South Glos speed limits
Discussion
Those of you that live in the South Gloucestershire area will be familiar with the zeal with which our local councillors are reducing speed limits. Their latest harebrained idea is now up for public consultation:
https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/...
I wouldn't presume to tell you what to say but I do urge all those with an opinion to ensure that South Glos council are aware of that opinion.
https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/...
I wouldn't presume to tell you what to say but I do urge all those with an opinion to ensure that South Glos council are aware of that opinion.
s.andylaurence said:
Go up a level ... it's not the only changes to speed limits they're proposing.
The changes in Latteridge are a fait accompli, the initial consulation was last year and they ignored all the objections as well as their own engineer's advice that the changes were not a good idea - the notice online now is a Statutory Notice advising that the changes are coming, like it or not. However my understanding is they had very few objections, possibly because they don't tend to make the consultations easy to find and respond toThe consultation that I have linked to has only recently gone online, they have also put up yellow signs on Cotswold Way advertising the scheme and inviting responses. If you believe, as I do, that these plans are misguided, inappropriate and unlikely to do anything positive for road safety please make your feelings known via the link and encourage others to do likewise. If we don't, the anti-car brigade on the council will just assume they have everyone's support.
Sent:
FAO: Christopher Hodgson
Sir
Having read the proposals I would like to voice my concerns which may lead to my objections.
I understand that there has been a number of KSI incidents on the stretch of road in question. However your statement of reason does not explain the nature of these incidents.
As part of the consultation I would like to have the following questions answered:
In the incidents reported were just vehicles involved, just pedestrians involved or both?
How was it concluded that speed was a factor in these incidents?
What provision had been made for pedestrians i.e. to separate them from the carriageway and to safely cross that road and at what points?
What is the estimated cost of your proposals?
Have other costed options been considered?
Yours faithfully
FAO: Christopher Hodgson
Sir
Having read the proposals I would like to voice my concerns which may lead to my objections.
I understand that there has been a number of KSI incidents on the stretch of road in question. However your statement of reason does not explain the nature of these incidents.
As part of the consultation I would like to have the following questions answered:
In the incidents reported were just vehicles involved, just pedestrians involved or both?
How was it concluded that speed was a factor in these incidents?
What provision had been made for pedestrians i.e. to separate them from the carriageway and to safely cross that road and at what points?
What is the estimated cost of your proposals?
Have other costed options been considered?
Yours faithfully
Are you putting this letter in as a freedom of information request ?
As someone who's worked in local government, roads management & related fields, I've seen how accident data is manipulated to justify a whole range of 'objectives'
The classic technique is moving accident sites from B/C roads to the closest A-road
Good luck
As someone who's worked in local government, roads management & related fields, I've seen how accident data is manipulated to justify a whole range of 'objectives'
The classic technique is moving accident sites from B/C roads to the closest A-road
Good luck
I saw this and have objected. There were three fatalaties on the stretch between tescos and old Sodbury. One was a Motorcycle one was when a woman knocked a pedestrian over outside the Bell and then handed her licence in due to eyesight issue. The other I am unawre of. However, the kids coming out of Chipping Sodbury school do not use the underpass instead jumping the fence outside so that may well account for the injuries as well.
The addition of the camera van site says it all. In the time I have lived here the limit has gone from NSL dual carriageway down to 50mph now they want to reduce to single carriageway and 30mph.
It will happen as the decision is made they are just going through the motions.It is always busy bodies who are on the council who do not listen to anyone but those the know.
The addition of the camera van site says it all. In the time I have lived here the limit has gone from NSL dual carriageway down to 50mph now they want to reduce to single carriageway and 30mph.
It will happen as the decision is made they are just going through the motions.It is always busy bodies who are on the council who do not listen to anyone but those the know.
spaximus said:
It will happen as the decision is made they are just going through the motions.
I suspect you may be correct, however I believe at the time the Yate-bound side of the DC was reduced to one lane they wanted to do the same to the other side but local opposition stopped them and it remained two lanes (until now). As is usual in these cases the most noise will be made by the hysterical claims that the road is 'used as a racetrack' and that cars are 'always speeding'. The more people that can bring some rational common sense to the debate the better. Thanks for the headsup on this one as well, the link is:
https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/...
https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/...
I had a reply to the objection I posted along with many others. I have replied again as the answers suggest that they have made a decision and that this was all a rubber stamp job. Anyone else who wrote question them again as slowly they are reducing all the NSL around South Glos with very dubious data to give credibility.
I have asked if the accidents were a direct result of speed as they clearly have not answered the question just spouting DFT speak.
Unless we object to these schemes we will be facing not only 20mph in residential areas, which in some cases will be fine, but 30 or 40 mph everywhere else except dual carrigways, which South glos reduce to single lane and then implement this sort of rubbish.
jeff
Dear Sir or Madam
PUBLIC CONSULTATION – A432 COTSWOLD ROAD/KENNEDY WAY/BADMINTON ROAD CASUALTY REDUCTION SCHEME
I am writing to thank you for your correspondence in relation to the proposed casualty reduction scheme on A432 Cotswold Road/Kennedy Way/Badminton Road, Chipping Sodbury & Cotswold Edge.
A number of issues, questions and comments were raised by individuals both in support and objecting to the proposed scheme. I will therefore endeavour to respond to these below:-
The scheme is a waste of money which would be better spent repairing potholes.
The proposed scheme will be funded from a budget specifically provided for Road Safety improvements. The funding has been allocated for this scheme and would not be able to be transferred to use for highway maintenance.
Recent accidents were not as a result of speed therefore reducing the speed limit would not have prevented them.
Due to the number of accidents on the A432 Kennedy Way/Cotswold Road/Badminton Road, the change of the speed limit has been prioritised. Each section has been assessed using Department for Transport (DfT) guidelines to determine the most appropriate speed limit based on accidents, average speeds, length of section and traffic flows. As stated in DfT Circular 01/2013:
“The relationship between speed and likelihood of collision as well as severity of injury is complex, but there is a strong correlation. As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000). For typical types of road traffic collisions the risk of death for drivers and pedestrians involved reduces with reduced vehicle speeds”
The purpose of the scheme is to reduce the severity and number of future accidents on the A432 from its junction with B4059 Link Road to its junction with Commonmead Lane.
The existing speed limit is being broken, reducing it will have no effect on these drivers.
Unfortunately there will always be a proportion of selfish and irresponsible drivers who contravene speed limits that are unlikely to change their behaviour unless caught and penalised. As part of the scheme it is proposed to introduce a designated parking bay for Police enforcement vehicles. The Council works closely with the Police to ensure that mobile camera enforcement is undertaken within South Gloucestershire and enforcement of the current speed limit has already begun at this location.
The mobile enforcement bay is being introduced to raise revenue.
South Gloucestershire Council makes no financial gain nor are budgeting to make from Speed Awareness Courses or fines issued by Police enforcing speed limits.
This route is barely used by cyclists – why are we giving half of the lane width to them?
The proposed alterations to the road markings are primarily to support the proposed reduction in speed limit. Introducing a cycle lane in the remaining lane width will help to protect cyclists and encourage further people to cycle along this route in the future.
Requests for traffic lights/roundabout at junctions with Heron Way and Hounds Road.
A number of people suggested the introduction of a roundabout or traffic signals at the junctions of Kennedy Way/Heron Way and Cotswold Road/Hounds Road. The funding required to consider such options would be significantly more than that available for the proposed scheme.
Why is the speed limit through Old Sodbury not being reduced as part of this proposal?
The section of A432 Badminton Road that passes through Old Sodbury is currently 40mph. The speed limit along this section is due to be investigated in the 2013/2014 financial year and any change to the speed limit would be dependant on the results of this investigation.
Vehicle Activated signs would be more effective than mobile enforcement. Request for vehicle Activated Signs.
Vehicle Activated Signs are introduced on roads where there is a problem with motorists complying with speed limits. These signs may be considered in the future in this location if it is shown that there are problems with compliance.
The proposed single lane on the eastbound carriageway should start at the roundabout junction with the link road.
The reduction in the east bound carriageway from 2 lanes to 1 does not start at the junction with Link Road to ensure that a stretch of dual carriageway remains to enable the opportunity to overtake slow moving vehicles on the upward gradient section of the road.
The Next Step
Instructions will now be issued to the Council's Legal Team to process and advertise the Traffic Regulation Order required to reduce the speed limit.
This will afford an opportunity to formally object or affirm support for the proposal and details of when and where to send any correspondence will be sent to all those who responded to the initial public consultation.
In addition, copies of the legal notice regarding the proposal will be placed in the Bristol Evening Post Legal Notices Section and attached to street lighting columns in the local area.
Once this part of the process has been completed any objections that are received will be reported to the Planning Transport & Strategic Environment Committee who will consider the issues raised and make the final decision on whether or not the proposals continue as advertised, are modified or are withdrawn.
Yours sincerely
Chris Hodgson
Assistant Engineer
Design and Operations
Streetcare and Transport
I have asked if the accidents were a direct result of speed as they clearly have not answered the question just spouting DFT speak.
Unless we object to these schemes we will be facing not only 20mph in residential areas, which in some cases will be fine, but 30 or 40 mph everywhere else except dual carrigways, which South glos reduce to single lane and then implement this sort of rubbish.
jeff
Dear Sir or Madam
PUBLIC CONSULTATION – A432 COTSWOLD ROAD/KENNEDY WAY/BADMINTON ROAD CASUALTY REDUCTION SCHEME
I am writing to thank you for your correspondence in relation to the proposed casualty reduction scheme on A432 Cotswold Road/Kennedy Way/Badminton Road, Chipping Sodbury & Cotswold Edge.
A number of issues, questions and comments were raised by individuals both in support and objecting to the proposed scheme. I will therefore endeavour to respond to these below:-
The scheme is a waste of money which would be better spent repairing potholes.
The proposed scheme will be funded from a budget specifically provided for Road Safety improvements. The funding has been allocated for this scheme and would not be able to be transferred to use for highway maintenance.
Recent accidents were not as a result of speed therefore reducing the speed limit would not have prevented them.
Due to the number of accidents on the A432 Kennedy Way/Cotswold Road/Badminton Road, the change of the speed limit has been prioritised. Each section has been assessed using Department for Transport (DfT) guidelines to determine the most appropriate speed limit based on accidents, average speeds, length of section and traffic flows. As stated in DfT Circular 01/2013:
“The relationship between speed and likelihood of collision as well as severity of injury is complex, but there is a strong correlation. As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000). For typical types of road traffic collisions the risk of death for drivers and pedestrians involved reduces with reduced vehicle speeds”
The purpose of the scheme is to reduce the severity and number of future accidents on the A432 from its junction with B4059 Link Road to its junction with Commonmead Lane.
The existing speed limit is being broken, reducing it will have no effect on these drivers.
Unfortunately there will always be a proportion of selfish and irresponsible drivers who contravene speed limits that are unlikely to change their behaviour unless caught and penalised. As part of the scheme it is proposed to introduce a designated parking bay for Police enforcement vehicles. The Council works closely with the Police to ensure that mobile camera enforcement is undertaken within South Gloucestershire and enforcement of the current speed limit has already begun at this location.
The mobile enforcement bay is being introduced to raise revenue.
South Gloucestershire Council makes no financial gain nor are budgeting to make from Speed Awareness Courses or fines issued by Police enforcing speed limits.
This route is barely used by cyclists – why are we giving half of the lane width to them?
The proposed alterations to the road markings are primarily to support the proposed reduction in speed limit. Introducing a cycle lane in the remaining lane width will help to protect cyclists and encourage further people to cycle along this route in the future.
Requests for traffic lights/roundabout at junctions with Heron Way and Hounds Road.
A number of people suggested the introduction of a roundabout or traffic signals at the junctions of Kennedy Way/Heron Way and Cotswold Road/Hounds Road. The funding required to consider such options would be significantly more than that available for the proposed scheme.
Why is the speed limit through Old Sodbury not being reduced as part of this proposal?
The section of A432 Badminton Road that passes through Old Sodbury is currently 40mph. The speed limit along this section is due to be investigated in the 2013/2014 financial year and any change to the speed limit would be dependant on the results of this investigation.
Vehicle Activated signs would be more effective than mobile enforcement. Request for vehicle Activated Signs.
Vehicle Activated Signs are introduced on roads where there is a problem with motorists complying with speed limits. These signs may be considered in the future in this location if it is shown that there are problems with compliance.
The proposed single lane on the eastbound carriageway should start at the roundabout junction with the link road.
The reduction in the east bound carriageway from 2 lanes to 1 does not start at the junction with Link Road to ensure that a stretch of dual carriageway remains to enable the opportunity to overtake slow moving vehicles on the upward gradient section of the road.
The Next Step
Instructions will now be issued to the Council's Legal Team to process and advertise the Traffic Regulation Order required to reduce the speed limit.
This will afford an opportunity to formally object or affirm support for the proposal and details of when and where to send any correspondence will be sent to all those who responded to the initial public consultation.
In addition, copies of the legal notice regarding the proposal will be placed in the Bristol Evening Post Legal Notices Section and attached to street lighting columns in the local area.
Once this part of the process has been completed any objections that are received will be reported to the Planning Transport & Strategic Environment Committee who will consider the issues raised and make the final decision on whether or not the proposals continue as advertised, are modified or are withdrawn.
Yours sincerely
Chris Hodgson
Assistant Engineer
Design and Operations
Streetcare and Transport
I got the same reply. Their arrogance is appalling but I think the most telling comment is this one:
) they throw in emotive nonsense like this. I have also written back, enclosing my original objections and asking him again to answer each of them instead of sending out the patronising whitewash that we just received.
I agree that we cannot allow them to get away with this without at least trying to get them to justify it. Their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and whilst we may not get the decision changed we may at least make them squirm a bit (and they won't be able to claim that no-one opposed them).
council flunky said:
Unfortunately there will always be a proportion of selfish and irresponsible drivers who contravene speed limits that are unlikely to change their behaviour unless caught and penalised.
I think this tells us all we need to know about South Glos Council's attitude to drivers - rather than addressing the reasons why speed limits are being broken (too low perhaps) they throw in emotive nonsense like this. I have also written back, enclosing my original objections and asking him again to answer each of them instead of sending out the patronising whitewash that we just received.I agree that we cannot allow them to get away with this without at least trying to get them to justify it. Their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and whilst we may not get the decision changed we may at least make them squirm a bit (and they won't be able to claim that no-one opposed them).
Rids64 said:
I got the same reply. Their arrogance is appalling but I think the most telling comment is this one:
) they throw in emotive nonsense like this. I have also written back, enclosing my original objections and asking him again to answer each of them instead of sending out the patronising whitewash that we just received.
I agree that we cannot allow them to get away with this without at least trying to get them to justify it. Their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and whilst we may not get the decision changed we may at least make them squirm a bit (and they won't be able to claim that no-one opposed them).
Whilst I agree with virtually all of your sentiments, to be honest by the time the consultations start its a bit late to get anything done about it as an individual. If there was a substantially-sized group who were objecting, getting some press coverage, stirring up the natives etc then that would be another matter. Half a dozen individuals having a go? It is going to be a bit like pissing against a thunderstorm and also, to be absolutely honest again, you're going to be put down as a PITA/ local loudmouth who can safely be ignored if you have used such phrases as "patronising whitewash" in your letter.council flunky said:
Unfortunately there will always be a proportion of selfish and irresponsible drivers who contravene speed limits that are unlikely to change their behaviour unless caught and penalised.
I think this tells us all we need to know about South Glos Council's attitude to drivers - rather than addressing the reasons why speed limits are being broken (too low perhaps) they throw in emotive nonsense like this. I have also written back, enclosing my original objections and asking him again to answer each of them instead of sending out the patronising whitewash that we just received.I agree that we cannot allow them to get away with this without at least trying to get them to justify it. Their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and whilst we may not get the decision changed we may at least make them squirm a bit (and they won't be able to claim that no-one opposed them).
Don't forget that the consultation process is simply asking for your views on what they intend to do - it is not at the stage where they are asking if they should do it in the first place
I can think of two reasonably close/ reasonably relevant examples:
1. B4039 between Burton and Castle Combe at The Gibb.
Once upon a time it was NSL, then reduced to 40, then reduced to 30. Wiltshire had their Speed Limit Review and it recommended raising it back to 40. Wiltshire Plod agreed.
The Parish Council most certainly did not agree, and managed to kick up sufficient stink to have the 30 retained, despite Plod telling 'em they wouldn't enforce it anyway. Now we have retired Colonels or whoever out their in their high-viz as part of Community Speedwatch. Whether you agree with the outcome or not (and I don't) what was achieved was achieved by a group working together.
2. Junction of Pickwick Road and the A4 by the Hare & Hounds pub, Corsham
The Council had given planning permission for a housing development on an ex-MOD site some three-quarters of a mile away, but raised concerns about higher traffic levels on the roads in the area. The developers countered these concerns by offering to put in traffic lights at virtually every major junction in the area, including outside the Hare & Hounds.
A group of local residents got together to oppose it, got a website up and running, got the local press interested, forced the Council to hold a Public Meeting and wouldn't take no for an answer when the local Highway Engineer came along and said he wasn't there to answer questions on the need for lights in the first place. He did not get an easy ride and did not leave the meeting a happy man .....
As luck would have it, at much the same time as this was going on Transco were digging up the road for a couple of months with a three-way traffic control system in place across this very junction, and caused absolute fecking gridlock
Miraculously, the Council then managed to dig up some "new evidence" which showed that they didn't really need traffic lights there after all
As an ex-Yate & Sodbury resident this is now not on my patch, but if you want to get anywhere with this I suggest you get together and form a pressure group PDQ rather than preach to the converted on here.
I hope you accept that that last sentence was not having a go at you personally, but none of you will get anywhere with this as individuals. You need to be co-ordinated in your approach.
Well, regarding the Wickwar Road proposal I received a response from the council which contained the following:
"What are the results of the consultation?
The consultation attracted 63 responses which are broken down as follows: 46 (73%) - were in disagreement with the proposals, 17 (27%) - were in agreement with the proposals. The majority of the objections to the proposals centred on the reduction of the national speedlimit from 60mph to 50mph
Changes resulting from the consultation
The speed limit reduction from national speed limit to 50mph - from the existing speed limit terminal (south of Gravel Hill Road) to the terminal north of Frith Lane - is no longer proposed"
I never though I would see the day that they backed down on one of these, well done to all PHs who registered an objection.
"What are the results of the consultation?
The consultation attracted 63 responses which are broken down as follows: 46 (73%) - were in disagreement with the proposals, 17 (27%) - were in agreement with the proposals. The majority of the objections to the proposals centred on the reduction of the national speedlimit from 60mph to 50mph
Changes resulting from the consultation
The speed limit reduction from national speed limit to 50mph - from the existing speed limit terminal (south of Gravel Hill Road) to the terminal north of Frith Lane - is no longer proposed"
I never though I would see the day that they backed down on one of these, well done to all PHs who registered an objection.
Gassing Station | South West | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff