ROAD CLAIMS VICTIM EVERY SIX DAYS
Discussion
From today's Bath Evening Chronicle (plus the letter I've already sent the Editor in response)
http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163301&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163031&contentPK=12517198
ROAD CLAIMS VICTIM EVERY SIX DAYS
Next Story | Previous Story | Back to list
BY DAVID LEWINS
11:00 - 25 May 2005
Someone is injured on Bath's most notorious stretch of road every six days. Figures released by the Highways Agency illustrate the dangers posed by part of the A46 near the city.
But the Government body says there is little it can do to make the stretch between the Cold Ashton roundabout and Batheaston any safer.
And a European rating system looking at major roads across the UK says it is not actually the most accident-prone road in the Bath area - awarding the title to the A4 instead.
The Highways Agency figures reveal there have been 185 casualties on the four-and-half mile stretch of the A46 in the past three years.
The agency is expected to begin work at the end of this month to reinforce the reduced speed limit on parts of the A46, with new '50' signs painted on the road surface.
However, residents living near the road's worst blackspot - Hartley Bends at Swainswick - say more needs to be done to get motorists to reduce their speed.
Three years ago the speed limit along the stretch between Cold Ashton and Swainswick was reduced from 60mph to 50mph.
However, in the past three years, there have been 118 crashes. Among these there was one fatality, 15 serious injuries, and a total of 185 casualties.
The agency, which is responsible for the A46, said the plans to paint '50' at eight points along the road had been in the pipeline for a while, and had been scheduled to be carried out in this financial year.
But it said there were no further plans at the moment for more road safety measures.
The European Road Assessment Programme assesses the A46 as having a low to medium accident rate, with the A4 deemed to have a medium rate. The assessments, which cover 2001 and 2003, give the M4 a low rating and the A36 and A350 low to medium ratings.
The agency has successfully reduced the accident toll further along the A46, at the turning to Dyrham Park. Between 2000 and the summer of 2002, when a new right-turn filter lane was built, there had been 12 recorded accidents at the junction. Since the lane was created, there have been just four, and the number of incidents specifically involving vehicles turning right has halved.
Now residents living near the Tree Tops and Hartley Bends spots want more to be done to improve safety on their part of road.
A spokeswoman for the action group, Charmy Down Residents and Associates, said the limit at the bends should be reduced still further. "I've lived here for 21 years and I have never taken the bends at 50mph. I always go 30mph or 35mph. It's a blind bend - you never know if there is a tractor turning out of the Hartley Farm track on the other side.
"I don't think putting '50' on the road will make any difference. The 50 signs are already up along the side of the road and are being ignored.
"There should at least be signs saying this is an accident blackspot. Ideally, the speed limit should be lowered and there should be flashing signs to warn people who are speeding.
"Parts of the road are little more than a country lane, but there is a huge amount of traffic using it, including great big 16-wheel lorries. How many people have to die for this to be considered a high-risk road?"
Swainswick Parish Council clerk Pat Shutter said it felt more should be done. "We think a sign flashing the limit would be helpful."
Bath MP Don Foster welcomed all safety efforts: "There can be no doubt that there are safety concerns on this road. Anything that improves safety is welcome.
"But if the residents are saying more needs to be done, then they are probably right."
Cllr Sir Elgar Jenkins, Bath and North East Somerset Council's executive member for highways, said flashing speed lights could be very effective, but in the end it fell to drivers to be safe.
"This road needs to be much wider to cope with the volume of traffic is has to cope with," he said.
"But in the end it falls to all drivers to make sure they are not exceeding the speed limit."
The Highways Agency calculates how dangerous roads are based on the number of fatal and serious injury crashes, which means accidents such as the 13-vehicle pile-up in April near Cold Ashton and a drama in which a jack-knifed lorry at Swainswick caused eight hours of traffic chaos, are not counted.
"We don't count shunts," said a Highways Agency spokesman.
"It comes down to finances. We have to divert money to where there is the greatest need.
"But that is not to say nothing is being done here - we are reinforcing the speed limit."
A46 NONSENSE
I'm afraid your latest article on the accident rate on the A46 (ROAD CLAIMS VICTIM EVERY SIX DAYS, 25th May) shows again that the current pre-occupation with speed limits is not helping to reduce road casualties.
You state that the speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph on this stretch three years ago. You then state that in the same period there have been 118 crashes, one fatality, 15 serious injuries, and a total of 185 casualties.
What you don't say is what the figures were for the three years before the speed limit was lowered. I'd safely bet that they were not significantly higher and were probably lower.
It doesn't take a great intelligence to rationalise that if accidents continue to occur after the speed limit has been lowered, the problem is not the speed limit.
The road isn't axiomatically dangerous. The road is inanimate. The variable factor is the people who drive on it.
Accidents are increasing everywhere because the standard of driving is coming down. Reducing speed limits does not improve the standard of driving and does nothing to prevent accidents. The only way that we will see improvements in road safety is to improve the standard of driving of the people who use our roads, and then improve the standard of enforcement of all road laws with properly trained Police Officers, not with indiscriminate boxes on sticks and numbers painted on the road surface.
http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163301&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163031&contentPK=12517198
ROAD CLAIMS VICTIM EVERY SIX DAYS
Next Story | Previous Story | Back to list
BY DAVID LEWINS
11:00 - 25 May 2005
Someone is injured on Bath's most notorious stretch of road every six days. Figures released by the Highways Agency illustrate the dangers posed by part of the A46 near the city.
But the Government body says there is little it can do to make the stretch between the Cold Ashton roundabout and Batheaston any safer.
And a European rating system looking at major roads across the UK says it is not actually the most accident-prone road in the Bath area - awarding the title to the A4 instead.
The Highways Agency figures reveal there have been 185 casualties on the four-and-half mile stretch of the A46 in the past three years.
The agency is expected to begin work at the end of this month to reinforce the reduced speed limit on parts of the A46, with new '50' signs painted on the road surface.
However, residents living near the road's worst blackspot - Hartley Bends at Swainswick - say more needs to be done to get motorists to reduce their speed.
Three years ago the speed limit along the stretch between Cold Ashton and Swainswick was reduced from 60mph to 50mph.
However, in the past three years, there have been 118 crashes. Among these there was one fatality, 15 serious injuries, and a total of 185 casualties.
The agency, which is responsible for the A46, said the plans to paint '50' at eight points along the road had been in the pipeline for a while, and had been scheduled to be carried out in this financial year.
But it said there were no further plans at the moment for more road safety measures.
The European Road Assessment Programme assesses the A46 as having a low to medium accident rate, with the A4 deemed to have a medium rate. The assessments, which cover 2001 and 2003, give the M4 a low rating and the A36 and A350 low to medium ratings.
The agency has successfully reduced the accident toll further along the A46, at the turning to Dyrham Park. Between 2000 and the summer of 2002, when a new right-turn filter lane was built, there had been 12 recorded accidents at the junction. Since the lane was created, there have been just four, and the number of incidents specifically involving vehicles turning right has halved.
Now residents living near the Tree Tops and Hartley Bends spots want more to be done to improve safety on their part of road.
A spokeswoman for the action group, Charmy Down Residents and Associates, said the limit at the bends should be reduced still further. "I've lived here for 21 years and I have never taken the bends at 50mph. I always go 30mph or 35mph. It's a blind bend - you never know if there is a tractor turning out of the Hartley Farm track on the other side.
"I don't think putting '50' on the road will make any difference. The 50 signs are already up along the side of the road and are being ignored.
"There should at least be signs saying this is an accident blackspot. Ideally, the speed limit should be lowered and there should be flashing signs to warn people who are speeding.
"Parts of the road are little more than a country lane, but there is a huge amount of traffic using it, including great big 16-wheel lorries. How many people have to die for this to be considered a high-risk road?"
Swainswick Parish Council clerk Pat Shutter said it felt more should be done. "We think a sign flashing the limit would be helpful."
Bath MP Don Foster welcomed all safety efforts: "There can be no doubt that there are safety concerns on this road. Anything that improves safety is welcome.
"But if the residents are saying more needs to be done, then they are probably right."
Cllr Sir Elgar Jenkins, Bath and North East Somerset Council's executive member for highways, said flashing speed lights could be very effective, but in the end it fell to drivers to be safe.
"This road needs to be much wider to cope with the volume of traffic is has to cope with," he said.
"But in the end it falls to all drivers to make sure they are not exceeding the speed limit."
The Highways Agency calculates how dangerous roads are based on the number of fatal and serious injury crashes, which means accidents such as the 13-vehicle pile-up in April near Cold Ashton and a drama in which a jack-knifed lorry at Swainswick caused eight hours of traffic chaos, are not counted.
"We don't count shunts," said a Highways Agency spokesman.
"It comes down to finances. We have to divert money to where there is the greatest need.
"But that is not to say nothing is being done here - we are reinforcing the speed limit."
A46 NONSENSE
I'm afraid your latest article on the accident rate on the A46 (ROAD CLAIMS VICTIM EVERY SIX DAYS, 25th May) shows again that the current pre-occupation with speed limits is not helping to reduce road casualties.
You state that the speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph on this stretch three years ago. You then state that in the same period there have been 118 crashes, one fatality, 15 serious injuries, and a total of 185 casualties.
What you don't say is what the figures were for the three years before the speed limit was lowered. I'd safely bet that they were not significantly higher and were probably lower.
It doesn't take a great intelligence to rationalise that if accidents continue to occur after the speed limit has been lowered, the problem is not the speed limit.
The road isn't axiomatically dangerous. The road is inanimate. The variable factor is the people who drive on it.
Accidents are increasing everywhere because the standard of driving is coming down. Reducing speed limits does not improve the standard of driving and does nothing to prevent accidents. The only way that we will see improvements in road safety is to improve the standard of driving of the people who use our roads, and then improve the standard of enforcement of all road laws with properly trained Police Officers, not with indiscriminate boxes on sticks and numbers painted on the road surface.
I see some encouragement in that report. It doesn't mention cameras! 
Flashing signs, good. "The road needs to be wider", good.
In fact the only people who are saying and doing the wrong things are the Highways Agency, the only group with the power to do anything. "We've got a bit of road that hosts lots of accidents, what shall we do? I know lets plaster it with a load of slippery paint, that'll help."
Flashing signs, good. "The road needs to be wider", good.
In fact the only people who are saying and doing the wrong things are the Highways Agency, the only group with the power to do anything. "We've got a bit of road that hosts lots of accidents, what shall we do? I know lets plaster it with a load of slippery paint, that'll help."
Eight 50's in huge text painted on the road.
That will solve the problem won't it
Is inappropriate speed an issue here, will 10mph make a difference?
If the speed is inappropriate, why are people thinking thats it's appropriate?
Badly made road that needs re-engineering I think!
Dave
That will solve the problem won't it
Is inappropriate speed an issue here, will 10mph make a difference?
If the speed is inappropriate, why are people thinking thats it's appropriate?
Badly made road that needs re-engineering I think!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Eight 50's in huge text painted on the road.
That will solve the problem won't it
Is inappropriate speed an issue here, will 10mph make a difference?
If the speed is inappropriate, why are people thinking thats it's appropriate?
Badly made road that needs re-engineering I think!
Dave
It's not a badly made road at all. The section in question is actually wide and very well surfaced, but has an off camber 90 degree corner as part of an S bend. There is no run-off and no way that run-off can be provided - on one side is a hillside and on the other a guard rail and a steep drop into a beautiful valley a couple of hundred feet down.
There's no reason why anybody behaving remotely sensibly should crash there. I've been round the corner at speeds considerably higher than the limit on both two wheels and four.
First off, I don't think the stats are as bad as they are made out to be. Second off, people who do manage to crash there do so because they are idiots, not because the road is dangerous. My personal view is that they are almost certainly gawping at the view over the valley instead of concentrating on where they are going.
Quite a few of the incidents I have been aware of have involved HGVs coming into Bath from the M4 late at night. I don't know what the explanation for that might be...
Mon Ami Mate said:
A spokeswoman for the action group, Charmy Down Residents and Associates, said the limit at the bends should be reduced still further. "I've lived here for 21 years and I have never taken the bends at 50mph. I always go 30mph or 35mph. It's a blind bend - you never know if there is a tractor turning out of the Hartley Farm track on the other side.
So the 60 limit wasn't the problem anyway - highlighting the 50 limit won't solve anything if the corner needs to be taken at 35!
Mon Ami Mate said:
Eight 50's in huge text painted on the road.
That will solve the problem won't it
Is inappropriate speed an issue here, will 10mph make a difference?
If the speed is inappropriate, why are people thinking thats it's appropriate?
Badly made road that needs re-engineering I think!
Dave
It's not a badly made road at all. The section in question is actually wide and very well surfaced, but has an off camber 90 degree corner as part of an S bend. There is no run-off and no way that run-off can be provided - on one side is a hillside and on the other a guard rail and a steep drop into a beautiful valley a couple of hundred feet down.
There's no reason why anybody behaving remotely sensibly should crash there. I've been round the corner at speeds considerably higher than the limit on both two wheels and four.
First off, I don't think the stats are as bad as they are made out to be. Second off, people who do manage to crash there do so because they are idiots, not because the road is dangerous. My personal view is that they are almost certainly gawping at the view over the valley instead of concentrating on where they are going.
Quite a few of the incidents I have been aware of have involved HGVs coming into Bath from the M4 late at night. I don't know what the explanation for that might be...
Yup, sounds like that good old cause of accidents then, not paying attention!
By bunging big 50's in the middle of the tarmac and more signs, where is their attention going to go?
Stupid bloody idiots. Why do so many people who want to make roads safer do it totally the wrong way. Clearly in the job for the wrong reasons if they don't care if the job they are doing actually works!
Dave
As MAM points out, its actually a great corner - one of those ones that just feels great when you get it 100% right. They've even trialled those "memory" cats' eyes there (the ones that charge up from headlamps and stay lit for a while after the vehicle passes, so as to indicate where the road goes for the next one) for the night drivers. I don't think anyone's yet managed to miss the bend alltogether and fall down the valley as I'm sure that would have made a bit of a splash in the local news.
Perhaps that's it, then? Dozy drivers gawping at the view and running up the chuff of slow-moving farm traffic around the bend? Can't see how a further reduced speed limit or a load of white paint is going to solve that one...
Mr Whippy said:
Stupid bloody idiots. Why do so many people who want to make roads safer do it totally the wrong way. Clearly in the job for the wrong reasons if they don't care if the job they are doing actually works!
Dave
Quite; I really do wonder how these people get a job in which they have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
It seems to be typical of this part of the public sector.
I live near this road and the accidents are not casued there by speed it is the condition of the road. Until a couple of years ago the road was falling away and had a lot of work done to support it and then to resurface it. The speed limit was reduced after the outcry of the new Batheaston bypass being fitted with cameras and a 50mph limit imposed.So you had a new dual carrigway with a limit of 50mph and then a road (two lanes up one down)with a limit of 60mph, so they dropped the limit.
The simple answer is to bulldoze the three or four houses right on the bends and continue the dual carrigway right up to the M4, but that will not allow any revenue to be raised will it.
The simple answer is to bulldoze the three or four houses right on the bends and continue the dual carrigway right up to the M4, but that will not allow any revenue to be raised will it.
spaximus said:
I live near this road and the accidents are not casued there by speed it is the condition of the road. Until a couple of years ago the road was falling away and had a lot of work done to support it and then to resurface it. The speed limit was reduced after the outcry of the new Batheaston bypass being fitted with cameras and a 50mph limit imposed.So you had a new dual carrigway with a limit of 50mph and then a road (two lanes up one down)with a limit of 60mph, so they dropped the limit.
The simple answer is to bulldoze the three or four houses right on the bends and continue the dual carrigway right up to the M4, but that will not allow any revenue to be raised will it.
Maybe, maybe not. The real problem IMHO is drivers who can not, or will not, drive in accordance with the conditions. We could go on for ever reducing speed limits, putting loads of paint on the roads etc., putting up warning signs, and re-designing bits of road to try and prevent accidents, and it would cost huge sums of money, quite out of proportion to the benefits. Such a policy is IMHO simply not sustainable.
What we need is some kind of positive campaign to get drivers to simply look what they're doing. I feel sure that's the way we should try to approach this.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
deadlym said:
A spokeswoman for the action group, Charmy Down Residents and Associates, said the limit at the bends should be reduced still further. "I've lived here for 21 years and I have never taken the bends at 50mph. I always go 30mph or 35mph. It's a blind bend - you never know if there is a tractor turning out of the Hartley Farm track on the other side.
So the 60 limit wasn't the problem anyway - highlighting the 50 limit won't solve anything if the corner needs to be taken at 35!
I cant remember the exact terminology, but the maximum is 60 or 50, but only if it is safe to do so. If there is a corner which is tight, doesnt mean that it must be taken at a minimum speed. In fact several research projects have highlighted that reducing road signage actually increases motorists awareness and observation.
Taking a 60 / NSL road and dropping it to 50 with lots of signs has the inverse effect. People now assume that 50 is perfectly normal for all circumstances - which it plainly isnt.
I don't know the area of which you speak. But my small 2 pennies worth.
If those of you that know it well, drove this stretch of road: in say bad weather, or in the dark, at busy times etc, as a complete stranger who has NEVER driven that stretch before, what would you want?
What dangers are there that the stranger could NOT possibly know, and shouldn't they be warned rather than mearly reducing the speed limit with no explanation? No warning of a dangerous junction etc?
I only mention this because I know of such roads in my area, they too have no warnings of frequent accidents and their cause. A stranger would drive into them unaware of the problems.
A "B" road that I frequently travel near Warrington has a 60 mph limit, (no problem there) until a couple of junctions 200 yrds apart, (one from the left, one to the right).
There are frequent accidents because drivers from the minor roads (and one accident involving the farmer in between the junctions) pull out in front of traffic on the main road. I DON'T think that reducing the limit is going to make any difference here. The minor roads are part of a "local lanes" run to avoid traffic congestion. Almost ALL who use it exit from the left, travel 200 yrds and then turn right.
They are impatient and tend not want to stop and wait. I frequently have to brake hard as they pull out in front of me (despite the light traffic) and there being no-one behind me. Only to have to stop behind them 200 yrds further whilst they wait to turn right.
The speed you approach the junctions at makes no difference, the slower you go, the more likely they are to pull out, it's actually better to travel at speed and disuade them from pulling out!
My gripe is that there are no warnings whatsoever for the stranger or unaware of the problems there, despite multiple accidents. No doubt at some stage a "camera" will be erected there and that will "cure it"
Sorry for the long post, but,
Do you see any similarities in your example?
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 26th May 02:10
If those of you that know it well, drove this stretch of road: in say bad weather, or in the dark, at busy times etc, as a complete stranger who has NEVER driven that stretch before, what would you want?
What dangers are there that the stranger could NOT possibly know, and shouldn't they be warned rather than mearly reducing the speed limit with no explanation? No warning of a dangerous junction etc?
I only mention this because I know of such roads in my area, they too have no warnings of frequent accidents and their cause. A stranger would drive into them unaware of the problems.
A "B" road that I frequently travel near Warrington has a 60 mph limit, (no problem there) until a couple of junctions 200 yrds apart, (one from the left, one to the right).
There are frequent accidents because drivers from the minor roads (and one accident involving the farmer in between the junctions) pull out in front of traffic on the main road. I DON'T think that reducing the limit is going to make any difference here. The minor roads are part of a "local lanes" run to avoid traffic congestion. Almost ALL who use it exit from the left, travel 200 yrds and then turn right.
They are impatient and tend not want to stop and wait. I frequently have to brake hard as they pull out in front of me (despite the light traffic) and there being no-one behind me. Only to have to stop behind them 200 yrds further whilst they wait to turn right.
The speed you approach the junctions at makes no difference, the slower you go, the more likely they are to pull out, it's actually better to travel at speed and disuade them from pulling out!
My gripe is that there are no warnings whatsoever for the stranger or unaware of the problems there, despite multiple accidents. No doubt at some stage a "camera" will be erected there and that will "cure it"
Sorry for the long post, but,
Do you see any similarities in your example?
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 26th May 02:10
Cllr Elgar-something said:
"But in the end it falls to all drivers to make sure they are not exceeding the speed limit."
Precisely what difference will this make?
If the maximum safe speed around these corners is 35mph, surely it falls to all drivers to make sure they are travelling at an appropriate speed?
- Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff