Yet another accent on the A34 - time for 50mph zone? Options

[Adrian Hollister]

Yet again the A34 was blocked north bound by another accident. There are so many accidents on the A34 in West Berkshire between the M4 and the Oxfordshire border it's insane. Why can't West Berkshire Council get off the backsides and put a controlled 50mph zone in force in this area? What are they waiting for... deaths?

Newbury Today - Accident causes servere delays

[Simon Kirby]

I believe the Highways Agency sets the speed limits on trunk roads, so that might possibly be one reason WBC are sitting on their ****.

As I understand it there is no specific assessment framework for setting a local speed limit on a rural dual carriageway, though the framework for a single carriageway would suggest a 50mph limit if the accident rate was above 35 injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres - can you say what the accident rate is?

This is the guidance the HA work to.

So no, I wouldn't have thought a lower limit was necessary. As far as I can tell it's a typical bit of dual carriageway trunk road without any significant bends or junctions and as 70mph is acceptable elsewhere I can see no reason why it's not appropriate here.

[user23]

Yet again the A34 was blocked north bound by another accident. There are so many accidents on the A34 in West Berkshire between the M4 and the Oxfordshire border it's insane. Why can't West Berkshire Council get off the backsides and put a controlled 50mph zone in force in this area?

Because the road is maintained and controlled by the Highways Agency.

[Biker1]

Here's some interesting reading. (Although it is 6 years old and statistics may have changed).
It would appear the by-pass has added to the toll.

[Strafin]

It would be a bit knee jerk to impose a speed limit when there is so little evidence to suggest that speed is causing accidents.

[Andy Capp]

It would be a bit knee jerk to impose a speed limit when there is so little evidence to suggest that speed is causing accidents.

Why oh why oh why, let facts or evidence get in the way of an enthusiastic opinion? Get an Apache Gunship to take out any lorry that manoeuvres into the second lane!

[Strafin]

What they should do is ban people who form rolling road blocks miles before there is any lane merges or closures. Lorry drivers do this a lot.

[NWNREADER]

Do we have another ill-informed opinion former?

[user23]

Do we have another ill-informed opinion former?

I don't get it what Adrian Hollister is saying.

The headline mentions "carnage" (Noun: The killing of a large number of people) then goes on to say "What are they waiting for... deaths?" to imply there haven't been deaths.

It also says "Why can't West Berkshire Council get off the backsides to.." apply a speed limit to a road they don't have any jurisdiction over which would surely be unenforceable and therefore a waste of taxpayers money.

[Andy Capp]

Imagine having to drive along that road at 50!!!! Count me out.

[Biker1]

It would be a bit knee jerk to impose a speed limit when there is so little evidence to suggest that speed is causing accidents.

Speed MUST cause accidents.
Otherwise why do we have speed limits and speed cameras / traps?

[gel]

Earlier in year a 1 year trial finished of what H Agency quaintly called a Speed Trial;
this was at Gore Hill section which is between E & W Ilsley turns.

I observed many HGV's ignoring it at the far end as it were on Northbound stretch, and it'd be interesting to know if it was legally enforcable/ was anyone prosecuted.

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/26882.aspx

[Biker1]

I think the main problem with the A34 is that it is EXTREMELY busy as it is linking the South Coast with the Midlands.
It is a 2 lane dual carriageway carrying the equivalent of a 3 lane motorway.
The slightest problem. such as a broken down car / lorry, brings chaos as the infrastructure of the road is creaking at the seams with the volume of traffic.
Solution?
Make it wider or do this.

[user23]

Perhaps it's time to dust off the plans for the Newbury Mono-Rail?

[Andy Capp]

Speed MUST cause accidents.Otherwise why do we have speed limits and speed cameras / traps?

Speed doesn't cause accidents; poor judgement is responsible for that. Speed would act as an 'amplifier' to someone's judgement. It would determine the severity of the outcome and increase the likelihood of an accident.

[Turin Machine]

Speed does not by itself cause an accident, it is the drivers inability to control the vehicle at that speed which causes the accidents, many RTI'a happen in town at speeds of 30 MPH and lower !

[Biker1]

Speed does not by itself cause an accident, it is the drivers inability to control the vehicle at that speed which causes the accidents, many RTI'a happen in town at speeds of 30 MPH and lower !

So if speed is not a cause of accidents if we all drove along the A34 at 20mph there would still be the same number of accidents??
Sorry I don't follow your logic.

[Andy Capp]

So if speed is not a cause of accidents if we all drove along the A34 at 20mph there would still be the same number of accidents?? Sorry I don't follow your logic.

With rare exception, an accident occurs when one or more mistakes are made. Speed decreases the margin of error and will determine the severity of the out-come.

[Biker1]

With rare exception, an accident occurs when one or more mistakes are made. Speed decreases the margin of error and will determine the severity of the out-come.

OK, I'm getting there!!
So speed cameras / traps are there to prevent the severity of an accident rather than an accident itself?

[Andy Capp]

OK, I'm getting there!!
So speed cameras / traps are there to prevent the severity of an accident rather than an accident itself?

They are there to prevent people breaking the speed limit as they pass the camera. Some argue they are an aid to a revenue stream as well.