Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
These have always worried me. I do not think it wise to encourage cyclists to “undertake” other vehicles under any circumstances, but the nearside approach lanes to the “reservoirs” seem to legitimise the practice.
I can’t find anything authoritative on the safety of the arrangement, either, but these might help you to make the bold decision you want to make:
https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/advanced-stop-line
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/behavour-at-advanced-stop-lines-summary.pdfAs a cyclist (using a tandem) I always simply stayed in lane, where I could be seen and my movements were predictable. I’ve never really understood the need for ASLs. I’d take them out.
Would it not be better to wait wait a year, then buy a 2nd hand car with a decent NCAP rating? Or a Toyota iQ? See:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/safety-campaigns/2016-quadricycles-tests/
Try:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/quadricycle-ratings-explained/Personally, I wouldn’t touch them with a bargepole, but I guess they’d be better than allowing your child to use a motor cycle or moped. Just depends how much you value that child, I suppose …
Rule 201 of the Highway Code! Sorry I can’t help, but good luck to you. Could do with something similar concerning supermarket car parks.
And I was delighted. Although I am unlikely to change my position on outdoor advertising aimed at road users, I do appreciate the work Keith has put in to his projects and his honesty concerning the results.
I have always dealt in accidents, regarded STATS19 data with care and eschewed allocating personal blame, and so I do wonder whether there might be more that those providing the relevant technology could do more to ensure that it is used safely. After all, they do know where you are!As I said earlier:
“… I can’t see any road safety objection to their use in situations where there is a captive audience (i.e. one not engaged in driving or other task presenting danger to any persons).”
In other words, I can’t see any responsible roads authority using outdoor advertisements directed at road users engaged in one of the most dangerous tasks they ever undertake. (Excluding, of course, those advertisements permitted under the Control Advertisements Regulations.)
I am intrigued, however, by the concept of a simple, but effective anti-distraction ad. Something of an oxymoron, surely?
The question is a sad reflection on the state of the industry today. If, for any reason the lights are out, the contractor must use the STOP/GO boards which should ALWAYS be available in case of failure.
Hello, Becky.
I now have a number of files referring to the problem of outdoor advertising, some of which may interest you. If you can provide me with an e-mail address, I’ll send them via WeTransfer. (I have tried to contact you through LinkedIn, bit without success, so far.)
Kind regards,
Andrew Fraser.
The government web-site’s the place to go:
Hope the above link works!
… and it’s easy to spot these “responsible cyclists”. They’re the ones who dismount and wheel their vehicles along the footway … thus making pedestrians of all abilities feel much more comfortable.
Hello, Becky.
It’s a long story. I’ve been concerned about the deliberate distraction of drivers by outdoor advertising of all sorts for many years. There has been a great deal of work done on the subject over many years, but a direct connection between road accidents and outdoor advertising continues to be hard actually to prove. When I get back from my hols, I shall try to dig out some references for you.
Meanwhile, in answer to you questions:
1. From memory, I can’t recall whether any road traffic regulation deals directly with outdoor advertisements.
2. I am convinced that they are a distraction to drivers. They are meant to be, and some are more distracting than others. However, the time during which distraction lasts is clearly relevant. What is more difficult is whether the recipient spends too long thinking about the message downstream.Perhaps a better way to address the problem is via the planning regulations. Have you ever seen an outdoor advertisement improve the amenity? I haven’t.
Kind regards,
Andrew Fraser.
Dear Rebecca,
I am well aware of digital advertising vehicles being driven around my area with messages from political parties and the police. There seems to be a loophole in the Advertisement Regulations which is being exploited by those with scant regard for, or no understanding of, matters which affect road safety.
If I were you, I would not use them, or encourage others to do so.
Having said that, I can’t see any road safety objection to their use in situations where there is a captive audience (i.e. one not engaged in driving or other task presenting danger to any persons).
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Fraser.
Dear Rebecca,
I’m just wondering if you mean Schedule 3 of the Advertisements Regulations:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/advertisements
I would be very careful about this. My local authority used lamp post sleeves (presumably manufactured from or by Correx). The message was about “making space” for various forms of “sustainable” transport. As lamp posts are at the rear of the footway, it should, perhaps, be no surprise that we now have an epidemic of illegal cycling, causing great discomfort and actual danger to our elderly pedestrians, especially.
I have suggested that the adverts ought to be replaced by reminders of Rule 64 of the Highway Code …
Perhaps safer to stick with the TSRGD, or find some better way of getting your message across – bear in mind the danger of distracting drivers, or of simply having your message misinterpreted, or of leading others to think that fly-posting is now legal.
Kind regards,
Andrew
Apologies for being slightly off the topic. E-scooters are here (in Stirling), but our biggest problem is cycling on footways and footpaths, which is getting steadily worse … I have suggested to the local council (whose actions are partly to blame) that a campaign involving lamp column sleeves – although I detest outdoor advertising – with an appropriate (GERROFF) message might help. It seems that Rule 64 (one of the simplest) of the Highway Code has been “forgotten”, not to mention the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 section 129 (5), of which even Mr Plod seems unaware.
I dread the coming of e-scooters …As far as I can recall, the County Surveyors’ Society’s Environment Committee Accident Reduction Working Group looked at the safety of wide single 2-lane carriageways around 1995. Its survey apparently found that, despite problems with overtaking accidents, WS2 roads in the UK had a good overall safety record; most of them had as good a record as an ‘average’ dual carriageway.
It would be interesting, and wise, I suggest, given the concerns expressed above, to review the matter properly before going ahead with some campaign or other. In the first place, it would be interesting to learn whether the roads in question have been designed in accordance with the current standard:
The inevitable question is, however, who will fund a proper study, as opposed to a mere “survey”?
