speed limits: do they work? (of course not)

[Toltec]

OpulentBob said:

Yes and yes. We are spending a st load of money putting in anticlimb barriers to stop the kids going over at the roundabout but where there's a will there's a way. All we can do is make him aware and submit an unsigned design, as the exec Councillor he can sign it off (and any associated safer audits etc) and get it put in.

If we could resist in any stronger way, we would.

Perhaps signage should be more direct



How about cigarette style warnings in the middle of a steering wheel?

[jm doc]

jith said:

flemke said:

Your caustic judgment of Setright's point implies that you believe that your own intelligence easily exceeds his. Perhaps it does.

My god, it's Callaghan we're talking about! Think of a small number, half it, half it again and you are near his IQ!

J

I suspect from their comments that a lot of posters on this thread are unaware of tapereel's long and inglorious association with this forum, failing in each new guise and having to leave with his tail between his legs.

[Pete317]

jith said:

flemke said:

Your caustic judgment of Setright's point implies that you believe that your own intelligence easily exceeds his. Perhaps it does.

My god, it's Callaghan we're talking about! Think of a small number, half it, half it again and you are near his IQ!

J

You don't mean Dirty Harry, do you?

Damn! Now you've spoiled it for me

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 18th August 23:23

[Hackney]

Dammit said:

Relative lack of junctions, street furniture, parked vehicles, traffic coming the other way, and that fewer drivers are staring straight into their iPhone than in town.

Based on the M1 southbound this evening that's not true. I counted half a dozen cars out of 20odd where the driver was holding a phone in his or her hand or clearly looking down at one.

[V8 Fettler]

OpulentBob said:

V8 Fettler said:

OpulentBob said:

I know. It's ridiculous. The Councillor wants people to think of him as some sort of crusader, whereas in reality I think he lives nearby.

Another scheme he's pushed for is moving a pedestrian crossing away from a desire line next to a roundabout (his perception is that the signals at the crossing cause congestion - they don't, it's the sheer amount of traffic trying to use a 2-lane roundabout), and pushed it 250m away on the far side from most of the peds. This means that all the school kids that used to use the crossing correctly will just run across the roundabout instead, and I predict a significant kid's face/car bonnet interface before the winter is out. I've had to ask my technicians to do the design but not sign anything, and we'll get the Councillor to sign it off. But the Cllr thinks it will impress the motorists, and simply ignores anything the engineers say. Even the contractor employed to do the works thinks it's a bad idea.

This is a bizarre approach to design, are there no risk assessments to support your view? Doesn't CDM apply?

Yes and yes. We are spending a st load of money putting in anticlimb barriers to stop the kids going over at the roundabout but where there's a will there's a way. All we can do is make him aware and submit an unsigned design, as the exec Councillor he can sign it off (and any associated safer audits etc) and get it put in.

If we could resist in any stronger way, we would.

The Principal Designer (was CDM-C) should pick up on your adverse design risk assessments and stop the process. Barriers adjacent to the road create other issues, as I'm sure you are aware.

[anthonym]

V8 Fettler said:

The Principal Designer (was CDM-C)

Interesting, who is that?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

OpulentBob said:

V8 Fettler said:

OpulentBob said:

I know. It's ridiculous. The Councillor wants people to think of him as some sort of crusader, whereas in reality I think he lives nearby.

Another scheme he's pushed for is moving a pedestrian crossing away from a desire line next to a roundabout (his perception is that the signals at the crossing cause congestion - they don't, it's the sheer amount of traffic trying to use a 2-lane roundabout), and pushed it 250m away on the far side from most of the peds. This means that all the school kids that used to use the crossing correctly will just run across the roundabout instead, and I predict a significant kid's face/car bonnet interface before the winter is out. I've had to ask my technicians to do the design but not sign anything, and we'll get the Councillor to sign it off. But the Cllr thinks it will impress the motorists, and simply ignores anything the engineers say. Even the contractor employed to do the works thinks it's a bad idea.

This is a bizarre approach to design, are there no risk assessments to support your view? Doesn't CDM apply?

Yes and yes. We are spending a st load of money putting in anticlimb barriers to stop the kids going over at the roundabout but where there's a will there's a way. All we can do is make him aware and submit an unsigned design, as the exec Councillor he can sign it off (and any associated safer audits etc) and get it put in.

If we could resist in any stronger way, we would.

The Principal Designer (was CDM-C) should pick up on your adverse design risk assessments and stop the process. Barriers adjacent to the road create other issues, as I'm sure you are aware.

They do. But the executive Councillor can sign off anything he likes. He is the voice of the people, as far as spending public money is concerned.

The crossing will be within spec. It will have correct visibility splays, signing and stopping-sight distances, local knowledge of the designers is what has flagged the issue. Anyone not familiar with the roundabout/crossing would look at it and think it was fine. People who drive it every day will know that the platoons of school kids and commuters using it in each peak will in all likelihood not do the 500m extra walking if they're late for a train, bus etc, and will get the wrong side of the barriers somehow.

[anthonym]

quote "The Principal Designer (was CDM-C) should pick up on your adverse design risk assessments and stop the process. Barriers adjacent to the road create other issues, as I'm sure you are aware." end quote



ok think I found it, is this it? edit: this doc is stamped DRAFT.

https://www.citb.co.uk/documents/cdm%20regs/indust...

[PDF]Industry guidance for Principal Designers - CITB
https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&am... Advice for principal designers working for domestic clients 15 ... There are six guides: one for each of the five duty holders under CDM and an additional one for workers. .... For further information on the health and safety file, see Annex C.
[PDF]

Edited by anthonym on Wednesday 19th August 13:24

Edited by anthonym on Wednesday 19th August 13:25

[anthonym]

vonhosen said:

robinessex said:

The late L J K Setright, probably the most intelligent motoring journalist ever, said there should be only 1 motoring offence, dangerous driving.

Many probably more intelligent people don't agree with him.

The purpose of a speed limit is to provide for the safety of all road users. To meet this purpose, a speed limit must be acceptable to the public and be enforceable by the police.

Currently the situation achieves neither.

[flemke]

tapereel said:

Pete317 said:

tapereel said:

With a comment like that as a eulogy it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the rest of the motoring press.

Did he say it after being caught for a lesser offence?

What are your notable achievements then?

I just did a quick google for "tapereel", and apparently you don't exist outside of PH

I don't need any to make that comment. Perhaps if you cited the article in which this gem of wisdom was quoted from it would assist because on its own it seems to be nothing more than a perfunctory remark by your hero.

Tapereel, below is a link to the obituary of LJK Setright, from The Independent, which is not known as a mouthpiece for petrolheads.

From Setright's obituary:

The Independent said:

He insisted there should be one, and only one, motoring offence - dangerous driving - and argued that most speed limits did nothing to promote safety.

Link to full obituary:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/l-j-k...

Why don't you have a read? Although Setright's intelligence was, I gather, not up to your own (or Vonhosen's) standard, it is theoretically possible that the article contains some trivial fact of which you are unaware.

[V8 Fettler]

anthonym said:

quote "The Principal Designer (was CDM-C) should pick up on your adverse design risk assessments and stop the process. Barriers adjacent to the road create other issues, as I'm sure you are aware." end quote



ok think I found it, is this it? edit: this doc is stamped DRAFT.

https://www.citb.co.uk/documents/cdm%20regs/indust...

[PDF]Industry guidance for Principal Designers - CITB
https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&am... Advice for principal designers working for domestic clients 15 ... There are six guides: one for each of the five duty holders under CDM and an additional one for workers. .... For further information on the health and safety file, see Annex C.
[PDF]

Edited by anthonym on Wednesday 19th August 13:24

Edited by anthonym on Wednesday 19th August 13:25

Design to eliminate hazards and control risks:

someone somewhere said:

Designers should avoid hazards where possible, but there will be many situations where it is not possible to avoid all hazards. Where hazards cannot be avoided, the designer should reduce the risks associated with the hazard. The amount of effort put in to avoiding hazards and reducing risks should be proportionate to the degree of risk. They are not required to spend time, money and trouble on low-risk issues.

The (historical) role of Co-ordinator under the "Construction (Design and Management) Regulations" included "advise on the suitability, co-ordination and compatibility of designs in relation to health and safety."

The Co-ordinator's role has now been replaced, some background: http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/CDM_2015_...

[anthonym]

V8 Fettler said:

The (historical) role of Co-ordinator under the "Construction (Design and Management) Regulations" included "advise on the suitability, co-ordination and compatibility of designs in relation to health and safety."

The Co-ordinator's role has now been replaced, some background: http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/CDM_2015_...

thanks for that. Were you saying in that earlier exchange that this role exists within the council structure and that person would have the power to stop the councillor enacting anything inappropriate, presumably based on established standards ?

Absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth here, merely hoping to understand the powers and processes in play.

[V8 Fettler]

anthonym said:

V8 Fettler said:

The (historical) role of Co-ordinator under the "Construction (Design and Management) Regulations" included "advise on the suitability, co-ordination and compatibility of designs in relation to health and safety."

The Co-ordinator's role has now been replaced, some background: http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/CDM_2015_...

thanks for that. Were you saying in that earlier exchange that this role exists within the council structure and that person would have the power to stop the councillor enacting anything inappropriate, presumably based on established standards ?

Absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth here, merely hoping to understand the powers and processes in play.

I'm not aware of any CDM Co-ordinator who is/was directly employed by a local authority, there would probably be a conflict of interest. CDM Co-ordinators had no powers of enforcement, neither do Principal Designers, but it could be professional suicide and financially disastrous for all parties to allow a high risk design to be developed when a low risk alternative was readily available, e.g http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-sw-739sww09.h...

The risks are generally highest during the construction phase of a project, but there should be consideration of risks applicable to use, maintenance and final demolition, the "use" bit being relevant to Opulent Bob's roundabout project.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

anthonym said:

V8 Fettler said:

The (historical) role of Co-ordinator under the "Construction (Design and Management) Regulations" included "advise on the suitability, co-ordination and compatibility of designs in relation to health and safety."

The Co-ordinator's role has now been replaced, some background: http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/CDM_2015_...

thanks for that. Were you saying in that earlier exchange that this role exists within the council structure and that person would have the power to stop the councillor enacting anything inappropriate, presumably based on established standards ?

Absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth here, merely hoping to understand the powers and processes in play.

I'm not aware of any CDM Co-ordinator who is/was directly employed by a local authority, there would probably be a conflict of interest. CDM Co-ordinators had no powers of enforcement, neither do Principal Designers, but it could be professional suicide and financially disastrous for all parties to allow a high risk design to be developed when a low risk alternative was readily available, e.g http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-sw-739sww09.h...

The risks are generally highest during the construction phase of a project, but there should be consideration of risks applicable to use, maintenance and final demolition, the "use" bit being relevant to Opulent Bob's roundabout project.

(My bold)



Hence why none of my team have put any signatures or initials on any drawings.

As far as I know the scheme hasn't been built yet although the design was completed before I left the country, I don't know if it's been installed yet. The plan was to get it put in before the school summer holidays finished but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been pushed back due to the issues.

[anthonym]

V8 Fettler said:

I'm not aware of any CDM Co-ordinator who is/was directly employed by a local authority, there would probably be a conflict of interest. CDM Co-ordinators had no powers of enforcement, neither do Principal Designers, but it could be professional suicide and financially disastrous for all parties to allow a high risk design to be developed when a low risk alternative was readily available, e.g http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-sw-739sww09.h...

The risks are generally highest during the construction phase of a project, but there should be consideration of risks applicable to use, maintenance and final demolition, the "use" bit being relevant to Opulent Bob's roundabout project.

as I try to think that through from that link (but in reverse order):

"Notes to editors
Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

are the parties in Opulent Bob's case thus:

employer=the council (i.e. Opulent Bob's employer)
persons not in his employment = road users (I suppose = other persons' employees and/or the public more generally) i.e. everyone regardless unless an employee

That informs me in that while I am aware of public liability, I have not thought of HSE matters in terms of road safety or indeed related to councils in that context. Seems obvious now you point it out - assuming I have understood correctly?

"While it is rare for designers to be charged with breaching health and safety legislation, they must be aware they can be held responsible where bad design is an important contributory factor to a work-place fatality."

The "designer" being "the council"? Though within the council we have those qualified to design, being usurped by a (unqualified) political master?


edit: our (Opulent Bob and me) above two posts posted simultaneously - had to smile at "left the country".

Edited by anthonym on Thursday 20th August 04:31

[anonymous-user]

anthonym said:

The "designer" being "the council"? Though within the council we have those qualified to design, being usurped by a (unqualified) political master?


edit: our (Opulent Bob and me) above two posts posted simultaneously - had to smile at "left the country".

The Executive Councillor for Highways and Transportation can sign off pretty much anything. He will have advice from engineers, safety guys etc but as the elected guy sat at the top of the tree, he can spend public money in whatever way he chooses. He just has to justify it come election time. As I said, the design will be safe, but at a significantly higher cost than just leaving it - especially as the change is, anecdotally at least, wanted by him and him alone.

I'm the engineering equivalent of Ronnie Biggs... (not really, I just got a MUCH better offer over here!)

[anthonym]

gosh, India. Now that is a highway safety challenge. I was reading about their problems the other day. And hot! :-)

[anonymous-user]

anthonym said:

gosh, India. Now that is a highway safety challenge. I was reading about their problems the other day. And hot! :-)

You might think that (I did!) - it's chaotic yes - but I saw my first actual traffic collision in 4 months this morning. A tiny, minor prang which just cracked a light cluster. How many times on a UK commute do you see the evidential spray of glass shards across a roundabout or the side of a road? Here, hardly ever.

Saying that, I'm not allowed to drive here. Had to sign a contract for my work/health insurance saying that I wouldn't drive, use a 2-wheeler, or cycle. And I'm glad for it. I'd crash in seconds... It's a totally different approach/mentality to driving here.

The car horns everywhere drive you mad. Like, to the point of developing a tick over them. Between about 6am and 2am, you'll be lucky if you go for 5 seconds without hearing a car horn. It reminds me of the South African World Cup and the bloody vuvuzela. "Look, we can make a noise, LET'S MAKE NOISE!!"

[anthonym]

OpulentBob said:

anthonym said:

gosh, India. Now that is a highway safety challenge. I was reading about their problems the other day. And hot! :-)

You might think that (I did!) - it's chaotic yes - but I saw my first actual traffic collision in 4 months this morning. A tiny, minor prang which just cracked a light cluster. How many times on a UK commute do you see the evidential spray of glass shards across a roundabout or the side of a road? Here, hardly ever.

Saying that, I'm not allowed to drive here. Had to sign a contract for my work/health insurance saying that I wouldn't drive, use a 2-wheeler, or cycle. And I'm glad for it. I'd crash in seconds... It's a totally different approach/mentality to driving here.

The car horns everywhere drive you mad. Like, to the point of developing a tick over them. Between about 6am and 2am, you'll be lucky if you go for 5 seconds without hearing a car horn. It reminds me of the South African World Cup and the bloody vuvuzela. "Look, we can make a noise, LET'S MAKE NOISE!!"

that no-drive term speak volumes - would suit some pressure groups. I used to live in a car free village (well, town really) and it was def relaxing - assuming I didn't fall off my bike in the snow :-)


edit: IIRC the statistic I saw was someone is killed every 4 minutes... enormous pop of course, but still.

Edited by anthonym on Thursday 20th August 06:41

Edited by anthonym on Thursday 20th August 06:42

[flemke]

anthonym said:

IIRC the statistic I saw was someone is killed every 4 minutes... enormous pop of course, but still.

According to Wiki, in 2013 there were 238,000 people killed in India as a result of RTAs. That would be 652/day, 27/hr, 1 every 2.2 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

As a percentage of motor vehicles in the country, quite a few countries in Africa have road fatality rates that are 10 times worse than India's. On the raw numbers, Sudan's fatality rate is 45 times worse.

At the peak in US, which was 1972, there were about 144 persons a day who were killed in RTAs. That was one every 10 minutes, in a population of 207m.
India's population is 6x larger, so one every 2.2 minutes is actually not as bad as peak rate in US.

Peak (peacetime) figure for UK was in 1966, with 22 fatalities/day, or one every 65 minutes when UK population was 55m. Adjusting for population difference, peak UK figure was thus slightly less bad than India's rate of one every 2.2 minutes/1.25b population, but not substantially so.