Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 11:59 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=18949

Basically, Brightwalton resident and Green party activist Adrian Hollister has said “enough is enough.” and wants the A34 between Oxfordshire boarder and the M4 to be a 50mph limit.

Apparently his year of living in West Ilsey was "living ****" (aww, bless him would he like a lollypop?)
According to this clearly very entertaining fellow he has no idea how he would get out of his driveway and worries about his children bicycling in town.

Adrian suggests average speed cameras (he fails to mention the large install and upkeep cost, plus paying for fines to be processed, that's not very green is it, plus the cameras are yellow), he adds:

Since when has a member of the green party been able to give advice on what to do with the roads without having a conflict of interests?

Oh no a few cars might have scratched their bumpers from time to time but at the end of the day changing the speed limit will not reduce crashes, it will just result in angrier drivers. Like when you're driving down the motorway and a lorry overtakes someone doing 52mph, causing the whole carridgeway to get tailbacked...inevitable they will be driving a Daewoo.

Brightwalton is a 6.8mile drive from the A34 and a 2.6 mile drive from the A338. The B4494 is closer but it's also quieter.
Well Adrian, I sincerely hope your children don't fall off their bicycles. And frankly assuming you live in the centre of Brightwalton, if you are letting your children cycle out far enough to get near to these major roads then I suggest you fit them with GPS tracking devices were you can not only monitor their speed and also keep an eye on their location so you can call upon your good friend the Honey Badger to rescue them. But if they did I doubt it would be because of someone doing 70mph on the A34.

*real reason for edit; being awesome*

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 23 2012, 02:34 PM

angry, but alive and well? rofl

Best laugh I've had all day thanks.

Posted by: Downlander Jan 23 2012, 02:51 PM

Ahh, give the kid a break. I've got shoes that are older than him.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 23 2012, 03:50 PM

I see where Adrian is coming from, I just don't think it would work. Compulsory motorway training would be a better idea, although the A34 isn't a motorway the principles are the same. Remaining in the left lane unless overtaking, and maintaining a proper distance between cars used to be a given.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 23 2012, 04:03 PM

I thought that already applied to any road, not just motorways (no special 'motorway training' needed).

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 04:08 PM

I'm about as old as my shoe size actually.

I did hope you spotted this! No-one dies from speed do they? Unless it's speed the drug. But then if you were driving at speed on speed then you'd probably have a bigger problem than your speed.

I drive at 80mph on the motorway and the A34, in complete safety by being observant of cars in my mirrors and any possible queues up ahead, and by keeping a safe following distance, using the correct lane, etc, have never nearly had an accident on the motorway or the A34. And as most traffic goes about 70-80mph anyway you're hardly flying past everyone. Only times were things happen are when Deadrie in her Volvo is sat there doing 55mph chatting away to her friend, or sat about 2 inches from the wheel, tunnel vision engaged, not looking in her mirrors and realising she's causing massive tailbacks because lorries are going past at no rate of speed at all, thereby causing tailbacks for faster traffic!!

When I went on a plane (boy that was exciting, I slept most of the way) we were going at 500mph and we didn't have shunt! Unfortunately the causes of most accidents on the motorways are caused by falling asleep, texting, whatever. And whether you're doing 7 or 70 if you fall asleep or text while driving you will probably crash.
There aren't any corners, or junctions (well there's like one) or traffic lights, or pedestrians on the A34 which is where most accidents happen - and I think if the national limit dual carridgeways and the motorways were de restricted (aka go as fast as you like) the accident rate wouldn't rise by more than 5% because only about 5% of people would go over the limit, and maybe only 1% of them would crash...

The amounts of accidents caused by excessive speed are in the very low single percentile figures (between 3 and 8% depending where you look). In fact there are more accidents with cars in 30mph limits going UNDER the speed limit than there are on motorways AND dual carridgeways, full stop. So prooving that speeding does NOT cause accidents. Only a member of the green party would fight the battle on "speed" when in actual fact the modern day cars can stop about half as quickly as those cars on the road when the 70mph limit was introduced. So surely as logic goes we should be able to drive twice as quickly

If there is a speed limit which makes no sense to the motoring public in general it will be ignored. The 50mph limit you would like makes no sense so it would be ignored.
It won't happen and if it does I'd eat my hat and be your milkman for a week.

**** why don't we just take your ideas and go one further and ban going over 30 all together? That way both the honey badger and your children on their bicycles would be safe and the fields would be green for many years to come (they won't, it'll just be colder and more rainy)

Edit: I forgot to mention that in this countries seemingly endless and relentless attack on speed and infact anything even slightly fun, you forgot to note that compared to 50 years ago, there are nearly 7 times as many cars on the roads and yet there are 3 times the number of deaths. Vehicle numbers aside, we are using cars far more often than before as well.

The accident rate has been near enough the same for the last 8 or 9 years - there's only so much you can do to reduce it, there will be a point where you can't have any less because there is only so much space.

Posted by: Downlander Jan 23 2012, 04:10 PM

I'd like to see them extend the northbound slip road ex West Ilsley so that it directly joins the sliproad at the Chilton exit. It's only about half a mile. That would give an extra lane so that, in the event of accidents causing tailbacks, it would be quicker to get traffic off the A34 and diverted on to the old northbound route via Rowstock. (In the same way that the exit slip from the petrol station joins the West Ilsley exit southbound, with no need to rejoin the main carriageway)

Posted by: Strafin Jan 23 2012, 04:21 PM

It does apply all the time but it is still one of the biggest causes of tailbacks because people don't do it.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 04:39 PM

That would actually work pretty well thinking about it. Plus wouldn't cost all that much to do in relative terms. The winter is nearly over so old people don't need heating anymore.

Posted by: HJD Jan 23 2012, 05:14 PM

C'mon xjay i thought you had a sense of adventure. Just imagine if Adrian Hollister got his wish the fun you could have overtaking & being undertook in return by those safety conscious juggernaut drivers You could be just like them & cause tailbacks for bleeding miles, oh that happens already doesn't it Maybe you could also join those other cretins that stay over in the overtaking lane leaving the inside lane empty travelling inches behind each other so that anyone on the inside lane can't move out , i mean what would it matter. I suppose someone will propose a blanket 50 limit between Great Shefford & Wantage next ! Oh bugger there already is one now isn't there.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 23 2012, 05:53 PM

Speeding is such an emotive issue. So many people take it for granted and don't consider breaking the speed limit a problem. Of course in true nimby style, most don't want speeding near their house, but near your house is just fine.

It would be interesting to know if speed is your priority? The 9 miles from the M4 to the Harwell junction equates to just three minutes journey time difference (70<50). What does it honestly gain you?

I've always had my family and the welfare of my friends, family and community as my priority.


As to my political beliefs - at least I stand up for what I believe in. I don't hide behind pseudonyms and I hold myself accountable for what I say. It's easy to knock it, it's more difficult to go public and be judged. btw... interesting to note how most political parties shy away from these issues as they stir up emotional issues. Best we've had recently is a bit of jingoism about raising the speed limit on some motorways. If the government wanted to make a real difference, they would consider a road toll for non-UK vehicles - bet there would be a lot less long haul lorries on our roads allowing you your 'freedom of expression'.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 23 2012, 05:56 PM

Every time I go up the A34 the traffic is rarely going more than 60mph - it's a road crying out for another lane or two. Bring on the M34!


And XJ - you seem to miss the point about speed limits. They don't prevent accidents but they do reduce the damage caused by the accidents - especially to the occupants of the vehicles involved.

Speed is a factor in every accident involving death or injury to the occupant of a car - halve the speed, quarter the damage.

And. lets face it, collisions between two stationary vehicles are not very common.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 05:59 PM

Is people going between 50 and 70 the problem?

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 06:08 PM

Yes yes the whole "70 is only 3 minutes quicker than 50" - yes, technically yes but it feels so much quicker. If you only did things because of logical and boring reasons where would we be? I'm sure the fact that a teaspoon of your favourite table dressing would suffice for the given purpose but you put loads and loads in, 'cause you like it, right?

I don't think it's fine to speed near anyone's house, except that on the A34 there aren't any houses. Your choice to live within a 10 mile vicinity of said road doesn't mean you can complain. For example with the people who chose to move near to a race circuit. You KNEW there was a racetrack there, it's been there for hundreds of years before you moved (or in the case of the A34 maybe a few years) and yet instead of either accepting it and dealing with it, you "ignore" it and the complain about it later.





Excellent let's turn this into a party-political broadcast.




Make that for commercial vehicles only (not really fair on Pierce and Audrey from France in their Renault Clio would it?) and I think that would be a good idea.



That sounds like a rounded days entertainment to be honest.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 23 2012, 06:18 PM

Terminal speed between lorries crawling at 30mph or so and 70mph is twice that of 30mph to 50mph. Who knows what the difference is between the speeders and the lorries.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 23 2012, 06:24 PM

I must have missed the planning application for a racetrack called the A34

So you agree that speed needs to be moderated, just near your house. rofl. nimby.

It also seems that in your world, nothing would ever change, even if it was broken. There is an accident blackspot at Ilsley. It's caused my a whole bunch of factors, I've not seen one that wouldn't be mitigated by a reduction in the speed differential between the slower traffic and the fastest.



noob. you mentioned it over and over again... rofl.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 06:35 PM

Indeed I must



Nope, that's not what I said is it now Adrian? You can tell you're in politics! I said it's not OK to speed near anyone's house, but the fact there isn't a house on the A34 means your argument isn't valid!



Not really - Banning tractors would be easier for all than putting up a speedlimit no-one listens to. If you drive to Reading down the A4, from Aldi all the way up until the roundabout with the Beefeater thing on it, that used to be a 40mph. They made that into a 30 now. For no reason. They did it quietly as well, just a small sign, probably about half a foot tall and maybe 1 ft across saying "THIS AREA IS NOW A 30MPH ZONE" in size 8 font.
No-one listens to it (I actually do believe it or not) - Do you know why the speed limit was brought in?

Was it because there were lots of accidents in that area? - No...
Was it because residents complained about 40mph traffic through a fairly populated area? Not at all..
Was it because Reading Borough Council made a ****load of money?* Can't be...
Would it be because....oh wait, no - it was the money.

RBC got a grant/subsidy (I'm not exactly sure all I know is there council got a good chunk of money from it) as part of the "safer roads initiative" - nothing to do with safety as no accident rates were noted or measured. The simple act of making roads within the councils durastiction a 30 means more money. I have this as fact and would prefer to not say my sources incase I get people into trouble, can either believe or disbelieve that as you will.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 23 2012, 06:39 PM

Would be happy to investigate. Send me a pm if it helps.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 06:42 PM

I don't know what you mean by terminal speed in this instance, but the point I'm asking is, is the problem cause by vehicles travelling anywhere between 50 and 70mph?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 23 2012, 06:53 PM

That may just be your I.Q.


Sadly, Donald Campbell is not able to join the forum at this juncture.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 07:00 PM

I am not 109. Shoes would be very expensive as well.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 23 2012, 07:03 PM

But every time they close the A34 between the Ilsleys a huge amount of traffic is diverted through the villages.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 23 2012, 07:08 PM

Touche!

Posted by: gel Jan 23 2012, 07:13 PM

Wonder if the A34 speed limit will rise in line with planned 80 limit for M Ways??
The A34 is in fact a designated Euroroute, and badly needs that 3rd lane.
I've noticed the steady build up of traffic over 20 years, which really started
when M40 arrived, and crossed it near Banbury.

Oxon CC has put 50mph limits on A338/B4494 on nice open stretches of these roads
eg from Wantage to Berks border, which is widely ignored, is wasteful
use of resources for all the signing etc.

As you hit Berks from Wantage direction (on B4494), speed becomes 70,
and road is then narrower & winding.

In practical terms limits should be other way round!

Making A34, 50mph makes no sense except on dense urban areas, such as
you have at Botley, near Oxford.

In open areas it'll cause bunching as mentioned by others, as you already see at Gore Hill,
ie between W & E Ilsley exits, as HGV's crawl up the gradient.

W Ilsley which caused original poster such heartache will inevitably suffer increased
traffic when A34 gridlocked, and of course has 30mph limit, as does Beedon (higher limit) where others
will divert through too., by taking Beedon/Stanmore exit on the Southbound carriageway.

Posted by: spartacus Jan 23 2012, 07:29 PM

B4494 in West Berks is national speed limit - which is 60. There have been a number of fatals through this bit but WBC seem to have opted to put up signs warning of the bends, with high-vis chevrons and 'slow' road markings so that drivers can adjust their speed to the conditions rather than just whack up speed limits which would be ignored and unenforced...

Posted by: user23 Jan 23 2012, 07:46 PM

..says the campaigner in the article. I wonder what research he's carried out to support this figure?

Posted by: Penelope Jan 23 2012, 08:00 PM

ROFL ? seriously ? how old are you Adrian, like 16 man ? are is that soyou can be cool and relate to your kids ? If you don't like where you moved to I sggest you move somewhere else and stop posting such self serving tripe !

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 23 2012, 10:49 PM

Do you get Parker to ramp up the Rolls on the A34 then?

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 23 2012, 11:04 PM

Here's a picture I took of her earlier

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 23 2012, 11:38 PM

If you read on from say post 11 in http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1457 thread you will see that some learned friends are of the opinion that speed does not cause crashes.
Discuss

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 24 2012, 12:09 AM

Why when we have already done it? Or do you just enjoy arguing?

Posted by: Darren Jan 24 2012, 08:52 AM

Speed didn't kill him. Speed does not kill.

What gets every you is rapid acceleration/deceleration. Falling off tall buildings has never killed anyone. It's the bone-crunching sudden stop.

I'd rather see action taken against the numb-nuts that drive cars on motorways in perfect conditions at 49mph because they don't like going fast.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 24 2012, 09:34 AM

I re-direct you back to my "snipers on the rooftops" idea.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 24 2012, 09:43 AM

So Xjay, stalking me are you ?? Still nice action shot of the motor ! Seriously, people like Adrian who bunker down in their little villages and keep coming up with stupid ideas just to gain brownie points with the local luvvies make me mad. The main arterial from the Industrial midlands to the Channel ports to be 50MPH ? La La land.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 24 2012, 09:44 AM

No officer.

Can you start a career in politics? You'd so get my vote!

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 24 2012, 11:30 AM

Oh dear. Point lost on your obsession with speed

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 24 2012, 11:34 AM

And being someone who works in Reading at the moment, I'd like to see people driving on the A4 doing 43.6 mph nuked as well.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 24 2012, 11:42 AM

I have an obsession with speed (after all it's the reason I drive a Golf ) but if you think about it, the A34 is an artery, the cars are Red blood cells. Slow the cars down, you get a stroke.

Oh well. Death to a few thousand people so your beloved children don't have to taste gods green grass when they fall off their wobbly bicycles.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 24 2012, 11:54 AM

You have a rather odd obsession with my children.

As to an artery, as I understand it, it's all about throughput, not speed; and there is no throughput when there is an accident.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 24 2012, 12:22 PM

Throughput is speed, or bandwidth rather. So you're suggesting it's better to have a 50mph limit and no crashes than a 70mph limit with occasional crashes?
You're forgetting at 50mph there will still be crashes..

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 24 2012, 12:40 PM

A stroke in this analogy would be an RTA. Equally, the more efficient the heart the slower it beats.


I think average speed cameras would slow traffic down and there would be fewer accidents, all without causing much difference to delivery times. I'd also hate it.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 24 2012, 12:56 PM

The obvious solution is a man with a red flag walking in front of everyones vehicle ! simple ! In fact lets all forget 100 years of progress and go back to the good old days altogether. Everyone gets a horse and cart, fitted with methane filters to please the greens, Everyone gets a job on the land and Adrian (look at me) Hollister can get his kids to sweep my chimneys !

All in the name of progress (of course). Its fools like this who got the incandescant lightbulbs banned. Beware idiots with agendas.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 24 2012, 01:11 PM

Quite agree - the 'deep green' lobby damage their cause with the hair shirt approach. Just as much as 'militant cyclists' put the rest of us off with their anti social antics. Ironically, there are some solutions, being worked out right now, which will deliver us a sustainable future, which is comfortable (and for XJ) fun. For instance, we really ought to be able to deliver very fast personal transport; which is both safe and sustainable. Yes, we do have the technology, albeit at an immature stage right now.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 24 2012, 01:19 PM

Agreed, remind me, what is your agenda?

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 24 2012, 02:00 PM

What the Green Party don't seem to realise is that, yes while we probably are contributing to earths warming, it's far more dependant on the pre-existing cycles which the earth has naturally (hotter, more levels of "greenhouse gases" and cooler, with lower levels) - anyway, the problem is green people always try to do things for the "greater good" which if you have watched Hot Fuzz you would know is a load of poop. Stop being interfering, if you have issues then fine, raise them - debate, and apply reason to your arguments, excellent - but don't be quite so ridiculous. 50mph...lol. For reference America has a mostly 50-60mph highway limit and they have LOADS more accidents per car than the UK.

Yup I'm with you and Penelope here. We should get a Pizza delivered and share it. If we ordered it from Dominoes in Newbury and it travelled at 70mph it would get to our chosen eating place much more quickly and be warmer and more delicious



Story of so many things!!! Technology and evolution is about progressing forward. It's why the electric (battery) car is not going to work, but why the Hydrogen powered car will. Because it gives us the same, 5 minute fill up, 300+ mile range as most sort of cars, and can easily replace explosive or combustible fuels by using exisiting Infrastructure, and not cause grievance to peoples pre-existant way of live. After all, who wants an, at best, 150 mile range with a 18 hour recharge time....

Humans like routine and if you change that routine everything gets messed up, and people's quality of life goes down. If you get up every morning at 7:30, shower, breakfast, grab keys and wallet, leave for work, and then one day you wake up at 8am...then your routine is ruined and you'd forget something or have to skip shower or breakfast. You could always eat breakfast in the shower. It's an option??



Quite the doctor you are, eh Andy?
There becomes a natural flow in blood (cars) which you force it to slower than it wants to be can cause bad things to happen. Say the natural flow is around 65-70beats per minute (or mph actually hah) and you try to force it to 50....well let's just say hope you have BUPA

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 24 2012, 02:02 PM

I'm not sure what is wrong in wanting to slow traffic down to reduce accidents - what is foolish about that? This isn't to say I agree with a 50mph zone, but hysterical rhetoric doesn't help this argument.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 24 2012, 02:07 PM

I think it is your analogy that is flawed, rather than your argument. Slower speed limits will tend to mean fewer strokes, especially fatal ones. The fittest athletes have the slowest heart beats, but their cars carry a lot of oxygen!

Posted by: Blake Jan 24 2012, 02:31 PM

I am wholeheartedly in favor of a speed limit on this road, preferably along the entire length.

I have seen some of the most dangerous and antisocial driving on this road known to man.

I am appalled at the staggering hubris with which some drivers demonstrate, as if somehow, the Highway Code, laws and climatic conditions have no application to their self-centered selves.

So yes, I am in favor of a speed reduction. It would also benefit the environment by giving us cleaner air as most vehicles reach peak gas mileage (and thus emit the least) at 50-60mph.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 24 2012, 02:40 PM

There is a speed limit. It's 70.

So Blake it seems the problem isn't the speed, it's the lack of safe driving based on conditions. 70mph in the rain is perfectly safe but depending on levels of spray you have to drive appropriately. In the dry you can do hundreds of miles an hour very safely.

Also you'd know most vehicles actually are most economical at around 35-40mph. So why don't we reduce the speed limit to there? In my car (I know as I've tested it) I get an average of around 57mpg on cruise control at 70mph, at 80 I get 54.8. Now I get about 60mpg with both when I'm driving with a manual throttle...so do you want to ban cruise control?
At 35mph I get about 110 mpg. What's not to like?

When most of the middle aged bad drivers grow old and end up in carehomes the roads will be much better I believe.

Fair enough. I watch a lot of House MD but sometimes I think they are lying. Because it's never Lupus.
You can see exactly why I dropped out of med school though.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 24 2012, 04:19 PM

Time for a variable speed limit. Works on other busy roads.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 24 2012, 05:02 PM

The answer as I'm sure any thinking person (sorry if I excude people like Adrian Hollister) is not the speed but peoples inability to drive at speed, if you want to make roads safer you
1 Enforce the no mobiles ban (rigorously)
2 Increase police patrols to get the uninsured, untaxed and un mot'ed vehicles off the roads
3 Pull anyone with defective lights
4 Stiffer driving tests ( I mean seriously, you drive around for half an hour without actually killing anyone and thats meant to be good enough ?)
5 Retest the over 70's
6 Random breath testing at all times of the year
7 On moterways and dual carriageways, a 70mph limit ratcheted down to 60 in the wet
8 Stop allowing people who get caught speeding to,in effect 'get off' by attending a "speed awareness course". Hammer them instead.
9 Tighter restrictions (no's passengers, speeds etc) for newly qualified drivers
10 Stop idiots using "speed kills" to dictate road traffic policies

Oh and
11 20mph limits anywhere new schools, crossings etc
12 Educate children in road safety (seems to be in decline, not just in the shires but also in inner cities.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 24 2012, 05:07 PM

Because there are some on here who disagree and think that speed DOES cause accidents.

Yes, as do you!!

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 24 2012, 05:14 PM

Strange argument because the faster you are going the more severe the sudden stop leading to more damage.
So my argument is that speed IS a factor in the severity of crashes and yes it does kill.
If we all drove at say 4mph how many crashes would there be?
And if there were any, how sever would the damage be?

Posted by: Penelope Jan 24 2012, 05:20 PM

Man with a red flag, anyway as a biker you should know that most fatalities to bikers are not caused by speed they are coused by other motorists not paying attention.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 24 2012, 05:26 PM

True, but I still say speed is the ultimate factor in EVERY crash.
As someone has pointed out, you don't hear of two stationary vehicles crashing!

Posted by: Strafin Jan 24 2012, 05:29 PM

So if they already ignore the laws, what makes you think they will adhere to a lower speed limit?

Posted by: oldharry Jan 24 2012, 06:29 PM

Absolute rubbish!

Posted by: Penelope Jan 24 2012, 06:51 PM

What part ?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Jan 24 2012, 06:56 PM

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 24 2012, 06:58 PM

Agreed.


I'm not sure we could ever travel fast enough for speed to kill us!

Posted by: user23 Jan 24 2012, 07:09 PM

Hi Adrian, do you have a link to a study to support your claim that "99 per cent of all the accidents on that road will go away" if the speed limit is dropped to 50mph?

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 24 2012, 07:25 PM

Err of course he does, he also has documentation that PROVES that Elvis is alive and well and working in the Newbury McDonalds and that little green men run the council.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 24 2012, 07:33 PM

One of those may just be true.

Posted by: user23 Jan 24 2012, 07:42 PM

If he doesn't have any evidence to support this claim, doesn't that question the validity of his whole argument?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 24 2012, 08:37 PM

It's a question of traffic management in an area where there is a high number of accidents resulting in high levels of traffic passing through the narrow roads of the Downland villages. There is no rocket science here.

But if you need reference materials, there are loads of studies out there:

http://20splentyforus.org.uk/UsefulReports/TRLREports/trl421SpeedAccidents.pdf
http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html
http://alerts.nationalsafetycommission.com/2007/01/speeding-triples-chances-of-auto.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Motor_vehicle_speed


I like the idea of variable speed mentioned by Dannyboy. If we could accurately measure the speed of vehicles climbing the hills and round the bends, it might be possible to slow oncoming traffic down to a level where the speed differential between the slow traffic and the speed freaks is at a level where the accident risk is much lower.

So if we took a worst case example:
Lorry crawling at 30mph up the hill, speak freak going at 80mph = 50mph difference

Added an average speed camera at 70mph:
Lorry crawling at 30mph up the hill, other traffic at 70mph = 40mph difference

Variable speed limit:
Lorry crawling at 30mph up the hill, other traffic at 60mph = 30mph difference
Lorry crawling at 30mph up the hill, other traffic at 50mph = 20mph difference

Might cost a bit more to implement, but other countries have used fluid dynamics to predict the impact of the effect of the speed differential and breaking (butterfly effects). I wonder how often the butterfly effect results in an accident and not the initial panic breaking.

There are companies out there working on these very problems, I wonder if they would be interesting in trailing the technology on this short section of road. If only West Berks would ask the question.

Remember, reducing the speed limit on this accident prone area will only increase journey times for car drivers by at most three minutes. Also remember that the Highways Agency are aware of the problem and put in place a 'no overtaking' trial for lorries (something I see regularly ignored - something else active traffic management would resolve).

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 24 2012, 08:44 PM

btw... always interesting to see how the people from other political parties in West Berks (who are on this forum) decline to promote themselves on these issues. Too afraid to tackle tackle emotive topics and scared to talk to people and find out their real opinions?

I am always happy here to take the debate, I am prepared to spend time understanding the issue and I am always willing to evaluate my position if I've got it wrong.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 24 2012, 08:59 PM

I don't want a reduction in speed limit there, but I take my hat off to you, for fighting your cause and coming up with the evidence you were asked for.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 24 2012, 09:05 PM

Sadly, the bare statistics are not that useful in identifying causation, and the driver behaviour element is rarely considered. Engineers know best, of course, but some solutions only change the type of incident, not eliminate them.
True, slower speeds tend to reduce the effect of impacts, but blanket slower speeds have a huge cost to the business community. Simplistic solutions based on a dogmatic belief rarely deal with the 'problem' (if there is one).

Posted by: user23 Jan 24 2012, 09:44 PM

I'm looking for the study that supports your claim that "99 per cent of all the accidents on that road will go away" if the speed limit is dropped to 50mph.

I'm interested to see how the study arrived at that figure.

Posted by: Downlander Jan 24 2012, 10:21 PM

We're all travelling at about 800 mph even while we're just sitting at home, aren't we?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 24 2012, 10:36 PM

It is not the speed that kills, just the mode of coming to a stop........

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 24 2012, 10:42 PM

Very pretty speach adrian, except of course you're not interested in argument, you already "know" you're right.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 24 2012, 11:18 PM

Adrian, how are you getting on with that Land Rover of yours, not to bothered about pollution then ? Very green I must say, Fiited a particulate filter lately ? Good job i'm not one of the BMW classes (as you so sneeringly call them) otherwise I might get upset !

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 24 2012, 11:34 PM

Old stuff more than http://www.adrianhollister.com/archives/19-Greenie-with-a-Land-Rover.html. But if your worried about the old girl, she is still going fine and served me, the family and the community well for so many years now. Brilliant in the last few years of deep snow and runs very well on WVO (waste veggie oil) and biodiesel. I assume you've kept your car for 16 years?


Do you speed?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 25 2012, 12:21 AM

Oh dear - personal website.................

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 25 2012, 01:47 AM

I can promise you my car is better for the environment in every single way, plus stops quicker which means if a precious dear or owl flew into the path of my direction of travel I could brake and avoid a horrible incident which would no doubt leave me mentally scarred for years.

Plus with my height adjustable suspension I could easily get enough ground clearance for a "muddy track" and my chunky winter tyres (which work equally as well in the mud) would do fine for most things aside from deep mushy puddles which even your Land Rover would get stuck in...if you wanted off road ability, reliability or infact any redeeming features at all you would not have bought a Land Rover Discovery.

If you read Mark's comment on Adrians page I think he has the right idea..
http://www.adrianhollister.com/archives/247-A34-mashed-up-again-who-is-going-to-fix-it.html
A good argument swept away with the "ohh no speeding is bad and kills puppies and means women don't ovulate" argument.

Also again I seem to see that my comments were taken incorrectly and applied to his board. Well hereforth they are copyrighted as mine please remove your misinformation.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 25 2012, 08:10 AM

The truth is there is an accident problem at Ilsley and it causes traffic nightmare in the Downlands. You can deny it, but it is still the truth. So whats your proposal?

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 25 2012, 08:33 AM

Redesigning sliproad around that area, consider forcing a "time-trial" HGVs only use inside lane idea, improved road signage.. Cutting speed limits won't reduce accidents! Too many people are like "oh there's an accident we must cut the speed limit" when it doesn't SOLVE the core problem. It's like your house is on fire and you just turn off the gas...the fire is still gonna go on!

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 25 2012, 09:36 AM

It's OK he always kicks in whenever bikes are mentioned.
Only time he ever does!
He will even turn a thread round to bikes even if that is not the issue.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 25 2012, 09:52 AM

Time-trial is already in effect, but it doesn't work (in my experience, HGV's seem to just ignore it).

Whilst the slip roads do need rethinking, it should be noted that longer slip roads are present southbound at Ilsley and they don't seem to make much difference.



Already proven through a lot of research (some linked earlier) that it does solve the problem. It gives more reaction time and in the event of an accident, it turns major accidents into minor ones.

Do you like the idea of a variable speed (at times when needed)... i.e. speed is only reduced when there is a problem ahead?

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 25 2012, 10:20 AM

Variable limits work when there is an actual problem, not when they say "40mph" for no reason like they do every time I go on the M25.

The time-trial WOULD work as it would result in less congestion with no perceptible delays for lorryists and yet plenty of benefits for everyone else. Yet it seems its' not being enforced, well what is required is policing or perhaps using the cameras to start fining lorryists who disobey....

Big brother is watching. Or should be.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 25 2012, 12:54 PM

Variable limits work when there is an actual problem, not when they say "40mph" for no reason like they do every time I go on the M25.


Big brother is watching. Or should be.



Where you are concerned, I agree.....

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 25 2012, 02:16 PM

IF we are talking vehicles, I have a 7 year old diesel (50mpg) a 12 Year old motorcycle and another car registered in 1965 ! A Grand slam I think ? I cause more pollution with my chainsaw I think, LOL, ROFLMAO.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 2 2012, 09:14 AM

I see this stretch of road is now branded as "UK's worst" and that accidents happen "almost daily".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/dangerous_roads.shtml!

Posted by: Ron Feb 2 2012, 09:27 AM

I traveled up it yesterday in both directions and it makes you wonder why it was ever built. The was avery small amount of traffic middle of the day.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 2 2012, 09:53 AM

It's ok, BBC reporting for you.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 2 2012, 09:55 AM

Oxford would be cut off otherwise...

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 2 2012, 10:11 AM

No, you can go via Wantage.
That road has a 50mph limit in many places!!

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 2 2012, 10:58 AM

Via Wantage is not a dual carridgeway though is it? (I think not anyway, I used to blat around those areas on my bike at quite some speed, good times )
These people unfortunately live under the illusion that speed is directly related to accidents, or that if there was a speed limit their problems would go away.
Well they won't. But I think it's just a phase right now, yes no-one is denying there are problems there lately (relatively speaking) but it's been fine up until then and I think in a few months the accident rate will settle down!

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 2 2012, 12:17 PM

No, and therefore statistically more dangerous.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 2 2012, 05:12 PM

it doesn't matter if its the most dangerous rd or not, Its an opportunity for some wannabe politico's to grandstand.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2012, 09:34 PM

What are the causations of all the crashes referred to? In some cases it may be driving into the rear of slower traffic. Creating slower traffic may increase that type of crash......

If people don't know the causes, how can they know the solution?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 2 2012, 09:52 PM

Yes, I'd like to know what percentage of accidents were brought about with people driving between 50 and the speed limit.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 2 2012, 10:17 PM

Or even below 50mph.... Or only involving LGVs (whose rate of progress will not be reduced by a 50 limit).....

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 2 2012, 10:41 PM

Well I picked 50 or more because that is the proposed limit.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 3 2012, 09:56 AM

I shan't be the one to report it myself, but my guess is that you are likely to have your offensive post pulled.

Posted by: admin Feb 3 2012, 10:33 AM

Two posts on this thread have been removed for breaching the rules of this forum.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 3 2012, 10:41 AM

I made a post and it is gone sorry if it was offensive i never mean to be, it's all light banter really!!

Yeah, but we obviously have different points of view (DEAR POINTS OF VIEW...) when it comes to matters on speed being speed-freaks than Adrian so....we're all very unlikely to ever agree on a solution.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 3 2012, 11:12 AM

Shame really as it was a long post. As I said, it wasn't me that reported it, but the mods are on their toes. You only had to edit that first sentence. It's a fine line between light banter and something being viewed as offensive.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 3 2012, 11:30 AM

No problem

Maybe admins could have changed the opening lines...admins can you restore my post and remove the offending line as i had many good points..

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 3 2012, 12:20 PM

Perhaps.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 3 2012, 12:45 PM

Interesting that you head up to Norfolk for your car. Xjay. That is a long way for a hobby.
But people come from all over to view birds, which I find odd as well..

Back to 50mph. The Norfolk Constabulary used to post details of RTAs sometime after the event.
(Not details of fatalities, or pictures of the accident.)

Just a photo of the road and what had happened, mostly simple misjudgements at junctions.
I wasn't being a voyeur and came across it by accident!..

I thought it was quite a sensible way to warn motorists of how silly mistakes end up as trouble.
It is gone now. ce

Posted by: JeffG Feb 3 2012, 02:36 PM

Perhaps Xjay drives up to Norfolk to view birds...

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 3 2012, 03:45 PM

Yup, nothing quite like picking up chicks with webbed feet.

(I went to get my highline dash cluster fitted (I could do myself) and coded to the car to get my mileage transferred across and the code the immobiliser so it didn't stop me from starting the car (I couldn't do myself i don't have the software sorry mystery over)

YES I WENT DOGGING. I didn't, I found Norwich to be quite dull actually. The drive there was dull, there wasn't anything interesting really.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 3 2012, 08:49 PM

Norwich has a few nice corners like Newbury.
But on a Saturday night there is booze fuelled mayhem.
No longer a nice city.


I have a V8 Corrado SORN ed up there. Lreg.
ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 4 2012, 09:23 PM

Unfortuantely too many cities are ruined by boozing.
Alcohol...taxed and legalised, people who are on it generally cause trouble.
Weed, illegal and arrestable offense, is less harmful, people who are on it get really sleeping and call everyone "dude"... see how the tax problems could be solved?

Do you really have that Corrado? That would be pretty awesome

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 4 2012, 10:43 PM

Yup.It is under a blanket . Sons car sadly though. Magenta ish, It is a good looking car.
Needs engine work, but some are restored jewels. It is the full V8. It beats the pants off mine at lights.
The blanket is because of nesting birds!
ce

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 5 2012, 08:55 PM

Careful !! You'll have the Muesli Knitters after you !

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 5 2012, 10:45 PM

Blackbirds, Wrens. Swallows. And a barn owl eats there and burps up strange bits.
Multy occupation even for Meusli chompers. They all make a mess at some stage.
Everything is covered with old blankets. The roving cats like that too.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 5 2012, 10:54 PM

I do feel that some roads are dangerous and some sort of speed control is wise.
So my diversion to birdwatching (except Wrens in uniform is over.)
Come on ce act your age !.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 5 2012, 11:15 PM

I don't get the whole Museli chomping brigade. It's horrible and you might as well eat cardboard.
Birdwatching at the beach on a sunny day is a lot of fun if you get my meaning. PSI tuning are good at engine rebuilding and what not, they are recommended for that sort of thing from various owners forums.

Unfortunately they are neither inbred or based in Norwich so might have pulled the short feather there i'm afraid.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 6 2012, 01:33 PM

Don't give up yet! You can get something from the Doctor which might help

Posted by: Penelope Feb 9 2012, 12:49 PM

Oh dear, just been turned down, what a shame. Still the treehuggers will have to put up with the occasional motorists passing through their little corner of middle England. Lock up your Badgers !!

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 9 2012, 05:42 PM

Does that require ladies to wear chastity belts?

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 9 2012, 06:18 PM

No, just the ability to whine about "our village" in a high pitched nasal voice !

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 9 2012, 07:12 PM

I think you may need to lock up your beaver instead. Beavers are far more deadly. Luckily though, I carry a Bill Oddie small plush toy around with me, and he can spot yours from a mile away.




Owhhhhhh, our village is home to the most peaceful people in the world, ouuwhhhhhhhh.
One wonders if one speaks with adenoids too.

Posted by: gel Feb 15 2012, 09:55 AM

This would have not been caused by speed I'll wager, rather carelessness or falling asleep!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-17038731

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 11:22 AM

So if professional drivers like these pair of lorry drivers get caught out, is there a chance that the perfect driving skills of those self proclaimed better than average drivers on the forum could also be tested by this stretch of road?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2012, 12:10 PM

Does your voice muffle when you sit down?

Who knows the cause of this crash yet?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 12:13 PM

This is a serious issue and not something for pre-school debate.

...and I don't see a mention of the cause do you?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2012, 12:16 PM

So how can a speed limit be proposed as supporting the reduction in incidence?

Being a serious issue - which I happen to have some knowledge of - I realise bandwagons and jerked knees have no place in the debate

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 12:40 PM

If you've read my blog, I've been on this issue for a long time. If your aware of the issue you know that there is a standard pattern, usually involving slow traffic, panic breaking from high speed and the ripple effect back around the bends. No rocket science here, just common sense.

As demonstrated earlier speed is a key factor in accidents and a reduction in speed dramatically reduces the accident rates and severity of the accidents.

Simple key points here are:

-HA know this is a speed differential issue and put a unenforced time trial in place
-Reducing speed, reduces both the accident rates and the severity of the accidents (see previous links)
-An enforced dynamic variable speed limit to average the traffic speeds could solve the problem (though a blanket 50mph will be a lot cheaper)

Blindly suggesting speed is not an issue is just not true. Deny the truth as much as you like, it's still the truth.

Posted by: Penelope Feb 15 2012, 12:55 PM

"Blindly suggesting speed is the only issue is just not true. Deny the truth as much as you like, it's still the truth."

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 01:19 PM

Penny dropping for Penelope? or is your world still flat?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Feb 15 2012, 01:29 PM

What's breaking?? Or do you mean braking (as in applying of brakes)?



So in your perfect world, reduction of the speed limit to, say, 4 mph would prevent all road fatalities (we could reduce unemployment overnight too by requiring a man with a red flag to walk in front of every vehicle)

Speed alone is very rarely the primary cause of accidents.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Feb 15 2012, 01:29 PM

What's breaking?? Or do you mean braking (as in applying of brakes)?



So in your perfect world, reduction of the speed limit to, say, 4 mph would prevent all road fatalities (we could reduce unemployment overnight too by requiring a man with a red flag to walk in front of every vehicle)

Speed alone is very rarely the primary cause of accidents.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Feb 15 2012, 01:29 PM

What's breaking?? Or do you mean braking (as in applying of brakes)?



So in your perfect world, reduction of the speed limit to, say, 4 mph would prevent all road fatalities (we could reduce unemployment overnight too by requiring a man with a red flag to walk in front of every vehicle)

Speed alone is very rarely the primary cause of accidents.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 01:42 PM

Ignore typo/autocorrect.

See previous links to published works on speed issue.




Agree totally. Here it's big hills with slow traffic, winding bends, not the best road surface or markings etc... all of which can be mitigated by the variable speed limit.

Posted by: user23 Feb 15 2012, 02:03 PM

Then why do you seem to be attributing the cause of the accident to the speed the vehicles were traveling?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 02:12 PM

You were referring to the statement as follows:

"So if professional drivers like these pair of lorry drivers get caught out, is there a chance that the perfect driving skills of those self proclaimed better than average drivers on the forum could also be tested by this stretch of road?"

I'm missing the association to speed here?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2012, 03:22 PM

No, you are blindly creating it.

Injuries are not caused by speed, they are caused by deceleration forces. An impact speed of 30mph can be fatal, lower when the victim is 'unlucky'. A friend of mine died at an impact of 10mph, and the people run over by buses in town centres are often involved in impacts of around 4mph.
Plus, speed limits are mostly observed and appropriate speeds within those limits are mostly managed by road users. Too often crashes involve a driver/rider having no regard for the environment they are travelling in; the speed limit is not relevant to their conduct.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 04:32 PM

...and now we talk about injuries? I wasn't talking about that either

Is it that you don't think there are accidents on the A34 around Ilsley?




Good to see you agree with me.



We've done this one already here before, but lets just go through that logic...

Lorry at 30mph up hill is caught up by car at 80mph, with a 50mph closing speed. If the closing speed was less, they would have more time to react to the problem, and the people around them would have enough time to react as well.

So for those that can see around bends and through the hills they would know there is a problem and slow down. For those that don't have that ability we could use variable speed signs to make people aware of the problem.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2012, 04:36 PM

Why would a driver ignoring a 70 limit obey a 50 one?

Note http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-17031964

The people you seek to target too often are not the ones who pay the attention you surmise

Posted by: Penelope Feb 15 2012, 04:46 PM

By your logic a broken down lorry travelling at 0 mph and a car travelling at the new AH approved speed of 50mph would still cause an accident ? No, don't see it somehow.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 04:49 PM

Agreed, that's why it needs to be a controlled zone.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 04:51 PM

I think I've asked this before, but what's your idea here?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2012, 04:52 PM

Now you have lost me. What control method do you have in mind?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 05:01 PM

Average speed was mentioned before. Open to other opinions though.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2012, 05:03 PM

How does that 'control'?

Posted by: blackdog Feb 15 2012, 05:27 PM

Bad driving is the cause of most accidents, but speed is a significant factor in all motor accidents.

Obviously there are very few accidents between stationary vehicles.

The higher the speed the less opportunity there is for the driver(s) involved to avoid the accident.

The higher the speed to more damage is done - to vehicles and to people.

If there is a portion of road where there are a lot of accidents then slowing traffic down is a cheap alternative to major road enhancements and would mitigate against accidents.

The A34 needs another lane from the M3 to the M40 - a hard shoulder and much better slip roads would also be good news. Until the M34 arrives a 50mph limit around the Ilsleys does't seem too bad an idea.

Posted by: gel Feb 15 2012, 06:06 PM

A34 is part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E05incidentally.
That may be of interest or not

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 15 2012, 06:31 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villebon-sur-Yvette.

Nice route, I hope Ed Balls is keeping an eye on the Villebon chappie.
hex

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 16 2012, 11:00 AM

So I was out the last few days on an extended dogging session hence my lack of posting for the last few days. I know you all missed me.

And so I come back and see Adrian "Honey Badger" Hollister.

Have you ever actually SEEN a Lorryist? They are no more of a professional driver than you and I. Most of them are far too busy working out whey they have 25 gears or watching TV to bother with focusing on driving.
It happened at 2:30am and it's far more likely their lorries (which are generally limited to 56 miles per hour, thus basically on your desperately called for limit of 50) crashed due to a lack of care or consideration, or tiredness, or anything apart from speed.

Everyone says "speed doesn't kill, it's the impact which does" (which is also the excuse I use in bed) and we all know that so why bleat on about it. Bleating reminds me of sheep, my favourite sheep is Sean the Sheep from Wallace and Grommit. I think he's adorable and he goes "BAAH" and he's got a fluffy little coat and everything.
Adrian at every possibly opportunity you go on about speed and how it's horrible and that your children (who are clearly riding their bicycles on the A34) are at risk of death and how it's annoying to you and your local community..

Why would anyone want to read your blog, it's just the same 3 topics...speed on the A34, how amazingly economical your life is and then something about a Land Rover which has LPG. Very interesting to read to anyone who is dull and unhappy with their own life so they want to imply misery upon the lifes of others. Have you read my blog? Please, read my blog. Please. PLEASE I'M ADVERTISING THAT I HAVE A BLOG HAR HAR.

While reading the last couple of pages, someone (I can't remember who because I am very tired because despite my best efforts at attempting to sleep and perform various acts upon myself to try to encourage sleep, due to an unknown illness, probably the Plauge or Malaria or Lupus) mentioned about how you'd want everyone to drive around at 4mph and have the man with the flag acting as the guv'nah on the issue...well I think this personally sums up you pretty much perfectly in terms of what you are looking to get out of this.

Unfortunately trying to explain that speed does not really affect anything in terms of accidents, or that reducing the speed limit (which is NOT the speed at which traffic is travelling) will not affect accident rates, is like trying to explain to my Mum what a computer is, or explain to my Dog the concept of the Large Hadron Collider.

Words are lost upon you like my car keys this morning. Although I found them in the box of celebrations. The chocolate fingers gave it away.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 16 2012, 11:12 AM

Well, it controls me, for one. There are plenty of those on the M4 and I know if I exceed an average speed of 50mph through the road works I will get a ticket. That's why the cruise control goes on entering one of those zones. Cameras at the start and finish of the zone read your number plate and it's a simple calculation from there.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2012, 11:38 AM

Oh, so your car is registered to you? You care?

Those elements tend to be absent from the mindsets of those that cause the problems...... Plus the 'momentary lapses' which allow speed to creep up and the mind not to register the stationary traffic ahead.....

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 16 2012, 11:47 AM

We can't fix everything at once, but we at least can try to solve as much of the problem at once. Do you have any figures around this scenario? It would be interesting to factor it in.

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Feb 16 2012, 02:25 PM

I posted a few thoughts in the A34 Lorry Incident thread.

Posted by: Jonno Feb 16 2012, 05:23 PM

Why stop at 50? An accident at 50mph is still very unpleasant - you could verify that by spending an unproductive few minutes with the rabbit I hit the other day! Why not reduce the limit to 20mph, or go the whole hog and ban all private, motorised, transport? Mind you, if I have to cycle 7 miles to the station every morning I may be swerving towards any bunnies I see out of sheer spite.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2012, 05:29 PM

Only if I were a very sad person with too few reasons to breath....... Some things are so obvious/known that the effort to prove them means either no-one is really that interested, the recipient is a dolt, or the colour of navel fluff is the peak of excitement....

If the 'solution' does not address the 'problem', it becomes another problem, usually.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 16 2012, 07:01 PM

Of course I care about getting a ticket. What a daft comment. And for those drivers of company cars, I am sure their bosses would not be too happy about it, either.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2012, 07:06 PM

The point I sought to make is there is an Untermensch of people who do not register their vehicles, so cannot be ticketed, and who don't care, so bowl along regardless. Add the ones who just don't know and there grows the possibility for problems.

Those of us who do care, who do try to obey, are the ones disadvantaged.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 16 2012, 07:11 PM

Ok, I see your point now. But would you like to hazard a guess at what percentage of drivers on the road are unregistered and uninsured, and whether it is statistically significant?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 16 2012, 07:23 PM

I would estimate that to be about 82% by the logic of the Daily Mail, or about 1 in 10 cars according to some website I read a while ago. Also something like 82% of statistics use 82% as the number, which is something I had done without realising, and that about 6 out of 10 statistics were made up on the spot.
Not having insurance or having a car which is registered on the road doesn't mean the driver of it is unsafe. Usually yes it's a quite accurate indication that the utter <ringing instrument they have in churches> end would drive off in the case of an accident however some people just can't afford the mental prices for insurance. Last year I was paying £365! Oh, that's not too bad you think. Try that PER MONTH. This year it's £170 a month which is more do-able.

There's a white Golf Mk5 driving around which I distnctly feel was purchased rather than made into the car it is today by original ideas or effort, hence why it's (I think) wrapped in a silly white colour and spent a good month on the back of a low-loader. I prefer buying a standard car rather and doing it up rather than buying someone elses babies. Sort of like how I view women, really.
The plate is a personally silly jobby with "BAD" at the end (no trouble blud) and when put into the MyCarCheck iPhone up shows as unregistered.
Doesn't mean he's a danger though. He could be a girl.

Posted by: HJD Feb 16 2012, 07:58 PM

Oh dear, i see there has been another accident on the A34 this evening. The self appointed roads expert will be making another demand for the speed limit to be lowered again !!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 16 2012, 08:17 PM

It seems, between 4% and 30%; depending on where you live.

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Feb 16 2012, 09:18 PM

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 16 2012, 10:39 PM

Oh dear, I see there has been another accident on the A34 this evening. The self appointed roads expert will be making another demand for the speed limit to be increased again !!!

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 16 2012, 11:11 PM

Ok. I speed ,I don't killl badgers and avoid cyclists.
I don't see where making a mockery of a person who patrols
roads for other peoples safety is a point worth making.

ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 16 2012, 11:17 PM

I have been chatting with road patrol man tonight. A nice fellow. Back off him or you're gonnna have to go through me. Unless you distract me with profiteroles.


c.e it's good you don't kill badgers, they are quickly becoming an endangered species, in no small part thanks to the mental people who drive German executive cars without any regard for creatures of this fair and once luscious planet. Like when the people who think bluebottles and common flies are an amazing creature, ask you to count their population by seeing how many dead ones are on your car windscreen after a long drive.
Smart move there people.
Time for bed. I had a lovely shower and even did some revision.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 16 2012, 11:32 PM

Slight diversion here... Have you ever noticed the wasps feasting on said dead stuff. We feed others.

As for German cars we are the the gentleman of the road. Stephen Fry has a certain stretch of road in Norfolk
named after him. He served his ban touring a taxi through Americy! An old Saab.
Bedtime and cocoa .
ce

Posted by: gel Feb 16 2012, 11:34 PM

And of course motor cyclists ignore Specs cameras as they have no registration plate on front
to be recorded.
That's apart from their regular/ lethal undertaking, you can see every day on the M4/ A34;
and the Highways Agency have those stupid signs up saying "Think Bike" or someat similar.

They should replace with "Bikers; undertaking will kill you..one day, maybe today"

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 16 2012, 11:52 PM

There is a moment before cocoa and a good book when spleen can be vented.

Motorbikes on Motorways behave. I give way and get a nice wave.
There are now not only "Think Bike" signs but there are also "Undercover bikes patrol"
or words to that effect. The users are all racing from one point to another. Trees do suffer.

Sometimes my bro stays on a farm with chums. 04.00. A Tornado takes off down the lane.
No his host assures him at breakfast ,"just bikers" 170mph or more.
ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 17 2012, 12:23 AM

What book are you reading? I have at my bedside "Mummy told me not to tell" by Cathy Glass. I did have Twilight but I accidentally urinated on it and then dropped a lit match on it. As a biker at heart (although not in possession of one currently) undertaking on bikes is a fickle subject, much like pickle but with a different letter. Still my point is that it divides opinion.

Most bikers still obey SPECs Camera limits, just as they do GATSO camera limits or infact most speed limits at all... the fact there are bikes with nice sounding/loud exhausts can twist ones sense of speed.

One time I did go through the one of the SPECS camera on the A339 at 75 which I think would have gotten me but luckily yes I had no number plate at the fron.
Reason for my speed was simply because I was riding home from work on a sunny, summers afternoon, and had simply lost track of my speed. No excuse but I was also thinking of things to do while back at home and how exactly eggs came to become a household staple food. It's basically a chickens period, and who would eat a period. So in a car I would have in all likely hood received a ticket and no argument from anyone other than myself.

So anyway undertaking on a busy dual carridgeway (or rather zipping between cars) is something which if done safely is, well... safe. Nothing wrong about it. Technically it's illegal to undertake at speed (perfectly legal to do so in stationary traffic however) but I will not listen to the rules-worths who have no intelligent argument other than "it's illegal". My IAM motorcyclist instructor told me so. And I would trust his level of knowledge over someone elses. Further reading - http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=416

However everday is an overstatement, I haven't seen any motorcycles (the silly little mopeds do not count) for a few weeks, aside one Honda Fireblade which I see every couple of days, riding in a very considerate and sensible manner.
Then again, just like children in wheelchairs, bikers are an easy target for the bemoaning of others.

Its a sad day, one day I shall done my leather romper suit and enjoy high thrilling motoring once more. I would love to be able to chuck £3500 towards a nice GSXR-600 as my summer toy, alas at present my salary is not high enough. Need more massage clients first.

Posted by: HJD Feb 17 2012, 07:07 AM

Just to make things clear i was not talking about Mr. Donnelly in my last post, he is someone who does have an idea on what he is talking about.
By the way there is no need to pay as much as £3500 for a bike when you can pick up a nice LOUD Firestorm for around £1500, early R1s can be found for not much more as well !!

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 17 2012, 09:30 AM

Sounds like your that person not paying attention that you were complaining about in an earlier post

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 17 2012, 01:30 PM

Touche Adrian
But you see my point, I would have had to accept the punishment not complain to the local rag about my own mistake.

Oh, Fair enough.
As for the bikes, yeah, the thing is I have a policy of never making a step backwards. For example my car I have all the gadge I want and I wouldn't take anything less than what I already have. So with my bike, it had fuel injection (nice woishhhhhshhbgggrrrkkfkkfkfkfkfkkfkf noise when you turn the ignition, I love that), radial brakes, fully adjustable front and rear suspension, quickshifters, etc. I appreciate things like quickshifters can be added later but radial brakes and adjustable suspension add extreme cost to retrofit! Firestorms have problems with ground clearance, if you have ever watched the Fastbikes video of them blatting around in France and the resulting crash due to ground clearance... I was saying to my friend about the R1 but in all seriousness I would kill myself so I'm sticking with 600s for now.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 17 2012, 03:11 PM

Bikes are either a toy or a part of life. I admit to a full bike license ,
having managed not to fall off round St John's roundabout. 1967ish
I would never dream of getting another in a male mid-life crisis.

My younger brother took on a real beast. I couldn't even get my leg over.
ce .
A big bike that is.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 18 2012, 09:57 AM

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2012, 12:43 PM

It is only as fast as your wrist ... so-to-speak.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 18 2012, 12:46 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2012, 12:49 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2012, 12:50 PM

I'd really like a Z1, or more likely, a Zephyr.



I think most modern bike might be incredibly fast and reliable, but they are also pig ugly.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 18 2012, 02:44 PM

So in my case it does zero to maximum speed in about 3 minutes.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 18 2012, 04:32 PM

Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly!!!

Posted by: Darren Feb 21 2012, 08:17 PM

I see the latest article has appeared. This paragraph caught my eye

Really? The most dangerous stretch of road in the country? Will the residents back that up with facts rather than conjecture?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 21 2012, 11:46 PM

Oh yes, because their little glass-eyed view of the world, it's the most dangerous stretch in the country... what a load of cods wallop. I've never used that term before, I hope I spelt it correctly.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 12:00 AM

"codswallop" is usual spelling.

The most dangerous in West Berkshire would be a better description, but the point serves to highlight the issue.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2012, 12:01 AM

Yup - no space between the 'i' and the 't'.......
Otherwise it would have been codswallop.....

Posted by: Darren Feb 22 2012, 08:35 AM

Again, please back this statement up with evidence rather than conjecture. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 09:21 AM

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Are we missing something?

As discussed here already, there are no unified road statistics - information from HA, police, motoring services, insurance etc are not co-ordinated into a single document (and some are not even publicly available information). What we do know is that on a very regular basis, traffic from the A34 is diverted through the downland villages of East Ilsley, West Ilsley, Great Shefford, Chieveley etc. It's not diverted for fun - traffic diverts this way because the A34 is blocked. No rocket science here, just simple common sense.

Posted by: Penelope Feb 22 2012, 09:36 AM

Yawn, Soapbox, Yawn.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 09:41 AM

Thanks for the clarification of the spelling, my pre-school teacher was most impressed. I won a shooting star and was also allowed a Chubba Chomp.

Adrian sorry to side against you (again) but when it comes to a bunch of (on the subject) uneducated people, you need to prove that something is a given.
You can't go about the murder trial of Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee and just arrest someone and go "YOU KILLDEDED HIM :'(" and throw them in jail. You must do research and studies and prove that what you're saying is true. Nothing is a given UNLESS it is proved so the onus is on you and your merry bunch of middle aged men to prove that it's dangerous.

So without any sort of proof you can't just say "it's the most dangerous road in West Berkshire" - I'm pretty sure there are more dangerous roads. Danger isn't just based on the amount of accidents (believe it or not!) - I'd personally say one of the most dangerous roads is the road from Tescos to Thatcham train station, I forgot what it's called, but it's the one that goes through Greenham Common... I quite often see my best friend's Mum walking around in the middle of the road (that's an inside joke, he says my Mum is a cow so I'm returning the favour. His Mum isn't a cow, she's actually quite awesome as far as Mums go). Sometimes there are many of my best friend's Mum and on a dark night a big chunky cow would cause a lot of damage. Although I'm sure the hamburgers sent to you by the cow's owner for the inconvenience would be appreciated.

Never the less my point is that you (and/or the people who claim it's the most dangerous) need to back it up with proof as other people have stated.

Is the traffic diverted by a law establishment, or is it because people see a road is blocked and go "hmm, sit in this traffic for possibly an hour or more or drive through a village with the intention of annoying the local residents.."
Frankly, your town has roads, ANYONE complying to road law who is paying road tax (excludes your children on their pink bicycles) has absolute right to use the roads within the villages you list without having to give two thoughts to your problems. You can't selectively choose what roads to let people on....

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 22 2012, 11:06 AM

How could they possibly officially divert the A34 traffic through some of the villages you mention?
Those roads could not possibly cope!
If the road is blocked it just jams, there are no official diversions.
The traffic you mention is those who choose to use these routes if the A34 is blocked - not because they have officially been diverted.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 11:21 AM

agree - this is the whole point of the thread. reducing accident rates would reduce the occurrence of the diversion.



Just look to the closure a few weeks back - all the traffic was diverted down the A338 through Great Shefford and many used the Wantage to Newbury road as an alternative diversion. There are not too many other options out there going north-south.

The more minor accidents force traffic to divert through Chieveley and the Ilsleys - with the classic route through West Ilsley north bound avoiding the usual accident on the hill there.

Posted by: Darren Feb 22 2012, 11:39 AM

I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary as it's you making a random, unsubstantiated claim - typical politico.

However, in the interests of debate, I'll use here as there are lots of pretty pictures to keep you occupied.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720 The source is



I'll set some parameters: A34 - South from West Illsley to it's junction with the B4640 (Newtown Road) and M4 from Baydon to J12.

Since 1999,
Fatalities:
A34 = 15
M4 = 28
Injury/Serious Injury
A34 = 8
M4 = 29

Adding in the A339 and other routes that made up the old A34
Fatalities = 4
Injury/Serious Injury = 4

Compare this to the A4 from the western boundary to M4/J12
Fatalities = 14
Injury/Serious Injury = 14

Still the most dangerous road in West Berkshire?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 11:45 AM

Interesting reading Darren, nice research.

I also found this on the Newbury Weekly News website. God knows how because that website is a bit icky right now.

Adrian did these members of the community use a speed measuring equipment jobbie? Or was it the educated guess of pensioners and people with only one eye in order and thus have a problem judging speed and distance? An estimated guess (as proven in an issue of BIKE magazine, I can't remember which one sorry but feel free to call them to confirm) prooves this, most people over-estimate speed by about 20%.

As said before the roads are there for a reason, to accommodate traffic, and from time to time there will be diversions. Deal with it. And to think you're accusing the Highways Agency of narrow vision..

Posted by: Darren Feb 22 2012, 11:52 AM

I should have added

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 12:32 PM

Covered this already...

Posted by: Penelope Feb 22 2012, 12:38 PM

Anyway, what its really about is, " we payed a lot of money to live here, we don't see why other people (the lower orders) should be allowed to use our roads"

Posted by: desres123 Feb 22 2012, 12:44 PM

As discussed here already, there are no unified road statistics - information from HA, police, motoring services, insurance etc are not co-ordinated into a single document (and some are not even publicly available information).

What we do know is that on a very regular basis, traffic from the A34 is diverted through the downland villages of East Ilsley, West Ilsley, Great Shefford, Chieveley etc. It's not diverted for fun - traffic diverts this way because the A34 is blocked. No rocket science here, just simple common sense.

so a 50 mph limit is going to end all the divertions when there is a blockage on the A34??? i cant understand that logic apart from as stated before causing further congestion so people will then start using downland villages as a short cut on a more regular basis

Posted by: blackdog Feb 22 2012, 01:39 PM

Surely the issue is whether or not a 50mph limit would reduce the number of blockages on the A34. Unless it is tried we will never know - so why not put a 50mph limit there for a year and find out?

It's not as if it would make much difference to journey times.

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Feb 22 2012, 01:49 PM

There are two 50mph restrictions on the A34

Posted by: desres123 Feb 22 2012, 01:59 PM

Well you only have to look at traffic build up on the M4 when there is a 50 mph speed limit in place to see what would happen on the A34 if there was a 50 mph put on. Anyway why bother people will ignore it just like HGV,s do going up Gore hill in the 2nd lane and people ignoring the 50mph limit through south Hinksey. Or people will drive in lane 2 doing 50 mph thinking no one will be over taking as they are doing the speed limit thus causing congestion

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 03:10 PM

When ever I've been on the M4 through the average speed camera road works I seem to sail through. Is the lower speed increasing density of traffic or doesn't it work that way?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 03:13 PM

Agree, let's just try it.

At most it would increase journey times by three minutes for those going an average of 80mph. Going the legal limit and allowing for variation, I can't imaging that it would even add that much, perhaps a minute. Is a minute that important?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 03:13 PM

Again with my Facepalm meme.
It's a hit & miss with roadworks and the average speed cameras..sometimes it's smooth, sometimes it's not. I will agree with Desres again (honestly nothing to do with hating Adrian not that i hate you at all ) - generally when a 50mph or 40mph sign lights up there is traffic buildup and bunching and there's no percievable reason for it.. just like the death of my hamster

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 03:21 PM

Not idea how the HA use the variable speed cameras on the M25 etc, but I thought the idea was to slow traffic so that it never encountered the problem and never had to stop? If it's true it seems like a good plan to me, I would prefer to keep going rather than be stopped in a queue of traffic.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 03:34 PM

I think that was the idea Adrian, fine when there's a genuine accident but there's only even been 3 times in the 20,000 miles I've done in the last 11 months in which the big gantry signs were displaying a reduced speed limit were for an accident or lane closure! The other 47 times (estimate) there was no accident!
But if the traffic is backed up enough due to lane closure or an accident, physics say you will HAVE to stop at some point anyway.

It's like a hosepipe, imagine that's 3 lanes of traffic. You put your thumb over the end and in order to maintain the same flow level the water comes out at a much faster speed in only one lane (normally in a stupid direction like into your eye or down the front of your trousers). So by putting these speed restriction signs up when there IS NO NEED FOR THEM (which does happen and if you say it doesn't you're either lying or never spend any time on the motorways) is only causing a buildup of water which will inevitabley spill onto your trousers

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 03:56 PM

I would be interested to understand how you know this. If they just turn them on for fun, then we have a serious problem with the system and an abuse of our trust. Perhaps your just not fully aware of the situation and make the assumption that there is no need for them?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 04:05 PM

I didn't say for fun. That's your wording. *says Tut*.
But that's a reasonable argument, maybe there is a lack in my awareness of the situation but then again unless they have developed invisible cars in the last 10 years I'd be pretty sure if there was an accident I'd be able to tell.
I was on the M4 driving back from London the other week. Just by Slough junction, at about 10pm at night, there was a big 50!!!! sign on a Gantry. I was the only car within view aside from a Ford Focus who was sitting in the middle lane for no reason and a Porsche Cinnamon approaching me in the outside lane.
The road was deadly clear and there were no accidents, roadworks or delays. Infact there were hardly any other cars.
So what happened there?

Posted by: desres123 Feb 22 2012, 04:09 PM

Not saying all the time but i have seen miles and miles of slow moving traffic and sometimes at standstill being caused by temporary 50 mph speed restrictions. Maybe you travel on the m4 at night or during off peak times.

The best way imo to solve this would be for Police to increase their patrols along the A34 and start to educate drivers on how to use dual carriageways. But you know that aint going to happen

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2012, 04:43 PM

That is how it is meant to work: reduce breaking distance which means you can get more cars per mile on the motorway.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 22 2012, 04:53 PM

There does seem to be a better way to design trunk roads. For example, removable but safe centre barriers.
I have been lucky twice in the last 20 years to get off a motorway just before ending in a 6 hour nightmare.

"Oh, where is the empty orange bottle for me? Sorry dearest it's up the bank for you"

Another 2 times we were diverted through totally unsuitable roads around Maidenhead and Leicester.
Sitting in a car in a country lane not moving is just as bad as not moving on a trunk road.

There should be a way of diverting traffic onto another side of a motorway/trunk road.
OK the other side will also snarl up but we spend zillions on traffic wardens CPSOs and tickets...
get them out there directing traffic." Move along there" etc

I think people who use that road know 'there might be trouble ahead',(good title for a song),
and choose a scenic route.
If there are diversions off the main route the traffic will be at a standstill for miles around.
Which is different to vehicles speeding through small villages. Seems Bucklebury has similar problems.
ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 05:02 PM

Be careful though, there may be moonlight and music which could prove very distracting to a tired driver.
Think! Take a break. Have a kit kat

????

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 22 2012, 05:07 PM

OK Xjay. Thought it quite amusing. Still haven't twigged your Mrs Bono comment.
ce.

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Feb 22 2012, 05:39 PM

There have been sophisticated bits of equipment installed into the pavement structure which are called Traffic Loops. They're not easy to see, but you can black outlines in the road, in all lanes for about 10 meters.
These bits of kit measure vehicle count, speed, traffic density and vehicle length. This information is collected and put into figures. This can then set the matrix signs based upon this information.



Recently "Emergency Crossing Points" have been installed into some of the motorways. I have seen at least 2 on the M27. Maybe in time this will branch out to other roads. I think one on the A34 would be a great idea.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 22 2012, 05:57 PM

Scott Donnelly. Thanks for the swift reply.I like this Forum.
ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 06:54 PM

I think you just like Scott. It's ok though, it's only a natural attraction between humans.

Scot cheers for the explanation on that one mate. Out of interest are the figures then manually input into a computer after an operator has used a camera or something to verify traffic, or are they automatically done by a computer?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2012, 10:00 PM

Posted by: Darren Feb 23 2012, 09:04 AM

Just like a politician, answer neatly dodged.

So I'll repeat for clarity

Based on the statistic I posted, is the A34 the most dangerous road in West Berkshire as you have previously stated as a fact? To save us from spin, a simple yes or no will suffice.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 09:17 AM

I'll not be holding my breath......

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 09:30 AM

You've only provided some figures, based from what I can see on the HA only. Where are the rest? Happy to add them up if you can find them.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 09:34 AM

At least he's provided figured which back up his claim rather than just spouting infomation. I have the largest Sausage amongst all men.
Yet I provide no proof. Although I do have the receipt from Sainsburys.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 10:01 AM

Ahh so because the various agencies, private companies and councils won't collate the information, the diversionary traffic we all see going through the downlands on a very regular basis is made up?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 10:09 AM

It seems you are looking for a big one-size-fits-all-document, sort of like one of those winter hats you buy from the Garden Centre, about road traffic collisions which does NOT exist. Private companies have no effect in accounting for accidents, the police and HA and government figures are all that matters. The information for total accidents may be collated but only the top 10 or 20 most dangerous roads are published otherwise you'd have a million page document about how the B2817 in Chippenham Upon Dagenham on Avon has had 1 accident in the last year.

You're still not actually accepting the point- which is that the A34 is not the most dangerous road in Newbury (proving the residents in your town are a few cars short of a motorway if you get what I'm saying) and you're still deflecting! Sort of like myself whenever I'm approached by a man. I have a friendly face, what can I say?
ANNEHWEH - you could nost answer yay nor nay to the original question posededed.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 10:17 AM

You are our resident expert in bad driving with what you claim is a write off, numerous speeding offences, illegal modifications to you car and a an absence of attention while you are driving (whilst also being the self proclaimed better than average driver in a better than average car). Where do you think the traffic comes from and why do you think it heads through the Downlands? and why are there so many accidents on the A34?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 10:25 AM

LOL. Ah that's great. Adrian is back with unsubstantiated claims.
I have written off a car and learnt from it. It was my fault, not speed related, and I'm more than man enough to admit when I am at fault, plus learn from that mistake. Are you?
I also have a IAM which I did on motorcycles ,which I achieved after this accident as I wanted to improve my skills. I have a clean license and never been stopped for speeding. Doing 80 is hardly a speeding offense in terms of prosecution. But whatever.
All of my modifications to my car are completely legal and all declared to the insurance company, including my Class 1 business use. I am an observant driver which is inherited from my motorcycling and again relates to the IAM course I did. I have proof for everything, would you like to see?
And that's what you call an appropriate response to a comment, pretty much unlike everything you've said in the last 2 pages.
So any other incorrect information you wish to spout?

As for the A34, traffic is "diverted" through the downlands (although unless the case of a total lane closure I think it's peoples use of free will to use the roads they want) and there has been a spate of accidents on the A34 of late however, for example, last year there were not anywhere near as many - THUS it's likely just a "rough patch"
You have a serious problem. People have free will to drive where they like and if that annoys you and your friends with their double-breasted surnames, then TOUGH. There are roads that go through your picturesque village which are free and open to use for EVERYONE, not just people with rolly-polly 4x4s that they don't actually need. You either need to put up and shut up, or move and stop your incessant whining.
You whine more than a supercharge on a Kenny Bell Cobra (and that's a nice whine, you just sound like a broken record)

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 10:44 AM

rofl. Xjay having to be accountable for what he has said. Shocking. Good to see you start to prove something for once rather than just whinge about stuff. It's very easy to question someone else, it's very difficult to state your position and come up with the ideas, especially in a public forum where you can be held accountable for what you've said.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 10:54 AM

So you're deflecting at your own inability to be accountable by proving that I can be accountable? If I say something I always have the balls and the justification for it. I don't say rubbish because I'm annoyed about a few cars driving through my village when I pick to live on/close to a road, unless it's an opinionated post (eg I think this woman is an idiot in a car park, not a statement "the a34 is the most dangerous road in Berkshire")

Just because I post giddy crap (with some serious points contained within, not always immediately obvious to people with the IQ of a Garden Gnome (Although how they manage to escape is beyond me), does not mean I am unable to actually have a debate.

So basically Adrian what you've done, is talk nonsense (that the A34 is the most dangerous road in Berkshire) and now that Darren has done some research and PROVEN that it's not, rather than be accountable or say "okay fair enough" you are trying to deflect that inability to me to try to divert attention. I am questioning you and you are failing to provide information to back up your statement. So..yeah.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 11:05 AM

Having a hissy fit won't make you right.

You can ignore what we see happening as much as you like, it won't make it any less true.

Posted by: Darren Feb 23 2012, 11:10 AM

I'll go back to my original comment.

It's not up to ME to prove it isn't. You're the one saying it is so unless you can produce a scrap of evidence from any statistics, it isn't the "most dangerous road in West Berkshire" and you should publicly withdraw that statement of fact. Of course you won't as will totally blow your argument and agenda out of the water.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 11:11 AM

Lol me having a hissy fit? you're the one who is angry. Never seen as big as of a bite as that one you gave! I'm laughing and chilling with my music @ work!
I didn't ignore it did I? I said yes there are more accidents than normal at the A34 at the moment, but like so much in life, things have ups and downs and just like your relationship it has ups and downs. Also like my Sausage but I will be returning that to Sainsburys at Lunch. It's all available for your perusal above.
The only ignoring here is you with the EVIDENCE that Darren has provided before. Talk about ignorant to the information available. Yet I see NOTHING from you in terms of evidence to back up your claim.
Credibility is not something in good supply within the Green Party; this proves it's all but non existent.

Posted by: Darren Feb 23 2012, 11:13 AM

No-one is having a hissy fit except you. I declare your argument false and instead of backing it up, you want everyone to prove you are wrong.

A bit like the church "believe in god. We have no proof so just take our word for it".

Posted by: desres123 Feb 23 2012, 11:14 AM

totally in agreement sand and head come to mind

Posted by: massifheed Feb 23 2012, 11:22 AM

Adrian - I may have missed it earlier in the thread, but what evidence (other than anecdotal, and your perception/opinion) do you have to support your claim about the A34?

Serious question.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 11:28 AM

You haven't.


Sorry I'll go.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 11:33 AM

So we've an agreement here, that there are a lot of accidents on the A34 at the moment. That's a good start that agrees with the residents.



We know the figures are not unified and not useful in this situation, but we have the evidence of the communities around these areas and those that regularly drive the road know that it's an accident black spot (just looking back through NWN shows a long list of the more major accidents). We also know that earlier in the debate you were discussing the road conditions (short slip roads etc) that may also be a factor here and are known problems.


Ahh back to my public profile, better than hiding anonymously, but at least your not talking about my children. It's more than a little creepy to keep going on about them.


So far then, we agree there is a problem with the accident rate. We have visibility of the biggest of the accidents and we have residents accounts of the smaller ones; we know there is a problem with the road condition and people think there are quality of driving issues too. So which bit of this is not true?

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Feb 23 2012, 11:45 AM

NWNREader - Strange that only 15(?) years ago all the ECPs on the motorway networks were closed up as they were perceived as a significant element in cross-over collisions. In truth it was the design that was lacking.......

The new ECP's I have seen look just like the normal barrier in the central reservation. They are also connected to the barrier, but can removed quickly and efficiently with the right equipment. The barrier isn't tensioned, so this would also save time in removing if need be.

The shortest slip roads are around the Hinksey and Botley area. The 50mph restriction there helps cars not only leaving, but entering the carriageway at those locations.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 11:50 AM

Uh, no it doesn't agree with the residents because half of the problem is the use of the roads near your house. Which is nothing more than stuck up people complaining about the riff-raff passing through and creating a smell.
Neither does it agree with your statement that the A34 is the most dangerous road in Berkshire. I saw an accident on the A4 yesterday near the Hambridge road traffic lights, conveniently just near a hospital. Some crappy Korean car and a Seat Leon. Shame... the Leon was in yellow too which is my favourite colour because it reminds me of sunshine. That must mean it's the most dangerous road in Berkshire!!



4 or 5 accidents in as many months does not indicate an accident blackspot. There is more than accident rate to consider with that.



Yes conditions are not ideal which is NOT the point we were discussing. It was that you are making unfounded claims about dangerous (or not) roads.


Well, would you like me to? I wasn't the one going on about them anyway, it was you who was worrying about your ickle childrens knees on their bicycles due to madmen in Land Rovers.. trying to pretend to be down with the kids when in actual fact you're not.that sort of thing.



This is NOT THE POINT NO-ONE HAS SAID THINGS AREN'T IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT. They are just saying that a blanket 50mph for a good chunk of the A34 and claims the A34 is the most dangerous is both unintelligent and downright incorrect in that order.

Regardless of our inter-personal discussions, you have yet to address the claims regarding your statement about the A34 being the most dangerous road.

Unfortunately part of being in a political party is having to be accountable for the things you say. Isn't that right? So I expect either proof that the A34 is the most dangerous road of a PUBLIC WITHDRAWL of your statement.
If not you shall be hung, drawn and quarted and while you are being drawn I shall eat your dog. If you don't have a dog I will buy one, wait for you to fall in love with it and then eat it.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2012, 11:59 AM

What's that in litres??

Posted by: desres123 Feb 23 2012, 12:01 PM

[quote name='Adrian Hollister' date='Feb 23 2012, 11:33 AM' post='55430']
So we've an agreement here, that there are a lot of accidents on the A34 at the moment. That's a good start that agrees with the residents.



We know the figures are not unified and not useful in this situation, but we have the evidence of the communities around these areas and those that regularly drive the road know that it's an accident black spot (just looking back through NWN shows a long list of the more major accidents). We also know that earlier in the debate you were discussing the road conditions (short slip roads etc) that may also be a factor here and are known problems.


So what you saying is that you getting all your info from the NWN which no doubt concentrate on the accidents and nothing else

Maybe its the green party at fault for the short slip rds on the newbury bypass as reason given was to reduce impact to the enviroment as shorter slip rds would take up less land work that one out

Posted by: massifheed Feb 23 2012, 12:31 PM

Any answer to this, Adrian? It's a pretty bold thing to claim. I'd like to see what it is that you have other than resident's opinions, your perception and NWN articles to back up your claim. I'm not interested in bickering about it - it's a serious question.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 23 2012, 12:49 PM

Nice one Biker1....

"Quarted Light",a gassy brew, painful in litres.
ce

Posted by: Penelope Feb 23 2012, 12:57 PM

Ha, probably gone to the chip shop for some more fuel for his 4x4.
It's not about speed or safety, its about the loutish driver's daring to use "his" roads (lol indeed) like tony Blair trying to get 'real' with the poor people!

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 01:08 PM

Hah quite the chuckle.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 02:05 PM

Not sure if you followed it, but it was a quote from someone else that appeared in the paper, something along the lines of...

"The East Ilsley/ West Ilsley turn-off has been labelled “the most dangerous stretch of road in the country” by residents, with the chairmen of both parish councils, Gordon Allsop and Sean Ryan, respectively, both calling for the Government road authority to act."

So you need to ask them about the original quote, I just added the following:

"The most dangerous in West Berkshire would be a better description, but the point serves to highlight the issue."

and it's true. By the nature of the fact that we are debating the issues around the road, we are raising awareness and forming opinion.

Whilst it's unlikely that everyone will agree, the boundaries of the issue can be found and I hope an amicable resolution can be formulated. On one side of the debate, I started by asking for a 50mph speed limit. In the line of the debate I have moved to: actually that would be better as a variable speed limit based on the risk ahead. It might be more expensive to do this, but if the 'up to' three minutes additional time traveling on this section of road are that important, then people will be happy to pay for them.

The distraction debate seems to be: are the residents right to call this a dangerous road. As they live there, I think it's their right to have their opinion - they know more about it than most of us here.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 02:13 PM

So do you have proof/evidence or not?

Posted by: desres123 Feb 23 2012, 02:20 PM

[quote name='Adrian Hollister' date='Feb 23 2012, 02:05 PM' post='55442']
Not sure if you followed it, but it was a quote from someone else that appeared in the paper, something along the lines of...

"The East Ilsley/ West Ilsley turn-off has been labelled “the most dangerous stretch of road in the country” by residents, with the chairmen of both parish councils, Gordon Allsop and Sean Ryan, respectively, both calling for the Government road authority to act."

So you need to ask them about the original quote, I just added the following:

"The most dangerous in West Berkshire would be a better description, but the point serves to highlight the issue."

So what you actually saying is that small stretch of road by the east ilsley turning. So wouldn't it be better to improve the slip roads by either making them longer or introducing 3 lanes on that section that will then merge back in to 2 further down. Cant really justify reducing speed limit to 50 mph if those slip roads are not improved

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 02:21 PM

Anyone who has the balls to stand up and say publicly what they think is good contributor to the democratic process - so for those on this forum that honestly stand up and debate, I applaud you. Shame that the other political parties around West Berkshire don't want to publicly take part and be held accountable.

As shown here, I am not a closed book person, my opinion has been changed by the debate. But as far as I can tell, a minute or two of time on the A34 is being argued against via two points: not believing what the communities in the area say; and contradictory belief and disbelief in the motoring agencies. There may also be some personal liberty type issues expressed, where people think that they should be able to speed no mater what (as long as it's not near their house).

It would be good to understand a succinct expression of your point.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 02:30 PM

It's the section of road from the M4 to the Harwell junction (in Oxfordshire) that cuts through the hills in the Downlands. It's a relatively twisty section of road that rolls over the hills giving limited forward visibility and a couple of the hills are steep enough to slow trucks down to a crawl. Most of the slip roads in the area are quite long, but there are a few short ones. There are claims of poor road surface and markings to boot.

Posted by: Darren Feb 23 2012, 02:36 PM

and then



So what qualifies you to say "The most dangerous in West Berkshire would be a better description"/

You don't live there. You cannot back that claim up with ANY supporting evidence, and stop using the "there is no collated record" line as the source I gave you comes from police records. Pretty good evidence of fatalities and serious injuries in my book.

Basically, you have jumped on a bandwagon (hopefully not going over 50mph) for your own ends. Namely, you don't want anyone not local driving down 'your' local road and you're trying to make a name for yourself.

As I said earlier, saying something does not make it so.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 02:48 PM

I think it's darn obvious that I don't think 'the most dangerous stretch of road in the country' is appropriate, so i have every right to say it.

So what's your real point/objection? That residents dare to stand up and point the problem out? That you don't believe or trust the people in our communities? That a reduction in speed limit, might and only might reduce your travel time on the A34 by a minute or so?

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 02:58 PM

Of course if they can back it up with fact or at least some sort of truthful statement.



Because the communities have no proof. I would like to see records of speeding convictions within these areas and how they are notably higher than comparable parishes.



I think we've said it's not fine to speed near anyones house but that because you live within 10 miles of a road doesn't mean it's by your house does it.
Just block the road with your Wayne Wover if you have a problem.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 03:07 PM

You still sore Xjay cos I held you accountable for previous posts

Why would the local communities lie about the problem? What benefit would it be to them?

I am still awaiting for a succinct expression of your point. It is just that you are sore at a Parish Chair for claiming it's the worst road in the country? How dare he speak out for his community

Posted by: massifheed Feb 23 2012, 03:08 PM

I think that people objections seem to be with you labelling a stretch of road "The most dangerous in West Berkshire", without seeminlgy having anything other than the opinions of some residents that this is the case. You have also been asked, but have failed to provide, anything that backs up your postion.




I think the extent of the problem is what's being questioned here. Again, you don't appear to have provided any proof (other than anecdotal from local residents) of your justification of the road being the most dangerous in West Berks.

If you are able to show, (via something more than local resident's opinions) that what you suggest is indeed true, then I can't see that many people would have an issue with introducing measures to deal with the alleged problem.

Posted by: Darren Feb 23 2012, 03:10 PM

Head, meet brick wall.

You said, and I quote yet again "The most dangerous in West Berkshire would be a better description, but the point serves to highlight the issue." You have no proof of it, yet still say it. While you have the right to say it, of you are going to use it as an argument to justify some hare-brained scheme to reduce the speed on a section of road (no where near where you live) you must be able to back it up with facts and not just random rambling about roads.

Or is this how the Green Party (who you help run) do politics? If it is, it probably explains why you only have 1 MP.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 23 2012, 03:17 PM

I'm very sore. Infact I'm so sore that I had to visit my doctor and have an embarrassing physical exam and explain why that passageway was so red, torn and clearly had been abused by an object which is far larger than for which it was designed.
He prescribed me some Benydryll, because I had the flu.

How dare he speak out without having FACTS!! I'm not saying they are LIEING I'm just saying that the problem is probably not as bad as you make out. It's very easy for 1/10 speeding cars to become "95% of traffic" or some other ridiculously high number as according to the residents. The residents obviously want their little village to remain "their little village" and I can imagine them being like the crazy people from Hot Fuzz killing anyone who possibly ruins that.
They want their roads for them only,presumably because they weren't brought up with the morale values of sharing.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 03:51 PM

Why do you think I don't live here? and remember I raised this point as a resident, it's Xjay obsession to keep bringing up political affiliations. Seems other parties won't even take part in public dabates like these. Shame eh.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 03:57 PM

AH is surely related to RG and many other politicos who jumps on a bandwagon for gain, spouts a few spectacular claims, then waffles about the price of bread when challenged that the core details are in fact unsustainable.

The real shame is they actually play into the hands of the Councils and Highway Agency on road safety/casualty reduction issues by obfuscating the core issue and opening more escape routs than Stalag-Luft 3 (and others).

Posted by: Darren Feb 23 2012, 04:01 PM

Perhaps that's because they don't believe there is an issue and their time would be far better spent dealing with real issue affecting their constituents rather than than the baseless rants of one person who arbitrarily declares a road "The most dangerous in West Berkshire".

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 04:28 PM

So what is Darren's better description of the Parish Chairs words?

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 04:42 PM

M'lud, if I may refer to both Xjay's and penelopes opinions as to the real reason why the 'local' community is so upset I beleive we will have encompassed the kernal, the very essence if you will of the basic argument, that is that a few priviledged individuals in a rural community wish to impose their will for the benefit of the few to the everlasting detriment of the many.

No one likes their locality to be used as a 'rat run' but it is an inevitable consequence of the sheer numbers of people seking mobility within the English road system, if it really bothers them that much I suggest they upsticks and move to the Dales and take their 'Little Major' mentality with them.

The defence rests.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 04:51 PM

The roads around here are not a rat run - they are mostly single track, so no luck for anyone looking for a short cut or a speedy route.

It's not just those living in rural West Berkshire that are privileged, I recon we have the best community in England. Lets not blight it with an accident black spot tag, lets sort it out.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 04:53 PM

Nasty accident in Harts Hill Rd yesterday ! shall we add that to the statistics ??

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 04:56 PM

You mean the bendy, twisty road with hills and restricted views?

Some years ago Harts Hill was one of the most problematic sections in WBC area......

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 06:12 PM

I notice the A34 closed between Milton/Didcot and Harwell - news is reporting another diesel spill. A338 is quite busy but not too bad tonight. Perhaps the review of the road should be from the M4 to the M40?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2012, 06:40 PM

Whether he is right or wrong, Adrian has every right to stand up for his community, and I am sure those he claims to represent are quite happy with him.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 06:54 PM

Very interesting point that, seeing as the elected WBC representatives appear silent on the topic

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 23 2012, 06:56 PM

I wonder if the issue of noise is a hidden agenda here. Cars limited to 50mph make a lot less noise than those travelling at 70-80mph - and I am sure that fact has not escaped the attention of people living in the villages close to that stretch of the A34.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 08:45 PM

The thought had occured. Nasty smelly noisy common people. quite spoils afternoon tea and cucumber sandwiches on the rectory lawn, tut.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Mar 7 2012, 12:27 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/man-killed-on-a34-and-enborne-road-closed-as-road-problems-hit-newbury

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 01:02 PM

Oh noes.

Speed was probably not the cause of the accident. Early in the morning, probably fell asleep. If didn't fall asleep, he was towing a trailer, probably had a puncture. White Van drivers...

Posted by: blackdog Mar 7 2012, 01:11 PM

But there's a good chance that he would have survived if he was going 20mph slower.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 01:19 PM

But do you know yet?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 7 2012, 01:25 PM

I wonder, if they look, what his family would think of such speculation? Especially as regards falling asleep/going too fast.....

Posted by: x2lls Mar 7 2012, 01:48 PM

Observation to the extreme!!

Posted by: Strafin Mar 7 2012, 02:27 PM

He would be restricted to 60 if he had been towing, not a huge difference but a point worth making.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 02:59 PM

Hence the zealous use of the word probably.

Posted by: desres123 Mar 7 2012, 03:00 PM

Please get your facts right before you get on your high horse this happened up near milton no where near where you want the speed restriction imposed and I do not think traffic would have been an issue and also people should stop speculating what caused the accident

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 03:11 PM

Meteor shower?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 03:29 PM

'Probably' is not he same as 'might be'.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 7 2012, 03:36 PM

Quick Adrian, jump back on the bandwagon before it stalls.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 03:57 PM

Oh **** off it's near enough.

(guess the four *'s )

prob·a·bly/ˈpräbəblē/
prob·a·bly/ˈpräbəblē/
Adverb:
Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
Synonyms:
presumably - likely - belike - perhaps - maybe - possibly

It's as far as I can tell or anyone with half a brain can tell...Ford Transits are incapable of speeding and especially when towing a trailer they are limited by their weedy, non turbocharged engines, and by physics, to about 38 miles per hour.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 04:05 PM

Besides I have just noticed from the original article:

probably not a good idea to begin with. I'm sure that exceeds the maximum laden weight.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 04:33 PM

There's a big difference and I resent your foul and abusive nature.


I reject some of those examples. Indeed, they are likely to be included these days because of ignorant people like you misusing words which eventually become common usage.


You are in no position to judge the intelligence of people when you frequently fail the test yourself.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 05:24 PM

You assumed it was the usual staring. It could have been poop or fork or peas. It wasn't the usual staring but I'm sure your beer goggles haven't kicked in, you can just pretend that it was, if it makes you feel better.


Now who is being foul and abusive? Quite the double-edged sword.
If it becomes common usage, then that is how the evolution of language goes - just like how saying "that's fat" is a bi-word for saying something is cool, or amazing - not necessarily insulting someone of a portly size. Otherwise we would still be saying "doth thy rethort ones examples of quite the putrid language towards oneself, begone peasant of the younger years, thy master doth have beverages of alcoholic containment to consume at the pub ".

So back to your original point "there's a big difference" - you have now said "they are likely to be included these days blah blah" because, well they aren't all that difference. They are synonyms on the most part. Which are taken from Dictionary.com, alternatively you can type "define:probably" into google and get the same result. I'm pretty sure I agree with a dictionaries use of language more than I do yours.



Cheers, can't really argue with you. But hey, doth thy cap, I challenge thee to a round of University Challenge. Besides, no tests have been mentioned and the last test I took, I passed, thus clearly am in possession of at least half a braincell of intelligence.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 05:51 PM

Did I leave the iron on...?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 06:14 PM

You might have. Probably explains your current housing situation. nee-nar. (probably has no relevance)

But I see a recurring theme to your posts.
You pick out something I say (because well, it's me and you like picking out on things I say ) I will reply, normally with valid (questionable) points, and you will simply reply back in a manner in which you just did. Either you have no interest in having a discussion, in which case, don't bother picking out something I say to begin with (aka shutting your face, since 1996 apparently) OR further elaborating your points to enhance the discussion. S

You'll be glad you said that, that reminds me of when I was about 8 and I was living at home. My Mum was doing some ironing for me and she had stepped out of the kitchen for a brief moment. Of course she, being a responsible parent, left the iron on and resting on the ironing board on the "hot stand" bit.

I went in and made an attempt at ironing. And to be honest, for an 8 year old, my efforts weren't too bad. Although I didn't realise you weren't supposed to iron bras. Anyway before my Mum could return I managed to find one of my own little t-shirts I used to wear..and there I was happily (I thought) ironing away until I somehow managed to set fire to one of the little button on my t-shirt...I of course thought this was normal and carried on.

While I say fire, my adult brain would say "smouldering"... But I was 8 and needless to say I was like "OHH YAY FIRE, FIRE YAY" at which point my Mum came barrel-rolling into the kitchen screaming "JAMIE GET AWAY FROM THE IRON YOU SILLY BOY OH MY GOD YOU COULD HAVE BURNT YOURSELF" to which I paused...went "nwahahyayhhhhhhhhhh" or some other similar sound and hopped off to watch Knight Rider

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 06:25 PM

I'll decide.


ZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 06:30 PM

Oh really? Well you carry on my good fellow. I do applaud your enthusiasm for not making any points whatsoever.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 06:44 PM

I've already made my point: I thought you were jumping to conclusions.


For someone who likes to think they are c0ck o' the walk, jack the lad, everyone's favourite clown, etc, you dunnarf get serious sometimes!

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 07:26 PM

I never jump to conclusions. It's a far, far longer jump than any human could possibly make, let alone a podgy guy with glasses.
And I think none of those things. And serious? Only occasionally, normally when food is involved.

TALKING OF....one thing I do think is that I am quite...hungry? I've not been fed properly for about a week now - due to spending more money on my car and no money on food. You can see why I am forced to go to therapy.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 7 2012, 07:31 PM

Leave it Andy - He ain't worth it!

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 07:35 PM

I am. I use L'Oréal.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 7 2012, 07:46 PM

Here's a tip....................get yourself another bike this season and get out on it!!

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 07:50 PM

I would like to. I liked being the youngest rider on a Street Triple R in the UK, at least I was when I had mine, it was a nice feeling, making these middle aged people on their R6's and stuff thinking they're cool, getting outshined by a whipper snapper.
Or whipperschappy.

But alas finance is ongoing... like I mentioned before I would settle for an 04-05 Gixxer 6 or some other sports bike with radial brakes, FI (easier to tune and fit quickshifters) and adjustable suspension but my car is eating all my money at the moment.
Om nom nom.

Posted by: x2lls Mar 7 2012, 08:29 PM

I never jump to conclusions.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 08:58 PM

I made an assumption.

Posted by: Downlander Mar 7 2012, 08:59 PM

Isn't there an ignore facility on this forum? I can't seem to find it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 09:29 PM

Yes: http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=Login&CODE=03&k=c8902ab807b17b295bc98145fba3b5d3

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 09:29 PM

****, I clicked it thinking it wasn't what I thought it was, but it was.
You got me

edit: dam with an n at the end is censored? What is this, russia?

Posted by: x2lls Mar 7 2012, 09:32 PM

The blindingly short reply is testament to a 'I have to respond, but not be my usual self' reply.

Sorry if that's an assumption or a conclusion.


Ignore not required...

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 7 2012, 09:41 PM

I'm sorry, let me make it up to you: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/nelson-muntz.gif

Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2012, 09:55 PM

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=UserCP&CODE=ignore

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 7 2012, 10:16 PM

Oh cool, actually didn't know that.
Andy, trick me once, jokes on me, but you didn't get me that time. I wisened up.

Posted by: Downlander Mar 8 2012, 01:27 AM

Thank you. Sorted.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 8 2012, 02:34 AM

Adrian were you aware of the laws put in place in which some national A roads (similar to the A4) were reduced from a national (eg 60) to a 50?
And you were area that in these areas, no measurable drop in collisions were recorded... (I had the source but I losteded it when I cleared my browser history after looking at questionable material sorry I forgot)

Of course this is not on a dual carridgeway but stands to reason that in the real world reducing speed limits doesn't really work..and by logical extension, as dual carridgeways and motorways are safer than single carridgeway roads statistically (you love statistics) - the push to put the speed limit to 50 makes no sense.

Of course the 12 seconds a mile you gain doing 60 would be so helpful...by my calculations, covering the 25,000 miles I am about to complete in a year at the wheel of my little veedub, at 60mph....that's 416 hours and approximately 40 minutes (technically it's about 40.77777777777777777777 minutes but hey, who's counting? Me - that's right. And I'm tired)

Doing that at 50mph....that's 500 hours. Conveniently

So over the course of a year by doing 60mph, I, someone of probable average miles within the business community, save 84 hours. That's 3 and a half days.. which could be hundreds of thousands of pounds in some companies case...could be the different between being at the birth of your child or not *COUGH* difference between being overworked and stressed or having enough days holiday for a romantic weekend away...to Bournemouth (I don't get some people).

Seriously those mathematically calculations took way, way longer than I want to admit to..but they all should be right. Just interesting I think.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 8 2012, 12:25 PM

Sorry, but if I see that one more time I shall thcweam!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2012, 12:29 PM

I don't see the issue; he was talking about reduced speed-limits on some A roads.

Posted by: James_Trinder Mar 8 2012, 12:54 PM

The issue, as far as I can tell, is whether one can spell "carriageway" or not. It's not my issue so don't shoot the messenger. You can, however, correct me if I am wrong on this assumption though.