Driving standards

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, admiles said:

 

Then when the congestion is much worse they can use that as evidence congestion charging is required to thin the traffic.

 

Ipswich has a long and glorious history of new traffic lights and street furniture being installed that always makes traffic flow much worse.

When I visit the Transport Museum I never follow the signs pointing to the museum. There is far less traffic on the route I use and it is shorter and more direct.

[geoffers]

ah - the traffic flow in and around Norwich. I was going to write something but won't for fear of the moderators. I do sometimes wonder, though, whether new roads and improvements have design faults built into them so as to provide further contracts for the further "improvements".

Edited April 17, 2019 by geoffers

[rockershovel]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Why the bouquet to the road designers, surely the issue is the non users?

 

Before Eastlink opened in Melbourne, I frequently used the existing road, which was invariably jammed solid in evening peak. You'd come over a hill and see a sea of red tail lights for a km.

Such a journey on the toll road, cuts the time travelled to less than half.

 

My last boss told of the time, he picked up a box of about 20 eTags and drove down the toll road. At each tolling point, all 20 went off! An expensive trip!

 

Well, quite so. The actual route is definitely right, so they deserve recognition... the CONCEPT, however.... 

[peanuts]

oh dear oh dear looks like a p45 amongst other things A5056 near longcliffe

 

[Reorte]

Quite a popular track, hope no-one was on the bridge.

[Hobby]

Now THAT is a bridge bash!

[Coldgunner]

Hauliers should be footing the whole bill for these incidents. Is it still quite common for less 'professional' firms to give out car rather than lorry sat navs?

[duncan]

Where did all the tar come from before the bridge ?

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, duncan said:

Where did all the tar come from before the bridge ?

It looks like the load partially cleared the bridge but brought down the rest of it nearer to the camera (has that load been dragged back a bit by the time the photo was taken?) The tarmac probably came from the bridge, it's part of the former Cromford and High Peak railway that's now a walking / cycling / riding track. Mostly gravel surfaced but there may be tarmac on the bridge (I can't remember).

 

edit: got partway through the bridge seems plausible, looked on Streetview and the road is going downhill (from the point of view of the camera in the above pictures) under the bridge.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Reorte

[peanuts]

2 hours ago, Coldgunner said:

Hauliers should be footing the whole bill for these incidents. Is it still quite common for less 'professional' firms to give out car rather than lorry sat navs?

no matter what nav system the driver is using its still his responsability to know the hight of his load and any obstructions he may encounter .there would be signs on and well ahead of the bridge telling him the hight .judgi g by the amount of damage and how far through he has got would say hes either forgot his load or notmeasured it properly ad it looks like hes hit it at a fair old speed .visit to his local traffic comisioner for tea and buiscquits for him and his boss methinks as well as anything the police charge him with .

[melmerby]

It seems to have brought down steelwork as well as the wood & tarmac.

New bridge deck required I would think, so a big bill on it's way to that company. (hopefully!)

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Saw another occasion of maniac driving tonight.

(It's amazing what you see from the seat on a bus!)

 

Two Mercs driving at speed (racing?) during Birmingham's evening rush hour, not waiting for traffic lights and raced passed the stationary bus on the wrong side of the road (wrong side of central refuge) after the traffic lights had changed to red.

It was fortunate that there was nobody quick off the mark going the other way or there would have been an almighty pile up.

These idiots need removing from the road completely, but unfortunately police on the road in Brum seem rare these days so the driving standards are dropping fast because "nobody will get caught"

 

[johnofwessex]

Can anyone explain why acting the fool wit ha motor vehicle isnt dealt with the same way as acting the fool with a knife or gun, including potentially lethal consequences for the perpetrators

[rockershovel]

8 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Can anyone explain why acting the fool wit ha motor vehicle isnt dealt with the same way as acting the fool with a knife or gun, including potentially lethal consequences for the perpetrators

 

Presumably because the latter two are specifically illegal in most contexts, and have very few legal or legitimate applications? Or because actual, deliberate causing of harm by driving a car is actually extremely rare? 

[rockershovel]

13 hours ago, melmerby said:

It seems to have brought down steelwork as well as the wood & tarmac.

New bridge deck required I would think, so a big bill on it's way to that company. (hopefully!)

 

 

Try it, and see how you get on. The root problem is the multiple layers of subcontracting.

 

Try controlling the movements of plant, these days. Try ringing the haulier and asking for the registration number and mobile phone number of the driver carrying a given load. 

[rockershovel]

On 17/04/2019 at 17:14, geoffers said:

ah - the traffic flow in and around Norwich. I was going to write something but won't for fear of the moderators. I do sometimes wonder, though, whether new roads and improvements have design faults built into them so as to provide further contracts for the further "improvements".

 

It was first described as “M25 syndrome” - the problem by which traffic loads intrinsically increase faster than road capacity can be built, precisely BECAUSE of the increase in road capacity. The construction of the eponymous motorway attracted a huge upsurge in residential development in the adjacent areas. 

 

It’s particularly associated with viaducts - Oldbury is a classic of the type, Tinsley and Thelwall come to mind..

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by rockershovel

[johnofwessex]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

It was first described as “M25 syndrome” - the problem by which traffic loads intrinsically increase faster than road capacity can be built, precisely BECAUSE of the increase in road capacity. The construction of the eponymous motorway attracted a huge upsurge in residential development in the adjacent areas. 

 

It’s particularly associated with viaducts - Oldbury is a classic of the type, Tinsley and Thelwall come to mind..

 

 

The M25 is  a classic 'How not to do it' rather than doing as the French do with junctions 30 miles apart & effectively restricting the Motorway to 'Long Distance' traffic junctions every few miles meant it rapidly clogged up with 'Local' traffic not the 'Long Distance Strategic Link' it should have been

[chris p bacon]

I saw a sketch by Ben Elton where he likened the M25 to a kitchen pedal bin.

 

Instead of emptying it when it was full, people just placed a bag by the side of it and filled that as well.

[Kingzance]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

Try it, and see how you get on. The root problem is the multiple layers of subcontracting.

 

Try controlling the movements of plant, these days. Try ringing the haulier and asking for the registration number and mobile phone number of the driver carrying a given load. 

When working on process plant, I had to deliver a method statement and risk analysis prior to starting the work. That included (for example) how goods would be delivered, off-loaded or removed from and disposed of. Why are such processes either not followed or brushed under the carpet? Perhaps the intended prosecution should focus on who is delivering the overall contract? If company A wins the contract, it gets paid for the whole job. It therefore should NOT be allowed to use as an excuse the fact that it employed Company B as a sub-contractor to deliver materials. If Company A is hit with a significant repair bill and fine, it can, if it choses, seek redress against Company B rather than the present scenario wherein the taxpayer seems to end up paying for everyone's c@ck-ups! In a railway-related version, how about TfL's CrossRail and the inability of Bombadier trains to work with Siemens signalling causing huge cost and time over-runs?

[rockershovel]

10 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

When working on process plant, I had to deliver a method statement and risk analysis prior to starting the work. That included (for example) how goods would be delivered, off-loaded or removed from and disposed of. Why are such processes either not followed or brushed under the carpet? Perhaps the intended prosecution should focus on who is delivering the overall contract? If company A wins the contract, it gets paid for the whole job. It therefore should NOT be allowed to use as an excuse the fact that it employed Company B as a sub-contractor to deliver materials. If Company A is hit with a significant repair bill and fine, it can, if it choses, seek redress against Company B rather than the present scenario wherein the taxpayer seems to end up paying for everyone's c@ck-ups! In a railway-related version, how about TfL's CrossRail and the inability of Bombadier trains to work with Siemens signalling causing huge cost and time over-runs?

 

That’s still the case. The problem is that it is possible, indeed increasingly common to produce such charts based on structures which tick all the boxes, but have few-to-no resources once anything happens, as it inevitably does.

 

The anecdotal East European driver, dazed with lack of sleep, speaking no intelligible English and attempting to make his way around totally inadequate back roads by satnav, driven by predetermined ferry crossings, tends to presented as the villain of the piece; but I meet quite a few of these chaps, and they are just trying to make a dollar, like the rest of us. 

 

The REAL villains are the ones who put them in that position..

 

[johnofwessex]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Presumably because the latter two are specifically illegal in most contexts, and have very few legal or legitimate applications? Or because actual, deliberate causing of harm by driving a car is actually extremely rare? 

 

Delibaratley causing harm may well be unusual, but acting with extreme recklessness is not, I suggest that if fail to stop was dealt with in the same way as a knife or firearms incident so you know that if you start a chase you may be stopped by armed officers willing to shoot, and will go straight to custody not bail it would make the roads a safer place

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

effectively restricting the Motorway to 'Long Distance' traffic junctions every few miles meant it rapidly clogged up with 'Local' traffic not the 'Long Distance Strategic Link' it should have been

 

We have the same issue on the railways now, long distance inter city expresses stopping at every station it can...

 

There's a parallel with the roads as well, electrify the line or introduce faster journey times and use goes up and exceeds capacity...

[ejstubbs]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I meet quite a few of these chaps, and they are just trying to make a dollar, like the rest of us

 

So is the guy who breaks in to your house and steals your valuables.

 

"Trying to make a dollar" is in no way shape or form a justification for breaking the law.

 

If an organisation has to break the law - or rely on its employees to do so - in order to make a profit then it's a racket, not a business.

[alastairq]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

The REAL villains are the ones who put them in that position..

That has always been the case..certainly with regards to transport....It takes a lot of b@lls to turn around to an employer [or their agent?] and say 'no', that's illegal! The usual riposte is, 'if [you?] don't do it, we'll get someone who will'...

We're back to Victorian employment styles....?

 

Probably the best 'hit' is to instantly impound [then sell?] the vehicle, and it's contents...which will affect one end or the other of the 'supply' chain?  For the 'innocent' [customer?] party, that is going to be tough...but, in the end, customers will influence those in the supply chain..eventually.

If so-called 'partner' countries[within the EU] can introduce spot fines, and general combuggerances, then why can't we?    OH yes, the usual response....whereby consideration is given to who might be affected by such courses of action? Not many? Oh yes, then we'll make noises, but do nothing...as usual.  This country is good at 'doing nothing'....

[247 Developments]

as to the above bridge strike 

Quote from Cromford Canal and the High Peak Trail on facebook

 

We are sorry to say, the High Peak Trail is closed at Longcliffe (approx. 4 miles west of Middleton Top).
Our Highways Department have had to remove the bridge over the road that a lorry ran into yesterday as it was unsafe. The bridge is part of our industrial heritage and is listed but we will re-build it using as many parts of the structure as possible.
The bridge carried the High Peak trail over the road, so at this point, the trail is closed. We are looking for an alternative route for the trail and will keep you posted.
As soon as we have timescales for re-building the bridge we will let you know. 

 

 

 

 

Its going to cost a lot to fix with it been listed