Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Your local authority planning department should have consulted your local authority’s roads department (if there is one) which should have advised on the suitability of the road for the traffic envisaged. The provision of properly deigned passing places should be a condition for planning consent (as John Walsh implies). As John also implies, there is no “safe” number of cars, although as traffic increases, there’s a tendency to stop altogether! There may be a relevant “capacity” for the single track road, but road traffic accidents are rare, random events and will occur until, perhaps, autonomous vehicles are the norm.
Do contact your local roads authority to express your concern.
Hello, Tracey.
I’ve wondered whether or not it is worth responding to your query. But I suppose I must as no-one else seems to have suggested that perhaps speed cameras deserve the poor image that they have.
Helen Wells, by the way, has done some very good work in the arena … and is a pleasure to discuss matters with (sorry, I know I shouldn’t end on a preposition).
However, I have maintained from the outset that the approach was wrong. (Red light cameras are even worse, but that’s another story.) In short, it is surely an absolute disgrace that such a crude system should have been adopted when Intelligent Speed Assistance (as it is now called) has been available for years. Seems odd to me that Oliver Carsten and the guys at Leeds have never received the dubious honour of a Prince Michael award for the work they have done on it.
We’d’ve been in a far healthier position today, if central government had had the courage to implement it. (It couldn’t possibly be that there are too many fingers in the speed camera pie, could it? I seem to recall a former Transport Minister pushing for cameras … )
Anyway, the difference between what speed cameras might and what ISA would have saved is something that everyone in the real road safety arena should be getting very worked up about!
Andrew (I guess I’ve put my foot in it, again) Fraser.
A possible solution might be to ask the roads authority to drop the kerbs at the crossing point and apply road markings to TSRGD Diagram 1026.1.
See Schedule 11, Part 4, Item 17 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which says (alongside an image of the line as it might be used at a private access):
17
Diagram 1026.1Part of the carriageway outside a vehicular entrance to adjacent premises or a private drive, or where the kerb is dropped to provide a convenient crossing place for pedestrians, which should be kept clear of waiting vehicles.
This link will get you there:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made
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.
