Proposed new speed limits Siston and Rangeworthy

[rs1952]

Came across these on the South Gloucestershire Council website today.

If anyone wants to object, now's the time to do it

https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/...

https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/...

[remedy]

Thanks. I saw the signs on the Siston road (I use this daily) and have asked for some further information / statistics on the proposed reduction.

[RemaL]

cheers for the heads up

[LordGrover]

Does anyone have a recommended template for responding to these things?
Any email I/we send may have more influence if we can cover all angles otherwise my tiny protest will get lost in the council dross.

[rs1952]

I sent an email and was rather surprised to receive a reply suggesting that somebody had actually read it!

Personally I have a problem in that I am not a South Gloucestershire resident (used to be, but that doesn't count!) so any formal objection from me is likely to be ignored for that reason. I thionk the last time I was in Rangeworthy was 2003, but I am in the Siston area usually 3 or 4 times a week, and my gripes over these proposals can be summarised as follows:

1. Given the topography, very few people on these roads exceed 40 by very much anyway, so the exercise seems prtetty pointless.
2. Pointless but costly. Why spend taxpayers money on introducing a speed limit that won't make a significant difference to speeds?
3. Examine and deal with why traffic levels have increased recently. Could it be anything to do with the traffic lights recently installed at the A420/ A4174 roundabout at Warmley?

The text of my email and the reply I received copied in below:


Dear Sirs,

I have read with some interest your consultation document regarding the proposed 40mph limits in the Siston and Goose Green areas.

I note that the surveys that have been carried out indicate that the average speed on these roads is currently 35 to 40mph, already below the proposed limits, so on this basis alone I query whether the limits are entirely justified. You will further be aware that there are sections of this road, particularly through Siston village itself and in Goose Green around Brook Farm, where the road contours are tortuous and a speed of 40mph could simply not be achieved.

I have not done any research into the nature of the five injury accidents you report on Siston Lane between 2004 to 2009, but I would hazard a guess that they may be concentrated at the single track bridge at the bottom of Siston village, which has a dangerous blind bend just before it on the south side. A 40mph speed limit is going to do nothing to address that hazard!

There have been examples elsewhere in the country of average speeds actually increasing when speed limits have been lowered, as there is an element of the driving population who appear to take the view that, by definition, it must be "safe" to travel at that speed, whilst if the matter was left to their own judgement they might well select a slower speed. I have particular concerns about motorists approaching that blind bend at Siston at 40mph "because it must be safe."

I also feel that there is an environmental impact to the proposal. You will be aware that this area is in the Bristol Green Belt, and much of the route proposed to be limited passes through common land. There are no street lights, so any speed limit would need to be supported by repeater signs at intervals along the road. This ugly hardware would detract from the visual amenities of the area.

I note with considerable interest the statement in your consultation document regarding increasing traffic flows due to these roads being used as a "rat run" short cut to avoid the A4174. Why, I muse, are motorists effectively using a country lane to avoid the A4174 ring road, which is a 70 mph limited dual carriageway, especially when it is taken into account that the "cut" is not particularly "short," the mileage being roughly the same by both routes. I think you need to look no further than the two traffic light controlled roundabouts on the A4174, at Warmley and at what I always describe as the "Mangotsfield South junction" roundabout (the name of the former railway junction at that location) the former of which was so equipped only last year, and had been operating satisfactorily as a "normal" roundabout since the road was built nearly 20 years ago. Traffic has certainly increased on Siston Lane since those lights were installed, as has the congestion on the A4174.

I feel that a far better course of action would be to re-evaluate and remove the traffic lights from the roundabouts on the A4174. This would reduce overall congestion rather than increase it, and it would also encourage motorists to use the A420 and the A4174 and avoid Siston Lane and Goose Green. There would also be a positive environmental impact, as vehicles would not longer be stationary, and having a negative effect on air quality, for no better reason than there was a red light in front of them. It would also have the further advantages, in the stringent financial times we currently face, of saving the costs of the new intrusive speed limit signage on Siston Common and Goose Green, and also the costs of operating and maintaining the traffic lights on the A4174

I have no doubt that you have had representations from local residents, because quite simply this is what local residents do!! However, I have very grave doubts that your proposals will, in truth, make any difference whatsoever to the level of usage on the roads or the average speeds being achieved, and it appears to me that this is no more than a "sop" to shut the locals up, the path of least resistance, which will in truth do absolutely nothing to improve their quality of life or road safety in the area. My alternative proposal would achieve both and at lower cost.

I fervently hope that this consultation exercise is not simply "window dressing," and account will be taken of my proposals and those of others before the final decision is taken.


And the reply:


Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding the proposed scheme above.
For your information Mouchel is working in partnership with South Gloucestershire Council.

I really appreciate your efforts by putting your thoughts into a lengthy e-mail. Your comments and your alternative proposal to remove the traffic lights from the roundabouts on the A4174 have been noted. I am also happy to receive more comments from yourself which you can make as a formal objection if you wish and this will be taken into account along with any others received during the consultation process.

I trust the above information is of assistance and if you need any further information about the scheme please don’t hesitate to contact me via [e-mail].



Thank you.





Regards



King Hing Kii (Matthew)
Mouchel - Bristol
Tel: [phone] (Direct dial)

[phone] (Switchboard)
Fax: [phone]


www.mouchel.com

[remedy]

rs1952 said:

(Really well written email)

Fair play, that was sigificantly better detailed than my (short) email. I merely opened the dialogue by asking for more information on the 5 accidents in 5 years. It's clear that sometimes accidents where speed was never a factor are being used to reduce speed limits.
I'm with you on Siston Bridge and I think this is the 'proposed traffic management scheme' declared on the signs. The ones along Webbs Heath state a speed limit reduction.
They need to be very careful with traffic lighting Siston bridge - unless they use weight sensors (like at the Westerleigh cross-roads) they could cause severe congestion.
The 4 way lights at Westerleigh have been set up brilliantly and have really helped crossing that road.

Good arguments though but I doubt they will even consider removing the traffic lights (which I fully agree with you on). Have you seen the lights at Falfield M5 junction? They turn them off in rush hour because they cause congestion.
My Dad, who used to work as a highways inspector for south glos, tells me they reneged on the peak period control because of the problems they caused but won't remove them completely because they act to slow the traffic coming down from Falfield.

[rs1952]

remedy said:

rs1952 said:

(Really well written email)

Fair play, that was sigificantly better detailed than my (short) email. I merely opened the dialogue by asking for more information on the 5 accidents in 5 years. It's clear that sometimes accidents where speed was never a factor are being used to reduce speed limits.
I'm with you on Siston Bridge and I think this is the 'proposed traffic management scheme' declared on the signs. The ones along Webbs Heath state a speed limit reduction.
They need to be very careful with traffic lighting Siston bridge - unless they use weight sensors (like at the Westerleigh cross-roads) they could cause severe congestion.
The 4 way lights at Westerleigh have been set up brilliantly and have really helped crossing that road.

Good arguments though but I doubt they will even consider removing the traffic lights (which I fully agree with you on). Have you seen the lights at Falfield M5 junction? They turn them off in rush hour because they cause congestion.
My Dad, who used to work as a highways inspector for south glos, tells me they reneged on the peak period control because of the problems they caused but won't remove them completely because they act to slow the traffic coming down from Falfield.

Thanks for the praise but I really can't agree with you regarding the Westerleigh Hill crossroads (although I must admit I only use it at off peak hours, and not very much at all since those bleedin' lights were installed!)

Basically, I turn into a stereotyped Grumpy Old Man whenever the matter of traffic lights come up. Over now many years, I have seen traffic lights installed that aren't needed, don't reduce congestion but actually increase it. Whenever a vehicle has to stop for no better reason than there is a red light in front of it, it begins wasting fuel and increasing pollution. These tits in local government who are responsible for introducing these schemes are on the one hand bleating about how we must deal with traffic congestion and pollution, and on the other they go and cause more of both with these hare-brained projects.

Just what was the problem at Westerleigh Hill? Was it an increase in the Pucklechurch to Westerleigh traffic which had to previously give way at the junction (possibly since they built the crematorium up there)? If so, why not just change the priority if the "dominant" road is no longer handling more traffic than the other. If the traffic levels on both opposing routes were more or less equal, what would be wrong with a mini-roundabout? There is plenty of room for one on council-owned land; it would have cost no more than a traffic light installation and would need less maintenance and no running costs (ie. the elecricity to run the lights)

Its not just South Glos of course. This mindset of "traffic management," or "traffic over management/ traffic jamming schemes" is prevalent all over the country. Highways departments seem to be full of idiots with solutions, running around trying to find a problem to fit them to. "The solution is a speed limt. Now what's the problem" "The solution is a set of traffic lights. Now what's the problem" And so on. And on. And on. I, and 99.99999% of other drivers, are quite capable of reacting corectly to a give way sign, a filter lane, giving way at a single track bridge etc etc, without some arsewipe in the local council deciding that they know better and I and the other 99.999% of drivers need more control and management.

If we sacked a few of these useless turds in Highways it might do a little bit towards the financial crisis that we all have to face, except, apparently, these nits, who always manage to find a bit more council tax payers money to waste on irrelevances and pointless traffic management initiatives

I could go on all morning here so ......[/rant over for the time being]

[LordGrover]

The Westerleigh Hill junction has been the site of several nasty collisions over the years, I can (almost) see how they justify it.
I agree about lights in general though. Especially the retards who put lights on roundabouts - WTF? Invariably, without exception, they are at best unnecessary - going to the gym or office at 05.00, not a soul in site and I have to stop for sometimes minutes. Drives me mad. wkers.

[rs1952]

LordGrover said:

The Westerleigh Hill junction has been the site of several nasty collisions over the years, I can (almost) see how they justify it.

But there were other ways that this junction could have been dealt with, as I suggested in my post. The odd nasty wallop does not justify vehicles standing stationary at 0230 in the morning simply because a red light is showing

LordGrover said:

I agree about lights in general though. Especially the retards who put lights on roundabouts - WTF? Invariably, without exception, they are at best unnecessary - going to the gym or office at 05.00, not a soul in site and I have to stop for sometimes minutes. Drives me mad. wkers.

Now I'll just undermine my last statement!. Its 0500, there's nothing else about, there's no red light camera, no plod, just that red light .....



.......



.......

[LordGrover]

Not just one red light... a plethora of them!



Won't someone please think of the children?

S!

The council, not children. Well, not all of them.

[rs1952]

LordGrover said:

Especially the retards who put lights on roundabouts

Has anybody else noticed:

The M4, all the way through its English section, only has two junctions that are not traffic light controlled (Hungerford and Chippenham)

The M5, all the way from the M6 to Exeter, has hardly any by comparison, except in the greater Brum and greater Bristol areas

Somebody please tell me why people who use the Falfield junction need more controlling than those using Worcester, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroudwater, Clevedon, Edithmead, Wellington and Tiverton junctions?

[remedy]

rs1952 said:

LordGrover said:

The Westerleigh Hill junction has been the site of several nasty collisions over the years, I can (almost) see how they justify it.

But there were other ways that this junction could have been dealt with, as I suggested in my post. The odd nasty wallop does not justify vehicles standing stationary at 0230 in the morning simply because a red light is showing

LordGrover said:

I agree about lights in general though. Especially the retards who put lights on roundabouts - WTF? Invariably, without exception, they are at best unnecessary - going to the gym or office at 05.00, not a soul in site and I have to stop for sometimes minutes. Drives me mad. wkers.

Now I'll just undermine my last statement!. Its 0500, there's nothing else about, there's no red light camera, no plod, just that red light .....



.......



.......

But this is the benefit of the weight-sensor traffic lights at Westerleigh. If you approach them at 02:30 and there is no-one else around the lights will change for you to move through pretty much un-abated! I've experience of this at 06:45 on the way to work on a saturday mornings.
Normally you would pull up and have a quick gander before launching across. With the lights the check is done for you.

Normal-timed traffic lights are a pain, granted. That's why they don't work well in areas like this.
The problem with a roundabout is that when you have an area with a predominant flow of traffic the quiet lane never moves. I've sat for 5 mins at the roundabout south of Emersons (bottom of Pucklechurch side) waiting for traffic coming along the ring road to slow so I can pull out.

[pdV6]

rs1952 said:

Somebody please tell me why people who use the Falfield junction need more controlling than those using Worcester, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroudwater, Clevedon, Edithmead, Wellington and Tiverton junctions?

The only reason I can think of is that J14 doesn't have a roundabout; the slip road ends in a T-junction.

However, the lights are completely unnecessary in my experience; the caveat being that I only use that junction at off-peak times. But seeing that the lights don't operate at rush hour any more, that only lends weight to my opinion...

[rs1952]

pdV6 said:

rs1952 said:

Somebody please tell me why people who use the Falfield junction need more controlling than those using Worcester, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroudwater, Clevedon, Edithmead, Wellington and Tiverton junctions?

The only reason I can think of is that J14 doesn't have a roundabout; the slip road ends in a T-junction.

Agreed it has a T-junction, but it has had one ever since the motorway was opened in 1971.

I admit I don't use that junction very often, but when I lived in Chipping Sodbury some years ago I used it rather a lot.

Prior to the installation of lights - give way leaving the motorway, filter lane joining the motorway, go when the coast is clear, never a problem.

Since installation - queues of traffic and congestion

That is progress according some arsewipe in South Glos council (well Northavon I suppose then, but I suspect its the same witless fools in the new council)

[pdV6]

I agree - the lights don't add any benefit; I was just offering that as a possible explanation for "why J14 only?"

[remedy]

pdV6 said:

I agree - the lights don't add any benefit; I was just offering that as a possible explanation for "why J14 only?"

As I mentioned in my first post - the logic SGC are using on the Falfield junction (to not admit they've wasted money on installing congestion-causing lights) is that it slows the traffic coming down the hill from Charfield.
In rush hour they don't help (read, cause congestion) so the traffic is slowed already.
In off-peak times traffic can, in theory, fly down the hill and plough into someone turning across the road from the M-way. In reality, I don't think this is that feasible but it's the stance SGC are taking on the matter. However... I'm also told that 'highways' don't own the lights because it's on an M-way juntions and 'motorways' won't take ownership of it because it's on a bridge over a m-way.

Gotta love the council.

[rs1952]

remedy said:

pdV6 said:

I agree - the lights don't add any benefit; I was just offering that as a possible explanation for "why J14 only?"

As I mentioned in my first post - the logic SGC are using on the Falfield junction (to not admit they've wasted money on installing congestion-causing lights) is that it slows the traffic coming down the hill from Charfield.
In rush hour they don't help (read, cause congestion) so the traffic is slowed already.
In off-peak times traffic can, in theory, fly down the hill and plough into someone turning across the road from the M-way. In reality, I don't think this is that feasible but it's the stance SGC are taking on the matter. However... I'm also told that 'highways' don't own the lights because it's on an M-way juntions and 'motorways' won't take ownership of it because it's on a bridge over a m-way.

Gotta love the council.

Now why does none of that surprise me?

"It slows traffic coming down the hill from Charfield." To about 50% of the motoring population and amber light means "put your foot down before they change"

For a laugh and for further information, here's a link. It certainly looks like the lights are the responsibility of the Highways Agency

http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?...