"punitative/incentivising insurance policies"
If only.
That's in the same box as 'sensible' sentencing policies/practice.
'Mustn't be nasty to the poor motorists'.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Is dualling the A9 really that bad?
(597 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
@chdot
I wouldn't dismiss the idea of "punitative/incentivising insurance policies"out of hand. They would be far easier and faster to implement than sentencing because you don't need to pass any laws. If the insurers think that it's a smart way of turning a profit, getting good PR, hitting their CSR targets then they'll do it. In essence it would let them do what most listed businesses want to do; reward their good customers and punish their bad ones.
If I was google I'd be creating an arms length insurance company right now, because I'd know an awful lot about you and a whole lot of other people; How fast you drive, where you go and why, how easy you are to inventivise and... what you've been looking at before you got into/while you're in your car (esp. stuff that might impact on your driving style).
OK, that's probably going too far, but in essence it's not beyond comprehension (or too far away).
Posted 10 years ago # -
"If the insurers think that it's a smart way of turning a profit, getting good PR, hitting their CSR targets then they'll do it."
Except they are not.
It's perhaps too cynical to say they have done calculations about 'expensive' insurance v no insurance.
Charging 'punitive' rates is fine if there is a method for making sure all drivers get insurance - and/or 'serious' penalties for those who don't.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Every time I have visitors (most of whom are regular cyclists) from mainland Europe they can't believe that the A9 isn't dualled in its entireity.
Visitors are similarly amazed that Scotrail run polluting diesel trains north of the central belt. Most countries in Europe have completely electrified their railways.
I'd place greater priority on twin tracking* and electrifying the railway line to Inverness from Perth rather than dualling the A9.
* - currently for long stretches it is the rail equivalent of a single track road.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I'd place greater priority on twin tracking* and electrifying the railway line to Inverness from Perth rather than dualling the A9."
+1
Apart from 'transport priorities' I would have thought it would be popular with voters north of
WatfordPerth - I think there are even a higher proportion of SNP voters there(?)Posted 10 years ago # -
"Charging 'punitive' rates is fine if there is a method for making sure all drivers get insurance - and/or 'serious' penalties for those who don't."
Totally agree, I can't understand why you car owners aren't legally obliged to display a qr code or similar that would link to a central insurance database. Meanwhile maybe it's time for a grass-up your uninsured colleague, neighbour campaign but from drivers not cyclists.
As for the business case.... Perhaps insurers have done their calculations and figured that without enforcement too many people will take the chance, but... They are waking up to the potential of smart devices e.g. for new drivers, so maybe there's hope.
Just thought it was worth throwing in some positive ideas, (Don' t get me wrong the driving standard in Edinburgh right now can be appalling and not just driver to cyclist)
Posted 10 years ago # -
The Motor Insurers' Bureau operates a nationwide database of insured vehicles. This is continually compared with the DVLA database and the keeper of any uninsured vehicle is sent an Insurance Advisory Letter (IAL) telling them that their vehicle appears to be uninsured and warning them that they will be fined unless they take action.
This keeps those (mainly) law abiding drivers in line. The problem is with unlicensed drivers with vehicles of less than certain provenance - who tend to be the worst drivers. Also, actual enforcement is really patchy - police ANPR cameras are linked to the DVLA database and can easily identify uninsured/dodgy vehicles. There just aren't enough police resources to deal with them.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Neil Greig, the Scotland-based policy and research director of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said: “A clear view at junctions and for overtaking is an essential prerequisite of any safe road so we are very much in favour of this improvement work.
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/122-000-scheme-to-improve-sightlines-on-the-a9-1-3307052
Posted 10 years ago # -
Cut down all the trees so people can go faster. Madness.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Cut down all the trees so people can go faster. Madness."
That does seem to one possible outcome!
The article seems to imply that there are 'dangerous junctions' where 'couldn't see properly' has caused crashes.
No excuse of course, but if (partly) true why hasn't it been done before?
Could this be a case where there hasn't been the "revenue" to do basic maintenance, so it is now a 'project' which can be done with "capital"??
Posted 10 years ago # -
A clear view at junctions and for overtaking is an essential prerequisite of any safe road
For junctions, yes indeed, you can't be expected to make a safely timed maneouvre if you can't see what's barelling towards you at 70mph (of course it would be entirely unacceptable to the IAMing Lobby to suggest reducing speeds approaching junctions).
But for "overtaking" then unless the trees are growing in the road then what Mr Greig is suggesting is that they need to be cut down so people can overtake going around sharp corners, as those are the only places were tree growth would obscure the vision of approaching traffic. He can't be that "advanced" if he's suggesting that people should be overtaking on a notorious road going round corners, can he.
Posted 10 years ago # -
When the A9 was last largely rebuilt it was to a design standard (LRRA) which was soon superseded. It included long sweeping bends with really wide verges so drivers could see up to 450m (?) ahead which was meant to be enough to allow overtaking. (Where this sight distance wasn't achievable then dual carriageway sections were used to allow overtaking with shorter sightlines.) So there weren't any sharp corners, but there were smooth bends where it could sometimes be seen as safe to overtake if the verges were kept clear, and if the drivers looked along and across the road, and if there wasn't any traffic in the way. This was later seen as dangerous as some drivers didn't fully check the view in front and off to the side and through (?!) the vehicles they were trying to overtake. So trees have been allowed to grow where it would usually be difficult to see to overtake anyway. "Advanced" motorists might think they would be able to make more "progress" and overtake if the trees weren't there, but for most drivers I doubt if it would help. That's why roads have been designed differently for over 30 years, with shorter tighter bends and longer straights in between them, where it is easier to tell if it might be safe to overtake.
Posted 10 years ago # -
To quote the article:
"Much of the 113-mile section of the A9 between Perth and Inverness remains single carriageway, but upgrades since the 1970s have included long curves which were designed to provide a clear view of the road ahead to enable overtaking.
However, trees and bushes have grown at the sides of dozens of bends, preventing drivers from seeing oncoming traffic.
Experts say this has made overtaking more dangerous and increased motorists’ frustration, making them more likely to risk potentially fatal manoeuvres to pass slower vehicles."Posted 10 years ago # -
Fimm, thanks for the quote. The article could have gone to say that other, more senior experts concluded that this was the wrong type of road design to be used, so re-opening up sightlines over wide verges would be a step back to the 70s.
Posted 10 years ago # -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26256542
A9 speed camera plans delayed and scaled back
Neil "chop down the trees" Greig will I assume be delighted.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
FSB Highlands and Islands regional chair Amanda Frazer, said: "Our members continue to voice concerns over proposals to introduce average speed cameras along this vital transport artery on which their livelihoods depend. Businesses worry that the proposed cameras will impact on their economic competitiveness by increasing journey times and reinforce the image of the road as slow and dangerous.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Drivers urged to overtake safely when using A9
"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26382051
Posted 10 years ago # -
There is a programme on BBC1or2 on Thursday evening about the A9.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yeah lovely title (factual though) -
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Rail Freight Group spokesman David Spaven said: “The great thing about radically upgrading the rail infrastructure north of the central belt is that freight transport would benefit enormously, as well as passengers.
“With a fit-for-purpose Perth-Inverness railway, for example, we could increase the number of daily freight trains from two to as many as eight in each direction. That’s the equivalent of taking more than 300 lorries off the A9 every day.”
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/campaigners-call-for-scots-rail-revolution-1-3326054
Posted 10 years ago # -
Just a reminder (for those planning to watch, but had forgotten -
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Life+and+Death+on+the+A9
9:00
Posted 10 years ago # -
Quite interesting program, was struck by the moaning mamil cyclist giving the road engineers a hard time, who later said how the cyclists are a difficult bunch, for get his exact words but I got the impression they're pissed off at the moaning vocal minority who are never happy, despite them bending over backwards to help. Didn't do our public image much good, for sure.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
No, he said "the local cyclists are quite political", which I think is rather different. It was unfortunate that the only person we were shown complaining was a cyclist. I can't imagine the drivers who were done for bald tyres, possession of cannabis, and speeding were too happy either but their reaction was mostly off camera. The guy with the motorbike with failing brakes looked a tad peeved too.
I know we were supposed to empathise with the road maintenance guy, but I have to question why the film-makers exploited his evident embarrassment that it hasd been revealed on camera that not all was going swimmingly with the bridge refurbishment. I suppose conflict makes good telly. As for his grumble about trying his best for 'them', well we can't judge the situation from one incident. Have they dealt with any complaints from motorists? We weren't told.
Oh the other thing I noted while watching this reality show (calling it a documentary would be a compliment too far) was the guys in the camper van heading to Rockness hollering "69 miles an hour! Woohoo!" Er.....isn't the speed limit 60mph, lads? (Cue an 'expert' from IAM asserting it's not speed that is dangerous, or somesuch).
Oh the other other thing was eveyone saying that most accidents happen on the dual carriageway section near Perth. Well there's a great argument for dualling the rest, eh?
Posted 10 years ago # -
It maybe helpful if I summarise the links I posted above.
Both are from a BikeRadar forum.
The first is the cyclist from the film who is saying he didn't sign the consent form and isn't happy they are showing him.
The second is an earlier discussion, where the same guy bemoans that the cycle diversion has them heading down to sea level and then back up a steep hill to bridge height. Not ideal at any time but a missed opportunity when cycling could be a good alternative to the queueing cars (caused by the roadworks).
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
"69 miles an hour! Woohoo!" Er.....isn't the speed limit 60mph, lads?
"Depends, signs are mostly 'national speed limit', 60 on single carriageway sections, and 70 on dual carriageway sections. He may well have been on a dual carriageway section when he made the comment.
With regard the 'moaning cyclist', I confess to not knowing the area other than driving over the bridge a handful of times, but I'm not sure that he offers a viable alternative. It seems to me a little bit like whinging about the A90 cycle path diversions through Dalmeny, it takes you a mile and a half out your way and makes you go up a big hill, but where else would you go? May well be the same in this case.
With regard to the road and accidents, and whether it needs upgraded or not. Most of the commentators agreed accidents were down to people and not the road, but that the road was 'worn out'.
May be a case for resurfacing it rather than dual'ing it, however I have seen it argued (on here with regards other infra) that the only way to stop humans killing each other in cars is to engineer solutions rather than rely on humans to change their behaviour. Average speed cameras would certainly 'engineer' out speed, but not reckless overtaking, or taking a risk at a junction. Perhaps dual'ing along with average speed cameras is the appropriate engineered solution?
I must confess that I quite like the road, I don't think it's particularly bad either.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Perhaps dual'ing along with average speed cameras is the appropriate engineered solution?
Or perhaps installing a central barrier to make overtaking impossible? Y'know, like they do in those Scandinavian countries we're supposed to be looking to for inspiration. I'd wager it's a darn sight cheaper than dualling too.
signs are mostly 'national speed limit', 60 on single carriageway sections, and 70 on dual carriageway sections.
So in effect the whole dualling project is about raising the speed limit for the road? I'm not convinced that will make things safer. Particularly not if the junctions with minor roads are at grade. It's a recipe for high speed smashes and fatalities/serious injuries.
Posted 10 years ago # -
With regard the 'moaning cyclist', I confess to not knowing the area other than driving over the bridge a handful of times, but I'm not sure that he offers a viable alternative.
IIRC his specific complaint on camera was about the signage for the diversion being poor and the route being very confusing. Which was not the same point he made in the online forum, clearly the fellow is irritated by the whole diversion anyway.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Baldcyclist: "Average speed cameras would certainly 'engineer' out speed, but not reckless overtaking ..." - but if cameras deter speeding there woould be fewer speeders desperate to overtake. And if you had to overtake there would be less chance of oncoming traffic approaching at very high speed.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Depends, signs are mostly 'national speed limit', 60 on single carriageway sections, and 70 on dual carriageway sections. He may well have been on a dual carriageway section when he made the comment."
If he was in a campervan, he was probably legally restricted to 50mph on single carriageway & 60mph on dual carriageways. Likewise panel vans. Rarely enforced, more's the pity. That said, vehicle speedos generally overread anyway.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
