Another fatal accident
Discussion
I've just heard that the by pass next to my house is still closed and has been since 10 o'clock this morning, due to another fatal accident. The road has only been open about 2 years and is long straight and with a fantastic surface, it's good for a full on max out at silly mph, but at the end it goes into a deceptive off camber bend into a roundabout. Just over a year ago this saw its first fatal when a guy on an R1 ran wide and hit the armco, then about six weeks ago number 2, again on a sports bike and an almost carbon copy accident on the same bend, (the flowers from No1's anniversary are about 50 feet from No.2) then this morning again on the same bend there's been a "coming togeather of car, lorry and bike with atleast one death". So my point is 1. This road design is shite and either the off camber tightening bend is to blame or the approach is too fast and 2. If this is a clear "accident blackspot" why are there 3 Gatso's on the "old road" the by pass replaced (no fatals I know of) which is fairly wide clear but has a 30 limit which gives easy money, and 2 more in the 50mph roadworks on the A2/M2 which feeds the bypass and moves freely and safely at 70.
The facts as I see them "safety cameras" are bollocks and simple not used for what they claim and tonight there's another widow who's husband will become a speed statistic.
The facts as I see them "safety cameras" are bollocks and simple not used for what they claim and tonight there's another widow who's husband will become a speed statistic.
quote:
The facts as I see them "safety cameras" are bollocks and simple not used for what they claim and tonight there's another widow who's husband will become a speed statistic.
This stuff in unbelievably sad. Unfortunately Douglas Adams' rule holds true. Anyone who actually wants the job of running the [universe] British Transport "System" shouldn't be allowed to do it...
Amazing isnt it - you do, and will get fatalities, on allsorts of roads. However, on the ones where the statistics talk for themselves what do you get - nothing....
Then you get cameras in the strangest of places - like behind bridge pillars or hidden behind road signs. Hardly a deterant or there to act as a "Safety camera". Its utter bollox isnt it. I mean, I can think of some roads that really do NEED cameras on them - and I think that most people (no matter how opposed to them they might seem) agree that they can be of some use....
But in the meantime while our wonderful governmental system churns on - people die - great isnt it. And "we" voted for them too (thats the people in power - be it cons before or lab now).
Wife just came home and told me about another crash with markings on the road at the bottom of my road. Its a 30 zone from all sides with plenty of visibility. Ok, so no fatalities - but nevertheless - WHY?
Cheers,
Paul
Then you get cameras in the strangest of places - like behind bridge pillars or hidden behind road signs. Hardly a deterant or there to act as a "Safety camera". Its utter bollox isnt it. I mean, I can think of some roads that really do NEED cameras on them - and I think that most people (no matter how opposed to them they might seem) agree that they can be of some use....
But in the meantime while our wonderful governmental system churns on - people die - great isnt it. And "we" voted for them too (thats the people in power - be it cons before or lab now).
Wife just came home and told me about another crash with markings on the road at the bottom of my road. Its a 30 zone from all sides with plenty of visibility. Ok, so no fatalities - but nevertheless - WHY?
Cheers,
Paul
quote:
The facts as I see them "safety cameras" are bollocks and simple not used for what they claim and tonight there's another widow who's husband will become a speed statistic.
Mel,
I completely agree with what you say re. gatsos. However, these guys must have been driving at silly speeds without having visibility / knowledge about what was at the other end of the road. It seems to me they have breaked a fundamental safety rule, and ended up paying with their live... This extremely sad.
>> Edited by rthierry on Wednesday 22 May 19:52
It's always upset me that the jerks who rattle on about speed cameras and road safety and all the speed kills cobblers miss the real point about how roads could be made safer. Quentin W. was particularly eloquent on the subject on 5th Gear the other week.
If these people really care about road casualties, why the hell aren't they campaigning to get roads like the one you describe put right?
It's a complete nonsense.
If these people really care about road casualties, why the hell aren't they campaigning to get roads like the one you describe put right?
It's a complete nonsense.
Alright I know the road but IMO what is needed is the Armco needs to go, this is what certainly killed two people and I suspect todays as well, and yet on the other side of it is a large grassed run off that is crying out to be dug out and filled as a gravel trap. Ok I look at it from a racers point of view but if a Gatso costs say £20K plus film, maintenance contract etc what does a day with a JCB and 10 tonnes of pea shingle cost ???? It might not make money but would save lives. Has anyone else ever driven/riden the Mulsanne(sp?) straight as public road and seen the run off at the end of that??
quote:Drove it last week (twice
Has anyone else ever driven/riden the Mulsanne(sp?) straight as public road and seen the run off at the end of that??
) and was impressed with the run-off areas. Mind you, I also have huge respect for those that race on the circuit: it must be pretty challenging at racing speeds (and even more so before the chicanes were introduced).
It's a shame that roads can still be so badly designed.. bigger shame still that you just *know* the reaction of the council - and I'd guess a lot of the public - will be to cry out for gatsos, exploiting these deaths as a suitable motivation.
And I'll bet not one person amongst those points out that these deaths are attributable, in part at least, to the engineering of the road.
And I'll bet not one person amongst those points out that these deaths are attributable, in part at least, to the engineering of the road.
Had to pick up a fare from a school today that is on a busy dual carriageway. Opposite the entrance (on the other carriageway) sat a mobile safety camera van. The slip road leaving the school is always full of Mums cars parked in a bus stop, making it a vitually 90 degree exit. I went over and suggested that the removal of the parked cars would be a more safety conscious exercise, to which he retorted, 'I operate a camera, I'm not a traffic warden'. I just turned and left him. Keep away from Northamptonshire.
quote:
Alright I know the road but IMO what is needed is the Armco needs to go, this is what certainly killed two people and I suspect todays as well, and yet on the other side of it is a large grassed run off that is crying out to be dug out and filled as a gravel trap. Ok I look at it from a racers point of view but if a Gatso costs say £20K plus film, maintenance contract etc what does a day with a JCB and 10 tonnes of pea shingle cost ???? It might not make money but would save lives. Has anyone else ever driven/riden the Mulsanne(sp?) straight as public road and seen the run off at the end of that??
1 day with a JCB approx £300 IIRC.
10 tonnes of pea gravel approx £150 again IIRC.
Engineer to design and supervise say 2 days' total work call it £1000 absolute tops.
ie Sweet FA, even if I'm out by 100%. Gatsos more like £40k I think. Although an empty box will be a lot less.
Write to your council and suggest it - they probably haven't thought of it. Point out the difference in cost.
Also point out that under the Construction (Design and Management) regulations 1994, where there is a hazard the first priority is to engineer it out so that it's no longer a hazard - eg correct the camber in the road.
If that's not possible for some reason the next priority is to reduce the consequences of the hazard - eg by putting a gravel trap.
Only if that's impossible can they solely try to reduce the liklihood of the hazard occurring - eg by putting in a gatso or a speed restriction etc etc.
Might be worth copying the letter to the Health and Safety Executive, who were having a crackdown recently on the C(DM) regs not being followed properly. Make sure the council knows you've copied it ot the HSE.
Might also be worth copying it to the haed of the engineering services section (or whichever bit is responsible for roads). Many engineers are shit scared of the HSE (pathetic really but there you go) and you might well get a result.
10 tonnes wouldn't actually go very far, it'd be about 5 cubic metres I'd guess or say 5m x 5m x 200mm deep which doesn't sound much to me, although I don't know much about it. How big and how deep should a gravel trap be?
>> Edited by JohnL on Wednesday 22 May 21:56
What seems to be the common thread here is that we (collective term of people with a fair amount of intelligence) know better than the people that are supposed to be running things....
Embarrasing isnt it? And we (again collective term for the general public) elect the council, government etc... Seems like they arent listening.
Chatting to a police driver a couple of months ago - he admitted that the local council talk to them about traffic calming etc. More often than not the police say "no dont bother - you are better off doing x". Yet the council goes ahead anyway. Even when they ask the people that do have an interest in this they choose to ignore them....
Bloody daft
Cheers,
Paul
Embarrasing isnt it? And we (again collective term for the general public) elect the council, government etc... Seems like they arent listening.
Chatting to a police driver a couple of months ago - he admitted that the local council talk to them about traffic calming etc. More often than not the police say "no dont bother - you are better off doing x". Yet the council goes ahead anyway. Even when they ask the people that do have an interest in this they choose to ignore them....
Bloody daft
Cheers,
Paul
quote:
...what does a day with a JCB and 10 tonnes of pea shingle cost ???? It might not make money but would save lives.
Ooh no Mel, you can't do that. What on earth are you thinking?
What you have to do is put in twenty speed humps and five chicanes, then build "pedestrian refuges" opposite every bus stop, dig up the pavements and put in loads of pimply paving stones. Paint a cycle lane down both sides, then put in a couple of pelican crossings and paint cross-hatching on the middle third of the road. Finally cover the whole lot with nasty, funny coloured tarmac that wears off within a week.
That's how you make a safe road and it costs millions I'm afraid so we're going to put your council tax up another 10%
F**kin councils. Petrol Ted for mayor I say.
Interesting stuff. I suggest you read this thread:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=9749&f=10&h=0
for the thoughts of some PHers and MadCop on this subject....
roadsweeper.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=9749&f=10&h=0
for the thoughts of some PHers and MadCop on this subject....
roadsweeper.
talking of stupid road design, there is a bypass near me which has been built as a constant raduius bend too narrow for three cars to pass and with banks either side so you carnt sight through the corner.. the idea being that you carnt see well enough to overtake and the road isnt wide enough. this is supposed to reduce accidents as people dont overtake...
reality, everyone chances it and about 4 fatac's per year
road design is hardly
ing rocket science is it a bit of common sense would be usefull...
an another thing what about footpaths at ikea arghhh
talking of the mulsanne corner a few years ago a gt2 911 ended up in the spectator enclsure... that was close we had just moved from where it landed...
reality, everyone chances it and about 4 fatac's per year
road design is hardly
ing rocket science is it a bit of common sense would be usefull... an another thing what about footpaths at ikea arghhh
talking of the mulsanne corner a few years ago a gt2 911 ended up in the spectator enclsure... that was close we had just moved from where it landed...
To clarify a bit on my earlier post: The CDM regs apply to a new construction design - anything designed since 1 Jan 1996.
It could be argued that the design here is non compliant with those regs. What's not clear - at least I don't know - is whether a design that, with hindsight, can be shown to have been non-compliant has to be rebuilt, or whether they're allowed to put sticking plaster on it. Still worth a go.
It could be argued that the design here is non compliant with those regs. What's not clear - at least I don't know - is whether a design that, with hindsight, can be shown to have been non-compliant has to be rebuilt, or whether they're allowed to put sticking plaster on it. Still worth a go.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff