Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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”?
Anne Hardy’s notes above contain excellent advice. Of course, drivers should never beckon anyone to cross, and not just at pedestrian crossings:
https://theorytest.org.uk/why-should-you-never-wave-people-across-at-pedestrian-crossings/
In addition to the concern about traffic approaching on the other side of the road, my greatest fear is of a driver overtaking the stationary car, having misunderstood the reason for its stopping …
The Highway Code changes aren’t dramatic. Most are simply in line with what should be happening, anyway. Once the initial (media-driven?) fuss has died down, things will go back to normal. I imagine that you are correct in not altering your instructions to trainees, although I am curious to know what exactly they are! As to the child running ahead and getting into trouble – surely that’s a problem the guardian should be addressing.
With so little information to go on, it would be foolish to commit oneself to answering these questions. It may be that the layout is the best that can be achieved within whatever constraints apply. If the change has been substantial, it may be that a safety audit has been carried out. Why not ask the roads authority for a copy? Wouldn’t most drivers wait until the blocking vehicle had moved off before turning, anyway?
… and RoSPA also provide a fact sheet:
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/roads/rural-road-safety
Loads of (past!) references here, Rob:
There are hi-vis vests with sleeves, is that’s any help:
Andrew.
Many thanks for the facts, Peter.
As to Devon’s program (sic), as usual, the deaf have been overlooked.Positive messages? Sorry, but this seems to me to be rather, well, desperate. Shared space is an highly questionable concept. It certainly isn’t enjoyed by all in my neck of the woods. Especially elderly, frail, deaf, blind, pram-pushing, dog-walking pedestrians. Apparently, we’ve all to jump aside (into the carriageway, presumably) for the sake of the cyclist, scooterist, etc. The silent majority, I believe, are becoming thoroughly fed up with it. So, no – I don’t have any “positive” messages about it, despite having been an enthusiastic cyclist in my youth.
But there may be something I’m missing …Peter,
You should check the latest edition of STATS20, vehicles section, which should clarify the matter for you.
The above takes you the 2011 non-CRASH edition – I’m afraid I don’t know whether there have been any important revisions since then.
Andrew
Hello, Roger.
Yes, I often wonder what’s meant by a road safety professional, myself! I’m a civil engineer who got caught up in the drive to improve road safety through engineering in the 1980s, but I’m not sure I’d qualify.
As to U-turns on dual carriageways, there are plenty of bans in my area, too, and, where the central reservation is narrow, they are probably justified. If I was teaching, I’d recommend heading for the next roundabout, if there is one. If there isn’t and the central reservation is as wide as the case I referred to earlier, I honestly can’t see why a U-turn should be any more of a problem than a right turn. (Of course, that’s amongst the worst manoeuvres in the book, anyway!)
It’s U-turns on single carriageways that I’d be more concerned about.
On a slightly different tack, I often wished that ADIs and engineers could have got together on the matter of road safety. I know some ADIs were very concerned about some of the recent changes to the test – particularly the one concerning pulling up on the right hand side of the road. Guess what the last accident to cross my desk involved ….
Kind regards,
Andrew.
