CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-23257498
Neil Greig of the Institute of Advanced Motorists said improvements to driving conditions would lower the risk of accidents.
'Platooning effect'
He said these included raising speed restrictions for large heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) from 40mph to reduce the risk of frustrated motorists making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
Right, so it's the slow moving lorries that are causing all the cars to crash into each other...?!
Not at all. What Neil Greig says is a reasonable summary of how and why these types of collisions arise. He doesn't say that the 40mph speed limit for lorries is causing crashes. He quite clearly attributes it to frustration and drivers making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. It's right there in the text you've quoted.
Maybe you've never felt it, trapped behind a caravan or lorry for miles and miles. Or worse, been the one directly behind the lorry or caravan and 'felt' the weight of expectation that when a space on the opposite carriageway opens you'll take it.
Presumably couldn't just raise limit on A9.
So how many more crashes/deaths would a universal 50 limit result in?
What a load of cobblers. If you raised the HGV limit then other motorists would still want to drive faster than them, because HGVs are restricted to the limit by their tachometers and your average A9 motorist reads the limit as a recommended minimum and is probably doing 10-20% above it, regardless.
The IAM's twisted logic is that a race to the top on speed limits would somehow reduce accidents, deaths and catastrophes. Raise the speed on HGVs and overtakers would be going even faster to pass them and the closing velocity in head-on collisions would be greatly increased.
These self-appointed whinge-bags are a dangerous menace in themselves. There should be a legal limit on the rate at which they churn out this unsubstantiated doublethink.
To be honest, the only thing that will stop overtaking collisions is to dual the road and instal a central reservation. Even average speed cameras would have no impact. If you've been cruising along at 40 for any length of time, spending a few seconds at 100 to overtake a caravan will have no impact on your average speed.
I'm not convinced that dualling the A9 will reduce the number of accidents, nor the number of fatalities.
What will happen with a dual-carriageway is you'll have 70 - 80mph traffic ploughing through non-motorway type junctions. Imagine cars trying to make right turns, crossing 2 lanes of opposite carriageway with cars approaching at speeds of 70 -80mph. The potential for carnage is right there.
And then all the 'A9-dualling-voices' will pop out the woodwork to say "It's a national disgrace this road isn't a motorway..."
I did say overtaking collisions (like the one the article refers to and Neil Greig is talking about). It depends, of course, how the junctions are managed.
Anyway, I'm not advocating dualling. Just saying that since this type of collision is a head-on misjudged, dangerous overtake, none of the solutions mentioned in the article will have an impact on them.
Big Volvo wagon. No pressure to over take.
Of course it did have to be carried home from the M6 near Forton last week. Heater matrix blew up and filled the car with ethylene glycol flavoured steam. Lots of fettling ahead.
Of course none of this is new and comes against a background of SG deciding that dialling is 'necessary'/'politically advantageous/going to happen.
As 'we' know, major road projects don't seem to be subject to any reasonable scrutiny/CBA.
"A9 crackdown catches 700 speeders"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8353
"Police chiefs split over trial to let lorries drive faster on notorious A9 road"
"Upgrading A9 'more relevant than trams' campaigner says"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2076#post-105475
Today's 'noise' is about how to make it happen sooner.
Heard various TV and radio reports today. Neil Greig said all sorts of things, some of which even people on here would agree with.
I'm sure that all the various times he is quoted most of it seems to make sense and helps to confirm to Mr. Brown (and others) that SG roads policies are 'right'.
One thing that someone said is that drivers are reluctant to leave the road to try "local services", so a 'motorway services' might be a good idea - cheaper and quicker than dialling.
Also it seems most serious crashes are not in the dark, ivy, nights but 'summer' - and (perhaps) involve tourists.
Might be a lot cheaper to have police pull them over and give them a cup of tea and some friendly advice - and more speed enforcement.
'What to do?' - Newsnight discussion 11:00 b
Think i just heard KB say 'A9 twice as safe as other roads'
Now NG.
And that was the average of other trunk roads. But the answer is to dual it. Eh?
NG
"Road isn't protecting drivers who make mistakes"
Phil Flanders RHA
'People do really stupid things'
'strange manoeuvres on that road that are really dangerous'
NG
'People don't know that HGVs only allowed to do 40mph'
PF
'Been talking to SG about raising speed on A9 for 5 years'
The IAM's utopia of minimal regulation and enforcement coupled with heavy investment in wide, straight roads looks a little bit like this;
Other such compilations are available. Hundreds infact.
(not for the easily shocked - it's SFW, just rather scary!)
I'm sure the guy at 2m40s was the one who overtook me on the A1 on Tuesday...
I recognise the problem of peer pressure pushing us to overtake. I'd pop a double white line down the whole road and keep things simple. The 40 limit would be fine then too probably.
@Kaputnik "The IAM's utopia of minimal regulation and enforcement coupled with heavy investment in wide, straight roads "
I have to say, I've done their training and read their magazine and quite a bit of their publicity and I do not in any way recognise this description.
Rather as I don't recognise the descriptions of all cyclists are red light jumping pavement cyclists on unroadworthy bikes who continually break the law.
Within each group there may be, probably are, some who fit the prejudice. However the vast majority are far more sensible>
Neil Greig has pointed out that some drivers are making "dangerous overtaking manoeuvres", he attributes that, at least in part, to frustration. He suggests *one* of the possible solutions could be raising the speed limit on single carriageways for HGV's. That is a far cry from a "race to the top on speed limits".
The tacho doesn't limit the speed, otherwise it would work at 30mph, 40mph etc etc. The speed limiter only limits the top speed, and we've covered before the fact that the 40mph limit for heavies on single carriageway roads was brought in in the days of borderline brakes on wagons with non power assist steering and much looser regulation than we have now.
If you want to prevent the head on accidents then put a central barrier down the whole dashed road, single or dual carriageway, then overtaking into oncoming traffic is an impossibility. Or raise the artificially low limit on one group of vehicles (which at least some heavies must be carefully obeying or there wouldn't be complaint about it in the first place!)
I believe in enforcement of speed limits, especially in built up areas where they are flouted most enthusiastically and appear to be enforced most apathetically, however I have to disagree with your take on the IAM mate, if more drivers drove in the IAM approved style (which includes obeying ALL laws) then the roads would be safer for all of us. Rather them than the blooming AA or the british drivers rentaquote lunatics!
Recently, and for the first and last time, I had to drive up the A9 for a meeting in Inverness. The trucks which were limited to 40 on the single road sections would shoot up the second you reached the dualled sections, with the resulting stream of drivers who had been caught behind them since the last overtaking opportunity getting increasingly irate as you had two HGVs racing each other just so as they could slow down again for the next single track.
I found the whole thing quite terrifying. At one point I decided to 'brave' an overtaking manoeuvre of the truck in front in one of those sections where one side was dualled but the other was still single and with no central reservation. I nearly had a fit when the driver behind started overtaking ME using the other side as we approached the oncoming bend!
Never again.
I'm not saying that the IAM's courses to try and improve driving standards aren't good and well (in fact, I would argue that they shouldn't define these as "advanced", but as a basic minimum!)
However, they (and other Motoring campaign groups, i.e. RAC Foundation, ABD) have an impossible logic of if we could just increase a speed limit here or just spend a few billion dualling a road there then the world will be a better, safer place. However this is a never-ending and self-fulfilling race to the top. There is no end point. They move on and want the next road dualled and the next junction "smoothed" and the next speed camera removed. It's quite relentless.
When the A9 is dualled, there will still be horrible crashes on it. We'll still have a sub-standard rail service. And we'll still have immense volumes of lorry freight going up and down it because the railway isn't a feasible alternative. We'll have got nowhere and will have paid a huge amount for it.
Fair enough Kappers, you name three groups, of these, the RAC is a commercial organisation which will say whatever they think is most likely to maintain or increase their revenue, the ABD with the best will in the world are fringe nutters, the IAM is fundamentally different in that their only reason for existence is to increase road safety and improve driving standards.
I do not agree with everything they do, or suggest, but as long as the average standard of driving is as low as it is, their courses I believe provide a valuable service, and their polls for instance provide an opportunity for everyone, not just members, to shape opinion.
To condemn them outright with a phrase like: "These self-appointed whinge-bags are a dangerous menace in themselves." is I believe both unfair and incorrect. Of course if you'd applied that to some media people... ;-)
As to the dualling of the A9, personally I think it would be a huge waste of money, personally I'd abolish the 40mph for LGV's and bring them in line with other vehicles (like buses!), consider making the single carriageway stretches of the A9 50 or 55mph limits to remove the speed differential and massively increase the Police presence on the road (marked and unmarked) with the harshest penalties for reckless manoeuvres.
Unfortunately it's not up to me. I can influence groups like the iam to a small extent though by engaging with them.
"
Chief Superintendent David O’Connor, president of Asps, who served in the former Northern Constabulary and knows the Highlands well, said there are “few roads in Scotland that have the same reputation as a dangerous road”, and suggested increased police patrols and a zero tolerance approach to illegal driving, including speeding, to make the A9 safer.
“The road needs to be dual carriageway for its entirety. While I welcome the Scottish Government position that work on making the A9 dual carriageway from Perth to Inverness will start early, in 2015-16, I have to ask, is this early enough?
"
I assume it would be cheaper to give the police more money for enforcement (they seem to want to do it!) Clearly I am missing something.
One commentator on that article says -
"
This is indeed a terrible tragedy but improving the road won't help, drivers commit errors for a host of reasons and accidents happen on the safest of roads, accidents that include fatalities. Head-on collisions, as this one seems to be, happens due to carelessness, inattention, medical conditions or any number of reasons and in my travels I have seen three head-on collisions including multiple fatalities on divided highways where someone has entered onto the wrong road due to either poor signage, poor weather conditions or someone just not paying attention.
"
Perhaps "improving the road won't help" isn't entirely true, but I assume there are crashes on the dualled bits too.
I'm from Inverness so have driven the A9 more times than Care to count and I have been caught speeding on it twice. As others have said the issue is the duelling of the road and the frustration of drivers stuck behind slower moving vehicles with limited overtaking easy options.
There are plenty of safe (and even more dangerous) overtaking opportunities but so many people these days don't have the skills (or balls) to overtake, thus increasing the frustration.
I believe there are only ever three causes of accidents, Concentration lapse, Frustration and Lack of skill / Incompetence.
People drive to fast for their skill levels or the road or poorly execute driving manoeuvres.
Or make mistakes due to a lack of skill or frustration.
So I would increase the speed limit to 90 for everyone and increase driver training, re-test every 10 years minimum and make drivers re-sit a new test before being allowed to drive at 90.
90kph? Yeah, that'd work.
Better still make all the non-dualled bits 30mph. Should stop virtually all fatalities.
Would make the train more attractive too.
edd1e_h 90 MPH in the outside lane of Motorways, I'd actually reduce the single carriageway A and B roads to 50 MPH I'd also introduce a minimum speed limit as well then there need be no overtaking.
Whilst we are at it I would do away with the 30 limit altogether, and impose 20 on small side streets where kids should be playing and 40 on wider safer arterial routes where there should be dedicated cycle ways.
OHHHH Nirvana if only!
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts