Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
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 …
