross the road.
A side effect is something which is secondary to the main result which one is aiming to achieve.
Because this is hard for you to understand both Snglecoil and myself tried to use an analogy (follow the link to get a definition).
Here's an example:
Yesterday I was working on the bathroom, I put up plasterboard, then taped and sealed the seams.
Once the jointing compound was dry I sanded it back so the walls and ceiling were flat.
This created a lot of fine dust.
The dust was a side effect - I did not set out to create dust, my goal was to create a smooth surface.
Now, this is similar to the situation with the lights, in that the primary goal has a secondary effect - the dust in the case of the sanding, and the longer time at red for the vehicles.
So- does this help you to understand that the road engineers are not setting out to increase congestion when they give people slightly longer to cross the road?
Also - I have £20 that says waiting fractionally longer at red doesn't decrease average vehicle speeds in a measurable way.
Your contention is that because something has changed (red lights for vehicles are slightly longer) the reason for this is to increase congestion.
This is a paranoid fantasy, and is untrue.
What you are observing is a side effect of giving pedestrians a longer period of time in which to cross the road.
A side effect is something which is secondary to the main result which one is aiming to achieve.
Because this is hard for you to understand both Snglecoil and myself tried to use an analogy (follow the link to get a definition).
Here's an example:
Yesterday I was working on the bathroom, I put up plasterboard, then taped and sealed the seams.
Once the jointing compound was dry I sanded it back so the walls and ceiling were flat.
This created a lot of fine dust.
The dust was a side effect - I did not set out to create dust, my goal was to create a smooth surface.
Now, this is similar to the situation with the lights, in that the primary goal has a secondary effect - the dust in the case of the sanding, and the longer time at red for the vehicles.
So- does this help you to understand that the road engineers are not setting out to increase congestion when they give people slightly longer to cross the road?
Also - I have £20 that says waiting fractionally longer at red doesn't decrease average vehicle speeds in a measurable way.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff