Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Given that you wish to understand the national picture, you may be interested to learn that Stirling Council (Scotland) no longer provides a school crossing patrol service. It seems to have been led to believe that a zebra crossing is an adequate substitute for a human being. I would say more, but it would be unprintable. All I can say is that I will be taking the matter up with it, in addition to my other concerns, its refusal to mark stand-alone crossings as required by law, its removal of mini-roundabouts, use of non-prescribed traffic signs etc., etc. Given these, of course, its approach to the safety of school children should not have come as a surprise. Question is, who is advising the Council? Sounds like Durham CC’s in luck!
Dear Dinah Barry,
Perhaps this would help:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits/setting-local-speed-limits
Please don’t place too much faith on speed limits. If it’s question of difficulty in crossing, it may be that a stand-alone crossing may be justifiable, but remember that even that is not a safety measure – it’s merely a means of dividing time between modes.
Andrew Fraser
School crossing patrol
Road safety education
Road safety Great Britain
Approved driving instructor
National road safety strategy
Advanced driver assistance system
Intelligent speed assistance (ISA)
Road traffic accident (RTA)
Road traffic casualty (RTC)
Urban traffic control (UTC)
Automatic traffic signals (ATS)
Driver and vehicle standards agency (DVSA)
Daylight running lights (DLR)
Graduated driver licensing (GDL)
Et cetera (Etc.)Hello, Nick.
There’s lots of information here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicle-safety-and-maintenance-guides
Andrew.
Dear David,
I have found it rather difficult to find what you actually want, rather the reverse.
I suggest that you contact Marcus Jone of TRL, directly, as he may be more up to date than any of us. He is mentioned here:
https://www.itsinternational.com/feature/trl-cities-must-do-more-help-vrus
Some background data (for London) can be found here:
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/road-risk-and-vulnerable-road-user-working-paper.pdf
and I have a feeling that a download of this might be useful – it has plenty of references to explore:
https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289057882
I would advise the registrar to be careful about confusing accident rates, which may well fall during your interim period with accident numbers, which may well rise (although the London experience seems not to confirm that).
I suspect that much will depend on the quality and (practicability) of whatever measures are taken. In my own area, I am currently contesting the removal of mini-roundabouts (!) as part of the local authority’s somewhat scrappy cycling strategy. I think Plowden and Hillman warned against a half-hearted approach decades ago, so we need to be careful …
Sorry I can’t be of more assistance.
Andrew.
I would just like to say that my understanding of the situation around zebra crossings is exactly the same as Kendrick Hourd’s. They are not safety measures per se. They merely provided time for pedestrians to cross where traffic volumes cause difficulty. A relevant study might be this one of TRL’s:
https://trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/LR895.pdf
and it is worth noting that paragraph 14.1.2 of Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual contains the warning:
“It should not be assumed that provision of a crossing will necessarily lead to a reduction in road accidents.” This applies to any crossing, not just Zebra crossings.
Hello, Jim.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I must have missed the “notify” button and only came across this by accident …
I regret that I cannot think of anyone in DfT who would be in a position to assist. I’m not aware of any process by which DfT can review another roads authority’s actions.
I think, however, that NERSC has grounds for a complaint about the Council’s various refusals. I’d suggest that you check what the Council’s complaint system is. In my experience, public bodies require complainants to go through their two stage processes. If the complainant isn’t satisfied by the response at the first stage, there’s a second stage, and if the complainant isn’t satisfied with the response at that stage, the complainant may go to the Ombudsman. Complainants can’t go to the Ombudsman unless they’ve been through the Council’s process. However, if the complainant isn’t satisfied with the Ombudsman’s judgement …
Has the NERSC tried the Freedom of Information request system?
I guess much depends on the questions NERSC decides to ask.
I still think that the NERSC might best seek legal advice … it’s pretty serious when a Chief Executive ignores a Member of Parliament on the grounds you’ve quoted.
Andrew.
If you require data on reported road traffic accidents (and casualties) you might be best to contact DfT. Contact details are given here:
If you require data on reported road traffic accidents (and casualties) you might be best to contact DfT. Contact details are given here:
There is nothing tricky about applying for unauthorised traffic signs. Local authorities simply have to apply to the Department of Transport. See:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/traffic-signs-signals-and-road-markings
However, I have to say that I entirely agree with Andy Garden. In my area, a motor cyclist was decapitated when he came into contact with the pole bearing an arguably unnecessary, but nonetheless prescribed sign. And much damage has been done to vehicles if not road users by the advertisements on roundabouts which councillors seem to be so keen on. Every sign is an obstruction, and “messages” are often of dubious value. Is it not possible to convey your message (whatever it is) using prescribed signs?
Hello, Jim.
Section 39 (3) (a) requires local authorities to carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on their roads, and must, in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents. In this case, I would have expected the local authority to have studied the accident record at the site, before acting, and, having done so, made sure that their action ensured that further accidents did not arise. The questions are, therefore, “Did the authority carry out an accident study?” and “What action has it taken to ensure that further accidents are prevented?”. One might also ask whether a Road Safety Audit was conducted. This doesn’t answer your question, but I think it’s important to establish what was done before the change. (Presumably, the answer the authority would give is that it will “monitor the situation” after the change.)
Another, rather basic question, should be asked, namely, “Why does the local authority wish to keep this rather odd junction open, in any case, when the safest thing it could do would be to close the gap in the central reserve and permit only left-in, left out manoeuvres to and from Eastwood Drive?” I feel that there is more to this than meets the eye.
As to your second question, (a) local authorities certainly should be answering questions – perhaps your local councillor could help and (b) a local authority’s connection with road users is through road signing. It might be argued that the Highway Code provides advice on the safe use of any road layout.
I’m afraid the above is probably not very much use to you – interpretation of the law is not really for the likes of me – you would probably be better consulting a solicitor with expertise in roads matters.
I am sorry to hear that you are still having problems with the junction, and I am shocked to read that a local roads authority claims that it does not hold “road safety information” for the gap. Without that, I cannot see how a local roads authority can carry out its duties under the Act. In any case, some information can be gleaned by anyone from https://www.crashmap.co.uk/, albeit at a price, and unvalidated by any local authority road safety engineer.
I hope something of the above helps.
Andrew.
Hello, Julie.
I doubt it. The main source of road traffic accident data is the STATS19 system. If you have a look at the form and guidance provided here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stats19-forms-and-guidance
… you might find that the only possibility of a direct link to RTAs involving a broken down vehicle is the Contributory Factor 999 – if the recording officer chose to use it.
I should say that the STATS19 form laves a lot to be desired, as the people involved in its maintenance have not (in my experience) been skilled in the science of data collection – and the worst aspect is that insisted upon by the police, namely, the entirely mutable “contributory factors”. But it’s all we’ve got.
It is possible, I would imagine, to get an answer to your question, by going through the textual information to which local authorities usually have access, but I suspect that the result would be patchy, to say the least.
Maybe someone else can come up with a better answer – after all, it’s now a long time since police data crossed my desk … 🙂
Andrew.
Richard,
Further to my earlier post, here’s a preview of what I understand to be the current version of the standard:
https://www.nen.nl/en/norm/pdf/preview/document/228006/
Andrew.
Richard,
I am not sure whether my original response arrived. In short, I suggest that you contact this chap in the Netherlands (using the NL code if you’re phoning):
Laurens Geense
Consultant
015 2 690 180
iv@nen.nlAs one rarely directly involved with SCPs, perhaps I should not comment. However, I have looked at the RSGB guidelines and am impressed by their thoroughness. On the specific point of “active travel”, I haven’t notice a huge increase in walkers to school in respect of the primary school on my doorstep, but if there was, would not the “P” in PVsquared sufficiently account for them?
