Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
pastapickles  
#1 Posted : 08 April 2010 08:44:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pastapickles

My trip into work today was along the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent, Carillion Road’s are undertaking works on the street lighting. The works are only occurring during the night, with cones left in the middle of the central reservation over during the day. There are no lane closures or other works occurring during the day. When the work began a speed limit of 50mph was put in place, with a speed camera van parked along the road during the day, but nothing at night when lane closures and lots of workers are around. For some reason the limit has now been reduced to 40mph and average speed cameras installed along most of the road. I maybe missing something – but why does the speed limit of 40mph (on a 70mph road) have to remain in force during the day when both lanes are open and the only new hazard that I can see are the signs telling you that the limit is now 40mph and the cones which have not been picked up. Is this just another tax on drivers or is there a real risk to if drivers do the speed limit on a road when cones are placed safely in the central reservation (and why don’t they pick them up at end of the day – they do on a motorway)
safetyelf  
#2 Posted : 08 April 2010 09:00:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
safetyelf

The same thought crossed my mind on the M1 at the weekend. 15 - 20 miles of 50mph on a 4 lane stretch, no workers, for much of the distance the work looked completed. Who's safety were we protecting?
Jon-P  
#3 Posted : 08 April 2010 09:29:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jon-P

Hi guys, A similar situation has occurred on the M4 (Newport to Cardiff). There has been extensive work for the past 18 months in adding extra lanes to the motorway with average speed cameras for a number of miles. The work is now complete on the majority of the motorway, but the limit and cameras still remain even with an extra lane. Apparently, the reason the limit is still in place with technology enforcements is due to the strength of the centre barriers that can only withstand a 50MPH hit.
ptaylor14  
#4 Posted : 08 April 2010 09:45:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ptaylor14

Get on to the highways agency perhaps they could tell you
Stoll72560  
#5 Posted : 08 April 2010 10:04:12(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Stoll72560

The A500 is one of my regular routes too, i've noticed that there was no infra red light showing on the cameras indicating that they are not yet commissioned or working? Problem was, everybody else knew that they weren't working choosing to completely ignore the 40 MPH speed limit with the ensuing chaos that you often come to expect of 6.30 am traffic! I used to notice that when SPECS were installed on M6 Thelwall section that the HA had the foresight to publicise how many offenders had been zapped for speeding. Maybe these days they just rely on us many law abiding types, in fear of prosecution, to reduce the speed to the posted 'safe' limit... (tongue firmly planted in cheek).
broadvalley  
#6 Posted : 08 April 2010 11:02:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
broadvalley

Cannot comment on your particular case as I do not know the facts but this reminds me of a situation a few years ago on the M11 near Harlow. Sunday morning - one motorway lane coned off - no one working and a 40 mph speed limit for several miles. Believe me I tried my hardest to stick below 40 mph but felt a bit silly with everyone overtaking me and ended up drifting up to 50 mph (which seemed a safe speed) and getting a speeding ticket. It still bugs me even now as I guess a lot of cars got done for speeding in what in my opinion was an artificially low and unreasonable speed limit.
Paul Duell  
#7 Posted : 08 April 2010 11:19:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Paul Duell

We regularly have this in my home town - speed limits are imposed for long term road works, and even at weekends when there's no sign of any work being done (and the cones have been taken away etc), the limits remain in force. Having a friend who works in road safety at the local council, I asked her what it was all about: Her answer was that once a traffic safety order is in force, varying the speed limit from the normal, it can't be varied back and forth during the term of the order (or at least not without a load of extra admin, and associated costs to the city). My suggestion that maybe in that case they ought to get on with the work and get it finished more quickly didn't go down too well!
PhilBeale  
#8 Posted : 08 April 2010 12:54:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PhilBeale

I'm sure it wouldn't take much to use a system like the variable speed limit that some parts of the country now have. The signs could be changed to reflect whether road works are in operation at that time of day. May be more pressure from members of the public might make them have a re-think. Also one issue might be that temporary road markings might be in use so although no workers the roads might not be as well marked out as they should be or uneven road surfaces. but as other say with cones cleared and road returned to normal operation they should be able to increase the speed limit????
stuie  
#9 Posted : 08 April 2010 13:21:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stuie

This sort of thing does absolutely nothing to convince me that speed cameras are there to improve road safety and not to generate revenue. One thing that has bugged me in Wales is that these so called safety cameras are only out in the day - I wonder what proportion of accidents occur during the day - it always seems to me that the most serious incidents ocuur at night when visibility is obviously reduced and wildlife is on the prowl (badgers are really solid!)?
pastapickles  
#10 Posted : 08 April 2010 13:26:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pastapickles

There are no temporary road markings the road has not been touched, they are just replacing the street lighting. I agree if the speed limit on a motorway can be varied by an electronic sign then I am sure there is not as much paperwork to remove a speed limit during the day. If it is an admin issue they should change the sign from "The speed limit remains in place for your safety" to "The speed limit remains in place because its to difficult to do the paperwork to take it off each day" --- I also still fail to understand why they feel the need to reduce the limit from the 50phm (when the work started and they had the camera van) to 40mph now the automatic ones are in place.
colinreeves  
#11 Posted : 08 April 2010 13:49:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

My problem is that we, as a profession, are always wanting new laws to tighten up safety or that existing laws are implemented better / more forcefully. However, the perception of the need to comply with any law is only as good as the perception of badly written and/or implemented laws, such as those governing speed limits. This sort of bureaucratic nonsense harms what our profession is all about and I get very frustrated at such easily put right "errors". Rant over, sorry!
edwardh  
#12 Posted : 08 April 2010 14:19:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
edwardh

There can be lots of reasons why it is "necessary" to annoy lots of motorists by having speed limits in place when there is no one working... - Legal To impose a temporary reduced speed limit the highway authority has to grant a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order [TTRO]. Before they can grant a TTRO the law requires that they give a period of notice to the public; you may have read strange little legal notices typically in the classified ads section of your local paper. Not sure what the minimum period of advance notice is but it is several weeks. Now here's the good bit... if you get a TTRO and establish a new speed limit then as soon as you remove that limit the TTRO finishes, and you have to apply for a new one if you want to put the limit back! That new application also requires several weeks statutory advance notice. So in practice if you remove a limit overnight, it will be several weeks before you can re-impose it. The Highways Agency and the major contractors have been pushing the government to amend the law for several years but so far to no avail. - Road User Safety If any of the work in progress leaves the construction of the highway [including barriers, lighting levels etc.] below its designed standard then although the deficiencies may not be apparent to the road user, there may be a need to reduce risk by reducing speed. The Highways Agency has guidance on when to impose temp limits [can't remember the reference, sorry.] - Road Worker Safety In order to remove cones, signs etc. a worker has to cross several lanes of traffic. They have to do that again to put them back. Crossing high-speed roads on foot is a very high risk activity, and neither the worker nor their employer has direct control over the primary risk; the behaviour of the approaching vehicles. The only way they can effectively minimise risk is to minimise exposure i.e leave the signs and cones in place. Is asking a driver to take 7 minutes longer to travel 20 miles an unreasonable price for safety?
colinreeves  
#13 Posted : 08 April 2010 14:31:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

edwardh wrote:
The Highways Agency and the major contractors have been pushing the government to amend the law for several years but so far to no avail.
Exactly - that one badly formed bit of legislation brings all legislation into ill repute!
Paul Duell  
#14 Posted : 08 April 2010 14:43:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Paul Duell

edwardh wrote:
Is asking a driver to take 7 minutes longer to travel 20 miles an unreasonable price for safety?
My maths might be a bit dodgy, but I make the difference between 40 MPH and 70 MPH an extra 13 minutes (alright, 12-and-a-bit) for 20 miles, but that's not the point. Most of us, as H&S professionals, will have personal experience that, if you have five safety rules, and four make good sense, but one is well out of date and unnecessary, people won't discriminate - they'll use the one silly one as an excuse to ignore the rest. Enforcing unnecessarily low speed limits just brings the whole system of speed limit setting and enforcement into disrepute. Witness the number of people on this forum - surely people who care about safety more than average - expressing the view that speed cameras are just revenue generators. If the works in progress have left the road and its surroundings so far below specification that it's necessary to almost halve the speed limit to ensure safety, surely that's even more justification for 7-day-a-week working to restore the road to a safe condition as soon as possible? And while I totally agree with the EdwardH's bit about risk to workers when removing and restoring cones, in the original poster's example (and mine above, about Southampton roads), the cones ARE being removed, so that isn't the justification for maintained speed limits either.
ptaylor14  
#15 Posted : 08 April 2010 15:25:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ptaylor14

colinreeves wrote:
My problem is that we, as a profession, are always wanting new laws to tighten up safety or that existing laws are implemented better / more forcefully. However, the perception of the need to comply with any law is only as good as the perception of badly written and/or implemented laws, such as those governing speed limits. This sort of bureaucratic nonsense harms what our profession is all about and I get very frustrated at such easily put right "errors". Rant over, sorry!
I agree.
xRockape  
#16 Posted : 08 April 2010 21:04:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
xRockape

I must be missing the point, other than the above threads composers are being slowed down getting to work. But thats the point is it not, its the AT WORK ACT, almost all of the above comment indicate that not one was at work. So please explain what i am missing or feel free to start a new thread on the actual point you are trying to address.
xRockape  
#17 Posted : 08 April 2010 21:11:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
xRockape

The new thread might be "Elf and Afety" at it again. But as usual it will be down to none qualified (competant) advisor/advice being given. Take it up with the relevent authority rather than having a rant here. Sorry, rant over no offence intended.
Faraway  
#18 Posted : 12 April 2010 23:42:49(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Faraway

you might want to check out this website - www.pepipoo.com which is a useful resource for motorists caught up in the governments cash cow of road speed, parking and other road enforcement.
jwk  
#19 Posted : 13 April 2010 14:21:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Interesting thread, but I do have to say one thing. Safety cameras are not a tax on motorists, there is no cash cow here. Motorists have a licence, which comes with conditions and does not confer rights. One of the principal conditions is that motorists obey the Road Traffic Acts. These lay down 'speed limits' (if you don't understand the term look it up in the dictionary). People driving within the 'speed limit' will not be fined for breaking the terms of their licence. Good drivers will not be subject to any kind of tax, people who break the law and get caught will pay a penalty, as I'm sure you all agree they should, John
sean  
#20 Posted : 13 April 2010 14:42:07(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

John, Very Brave of you to post that, you are right in what you are saying, but watch out there will be a few who completely disagree!! Sean
teh_boy  
#21 Posted : 13 April 2010 14:50:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
teh_boy

stuie wrote:
This sort of thing does absolutely nothing to convince me that speed cameras are there to improve road safety and not to generate revenue. One thing that has bugged me in Wales is that these so called safety cameras are only out in the day - I wonder what proportion of accidents occur during the day - it always seems to me that the most serious incidents ocuur at night when visibility is obviously reduced and wildlife is on the prowl (badgers are really solid!)?
I stopped to help at an RTI and tried to resus (unsucsesfully) an 11 year old girl just a week ago on a bright a sunny Easter Saturday morning. The police indicate speed may of been a factor. But hey if you've done your risk assessment and are happy to accept the consequences be it a fine (Or you can share the image I have stuck in my head maybe) Then crack on with this argument.
JG  
#22 Posted : 13 April 2010 15:16:54(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
JG

Does anyone know how the various common speed limits were decided on? For instance, why is 70mph an acceptably safe speed to drive on the motorway?
stephendclarke  
#23 Posted : 13 April 2010 18:59:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
stephendclarke

Hi, See the following: http://www.parliament.uk...briefings/snbt-00468.pdf Regards Steve
Canopener  
#24 Posted : 13 April 2010 19:10:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I have also slightly lost the 'thread of the thread' as well (and the site seems very slow tonight) but do caution slightly re #16 and suggest a quick look at the Produce Connection case - not at work!
moderator 4  
#25 Posted : 13 April 2010 19:21:03(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
moderator 4

As this topic seems to be losing its way, we have decided to lock it. Paul IOSH Moderator
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.