Hare-brained safety 'improvement' scheme results in tragedy
Discussion
At the start of the year, the South Gloucestershire Council implemented a road safety 'improvement' scheme in Chipping Sodbury.
At the time, there was a discussion about this on another PH thread, here
Sadly, an elderly couple have now died as a result of this harebrained scheme:
News report here
Not only did they reduce the carriageway from dual to one lane, but they turned what was the inside lane into a bicycle lane, as well as turning the former filter lane into a parking place for scamera vans.
Now, people turning out of Hounds road have to pull out right over the bicycle lane, and directly into what was previously the outside lane, besides anything else, leaving oncoming traffic no space to swerve out if someone does turn out at the wrong time.
In short, they made the road more dangerous, in some vain attempt to slow people down, and now people have died.
They have blood on their hands!
At the time, there was a discussion about this on another PH thread, here
Sadly, an elderly couple have now died as a result of this harebrained scheme:
News report here
Not only did they reduce the carriageway from dual to one lane, but they turned what was the inside lane into a bicycle lane, as well as turning the former filter lane into a parking place for scamera vans.
Now, people turning out of Hounds road have to pull out right over the bicycle lane, and directly into what was previously the outside lane, besides anything else, leaving oncoming traffic no space to swerve out if someone does turn out at the wrong time.
In short, they made the road more dangerous, in some vain attempt to slow people down, and now people have died.
They have blood on their hands!
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 19th November 23:22
TooMany2cvs said:
Here's a thought... Perhaps they shouldn't "turn out at the wrong time"?
http://goo.gl/maps/vxTEt is the view from the junction, yes?
The deceased were turning left, and somehow managed to do so right into the path of a truck in a 30 limit. WTF? Did they not _look_?
If there was an issue over line-of-sight, then - yes - I can see that road improvements might be a possible cause, but - unless that is one SERIOUSLY misleading view - not in this case.
That view is what it used to look like before they implemented the 'improvements'.http://goo.gl/maps/vxTEt is the view from the junction, yes?
The deceased were turning left, and somehow managed to do so right into the path of a truck in a 30 limit. WTF? Did they not _look_?
If there was an issue over line-of-sight, then - yes - I can see that road improvements might be a possible cause, but - unless that is one SERIOUSLY misleading view - not in this case.
To get an idea of what it looks like now, see my description in the first post above, look at the South Gloucs. consultation plans linked to in the other thread, or go there and have a look for yourself.
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 mande.
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.
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.
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.
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?
OpulentBob said:
Evidence of what? A 50mph/30mph limit change?
Your debating skills leave a lot to be desired. Or you're psychic and we're not. Or, troll.
Evidence that rs1952 was not lying, as you would have seen had you read it in context.Your debating skills leave a lot to be desired. Or you're psychic and we're not. Or, troll.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Thursday 20th November 13:26
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff