Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 16:39

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 08:04 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Ernest Marsh wrote:
I just re-read my first post in this thread, and I think we see eye to eye! Double whites all the way through, phantom lane up the southbound hill etc.
What I need to know is has Ian reported this to the Traffic Management Officer as JJ suggested?
And I'm a tad concerned that Ian is letting romanticism cloud the need to keep it safe! :lol:
Quote:
I have a real conflict of interests with Bannerigg. For me it’s an evocative characterful piece of road, which defined to me years since that I was ‘arriving’ at the lakes for my hols. I’d hate to see it sanitised too much. It’d lose its romanticism (for me anyway ).

I dont know how he could pull a motorist for reliving the "old days" when the NSL sign meant de-restricted! :wink:
He obviously doesnt share Steve's "Bah humbug!"views in the Valentines thread now locked away in the CSCP forum archive!


Ernest the traffuc management officers are aware of bannerigg. After your comments last year I got in touch with him and we conducted a traffic survey at the spot. The 85%tile speeds were fine, I did post them on the CSC site for you at the time. One of the problems we have is that even if the 85%ile was high there is a little we could do, due to health an safety issues regarding placment of the van. I would suggest that the way forwrd would be to insist that road engineering is carried out. But the number of seriously injured collisions at that spot would not put it high on the priority list.

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
The 85%tile speeds were fine, I did post them on the CSC site for you at the time.


But, JJ, 85th percentile speeds are virtually always 'fine'.

You might judge that an 85th percentile speed isn't 'fine' if it exceeds the speed limit, but what evidence would you use to support the idea that an 85th percentile speed wasn't 'fine'? It's nothing more than an assumption based on the speed limit is it? What if the speed limit is wrong?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 13:20 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
The 85%tile speeds were fine, I did post them on the CSC site for you at the time.


But, JJ, 85th percentile speeds are virtually always 'fine'.

You might judge that an 85th percentile speed isn't 'fine' if it exceeds the speed limit, but what evidence would you use to support the idea that an 85th percentile speed wasn't 'fine'? It's nothing more than an assumption based on the speed limit is it? What if the speed limit is wrong?


Most speed limits are set near to the Speedlimit Paul In this case regarding Bannerigg the road itself leads drivers to race away. causing them to end up in the fields as far as we are concerned we cannot treat it (CSC) as we are not allowed under our rules (85%) and finding a suitable location for the Van would also be a problem.

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 13:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
The 85%tile speeds were fine, I did post them on the CSC site for you at the time.


But, JJ, 85th percentile speeds are virtually always 'fine'.

You might judge that an 85th percentile speed isn't 'fine' if it exceeds the speed limit, but what evidence would you use to support the idea that an 85th percentile speed wasn't 'fine'? It's nothing more than an assumption based on the speed limit is it? What if the speed limit is wrong?


Most speed limits are set near to the Speedlimit Paul In this case regarding Bannerigg the road itself leads drivers to race away. causing them to end up in the fields as far as we are concerned we cannot treat it (CSC) as we are not allowed under our rules (85%) and finding a suitable location for the Van would also be a problem.

JJ


None of that represents anything approaching a reply to my questions.

Care to try again? (or do we have another unanswered question?)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 20:19 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
IanH wrote:
I’m surprised there have been no more serious collisions as a result of this problem, but I have personally attended two serious RTCs there in the last 12 years, caused by precisely this problem.

For me the convenience of being able to overtake at this location is not balanced by the danger posed. There is no great benefit to be gained by the overtake of one or perhaps two vehicles on this 300 metres of dual lane, and it also encourages ludicrous overtakes of queues of four or five cars which can conflict with northbound traffic about to enter the dip.


JJ wrote:
I would suggest that the way forwrd would be to insist that road engineering is carried out. But the number of seriously injured collisions at that spot would not put it high on the priority list.

And there you have it in a nutshell - road safety policy consisting of fixing problems AFTER fatalities or injuries, instead of PREVENTION.
I'm not getting at JJ, or the CSCP - this is a Government led, County Council problem.
If there were any justice, the half million pounds the CSCP have just raised in Cumbria, should be spent on increasing road safety in the county!

Ian has confirmed my thoughts, and many many others, that the road layout on Bannerigg is flawed, and badly designed.
The council employ experts to do this, and in this instance they have let us down - as at Bassenthwaite A66, and some might be bold enough to compare this lack of forethought with the execution of the speed camera policy!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 08:04 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
The 85%tile speeds were fine, I did post them on the CSC site for you at the time.


But, JJ, 85th percentile speeds are virtually always 'fine'.

You might judge that an 85th percentile speed isn't 'fine' if it exceeds the speed limit, but what evidence would you use to support the idea that an 85th percentile speed wasn't 'fine'? It's nothing more than an assumption based on the speed limit is it? What if the speed limit is wrong?


I can look at the 85%tile throughout a 24hr period and can check the worst times. If I feel that there is a problem at a particular time the I can advise that we need to do something about it

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 00:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Damned fine post, Ian!

(won't bother copying it here all over again 'cause it's quite big) but to me it just smaked of "reasonableness".

This is where I would like the debate to be all the time - an acknowledgement that the problems are rarely just one-dimensional. In this post we see that the "speed kills" assertion is just too over-simplistic to be any use to man or beast and that speed is just one factor to consider. (unfortunately, it's the ONLY factor you can consider if you're a camera!)

I'm not a South Lakes person but the road layout has certain similarities with the short stretch of dual carriageway just West of Penrith on the A66 where some muppet has put 30 MPH signs up. Yes, those last two bends before the single carriageway can be quite nasty but 30 is a ridiculously low speed and will just encourage people to treat similar speed limit signs like motorway matrix signs.

Why can't the Department for Transport introduce a sign showing a bend that tightens up? It would tell us a whole lot more than the speed limit sign ever could!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 00:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
What about a "Caution required" sign? It could be used for a an add on to an existing sign (not just bends) to indicate some additional hazard.
Even the 30 mph advisory with such a rider would be of more use.
At present there is a double sign board, with 30mph advisory, and a 10% gradient sign only.
Maybe the Tiger family can confirm, but I think in France they use the word RAPPEL to indicate this.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.371s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]