A140 Suffolk - Common sense to shine through?

[danohagan]

[url]http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED13%20Oct%202005%2017%3A45%3A51%3A717[/url]

Choice quote for me from the anti-speed council...

"I use the road every day when travelling to Ipswich and there used to be a time when it was carnage, with a tremendous number of deaths that were very, very disturbing, so it is encouraging that accident figures are down."

Carnage = one deaths in SIX years.

>> Edited by danohagan on Friday 14th October 12:43

[bumpkin]

i don't call accidents where the road has to be closed as 'slight' talk about economical with the truth. i have been inconvienienst more since they introduced the limits than i ever was before.

the villages are seeing more traffic due to the diversions and of course their in a hurry, they've been stuck in a traffic jam for an hour. nothing to do with the roads being 'fun'

good old suffolk, still flogging the dead horse

[Peter Ward]

article said:

The most popular reasons for [objecting] were because the 50mph limit led to more frustration, increased overtaking, longer journey times, loss of concentration because motorists were focused more on signs and speedometers than the road, more bunching of traffic and difficulty at joining the road at junctions and crossroads.

Isn't that a great list of objections? From ordinary people, not petrolheads. I would love to think that Brunstrom and the partnerships would take their blinkers off and have a long look at that list.

article said:

"Our main concern is people see the slower limit on the A140 and leave the road to speed off through other villages to avoid it. The number of speeding vehicles through our village has increased since the trial period, which is obviously very dangerous for residents."

Here's another great message. Drivers stop using roads with low limits and find other routes. Those other routes may not be as safe for the traffic volume as the original road. This is another thing that the partnerships refuse to acknowledge, because their objective is solely to reduce KSIs at camera sites.

You're left thinking again and again, "you couldn't make it up". How could road safety policy be getting it so wrong? Surely there's someone in the hierarchy who actually cares about safety rather than money? There must be someone who is prepared to take a fresh look at the wider implications of the current policy?

[lord summerisle]

always "something MUST be done [or we'll be out of a job]"

[Dr Jekyll]

To put it another way, something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it!

[autismuk]

"Between June 2004 and June 2005 there were nine 'slight' accidents on stretches of the A140 where the restrictions are in place. This compares to an average of two 'serious' accidents and 10 'minor' accidents between 1999 and 2004, including a fatality in 2002."

...... the restrictions are in place on the whole road, I smell a rat.

[autismuk]

Plus it misses one really obvious point.

The restrictions (as one can tell from the feedback) make the road absolute rubbish to drive on. Since they've been put down I have not *once* travelled down this bit of road, preferring alternative routes. I doubt I'm alone in this.

Perhaps this explains why Scamera Pratnerships never use a more accurate measurement of accidents, accidents per mile driven ?