WHY...

[Sukh]

The fact is, if you remove the overtaking oppertunity from the OP's situation, it probably eradicates all causes of the relevant 'failure mode', whether it be poor driving or just bad layout..

Yes, but following this argument, lets make everyone do 10 mph as it removes the possibility of a lot of accidents.
All I am arguing for is that instead of just looking at the outcome of accidents (Fatalities etc) and deciding something needs to be done, it should be down to what caused it. If that were the case, a lot of speed cameras wouldn't exist, and a lot more driver education would be taking place.

I'm sure someone got a Freedom of Information request through showing that a new speed camera, which need to have a certain amount of fatalities to occur before being placed, was due to a drunk man falling from an overhead walkway into the carriageway, yet a speed camera went up.

 

[Demon]

Yes, but following this argument, lets make everyone do 10 mph as it removes the possibility of a lot of accidents.
All I am arguing for is that instead of just looking at the outcome of accidents (Fatalities etc) and deciding something needs to be done, it should be down to what caused it. If that were the case, a lot of speed cameras wouldn't exist, and a lot more driver education would be taking place.

I'm sure someone got a Freedom of Information request through showing that a new speed camera, which need to have a certain amount of fatalities to occur before being placed, was due to a drunk man falling from an overhead walkway into the carriageway, yet a speed camera went up.

Surely it's all a compromise?

If there is no record of accidents, why change things? if there is a record of accidents, something must change if your remit is to reduce this..

You only have so many funds, and so they tend to target statistical hot spots.. I am only assuming this is the case here..

So until I was in posession of all the facts to see what prompted the change of layout, and knowing that it can be down to hotspot road engineering studies, I just wouldn't want to start keyboard warrioring them too quickly..

Bottom line, society does not tolerate unnecessary deaths, sadly this does often lead to measures to protect people from themselves which I agree appears silly, but considering people are people and plenty on here have had minor and major indescressions, clearly saving people from themselves is sometimes necessary..

 

[[TW]Fox]

Motion to put hatchmarkings in any motorway lane where there has been a crash.

 

[Sukh]

Fair enough, i'm not on a keyboard crusade
I know its what happens in the real world, just that it seems so far from ideal that the solution has forgotten what ideal is.

 

[Sukh]

Fair enough, i'm not on a keyboard crusade
I know its what happens in the real world, just that it seems so far from ideal that the solution has forgotten what ideal is.

Just being flippant, but I think we should remove traffic lights where there have been rear end accidents to remove the possibility of them happening again.


I meant to press edit and not quote, and hence the double post, how do I delete posts?

 

[Demon]

Motion to put hatchmarkings in any motorway lane where there has been a crash.

Come back when it's statistically looking like a hot spot, and I'll second the motion!


I do agree that if the decision was made on some whimsical flight of fancy it's of course stupid and shouldn't be done, but if it's a more common sense reaction to a 'hot spot' then surely it's OK?

Unfortunately unless we have the facts, I'm just not prepared to 'assume' and ridicule..

 

[[TW]Fox]

I just dont think the decisions made on things like this are anything more than ad-hoc, kneejerk and whimsical on the part of random officials. There is certainly on hard and fast rational policy which is why you can be nannied up a hill that was previously perfectly fine to overtake on and then 7 miles down the road you have another identical peice of road without the restriction. I mean its either safe or its not, right?

 

[Demon]

I just dont think the decisions made on things like this are anything more than ad-hoc, kneejerk and whimsical on the part of random officials. There is certainly on hard and fast rational policy which is why you can be nannied up a hill that was previously perfectly fine to overtake on and then 7 miles down the road you have another identical peice of road without the restriction. I mean its either safe or its not, right?

no road is 'safe' as long as cars are on it..

What varies is the 'risk', which is not a black and white quantity..

You may be right and it could have been something really stupid like the Mayors cat got run over in the outside lane.. or it may be that they identified that particular stretch of road as having a higher then normal accident rate, and in a continous improvement program kind of way looked at it and did something about it..

You can't say the section 7 miles up the road is identical, because there are many things that could be different that might contribute to a lower accident rate, i.e. no right turn, or less traffic using the turning right, etc, etc, etc..

Shame we can't get access to the information over exactly why they changed it, at least we'd have something useful to discuss about it's validity..

 

[Griffo]

...

Shame we can't get access to the information over exactly why they changed it, at least we'd have something useful to discuss about it's validity..

Somebody mentioned this earlier, maybe it's worth asking why this occured? Also is it like this speed limit change lark where you can object - albeit before the event?
end giberish

 

[Lum]

Don't worry, it wasn't all bad for the 530i driver, he still managed a smile even with his car in the hedge when he fondled his indicator stalks and felt the sheer quality..

Wrong. A BMW driver would never touch his indicator stalks, even after a crash.

 

[Dolph]

no road is 'safe' as long as cars are on it..

What varies is the 'risk', which is not a black and white quantity..

You may be right and it could have been something really stupid like the Mayors cat got run over in the outside lane.. or it may be that they identified that particular stretch of road as having a higher then normal accident rate, and in a continous improvement program kind of way looked at it and did something about it..

You can't say the section 7 miles up the road is identical, because there are many things that could be different that might contribute to a lower accident rate, i.e. no right turn, or less traffic using the turning right, etc, etc, etc..

Shame we can't get access to the information over exactly why they changed it, at least we'd have something useful to discuss about it's validity..

Trying to get that information is normally very difficult precisely because the reasoning is crap. Look at the effort that went into getting the reasoning for the M4 speed cameras, for example, which just proved what everyone was saying in the first place.

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/449.htm

We need competent people in road safety, with a variety of tools to address actual issues, not pointless speed limit reductions or unnecessary road alterations.