Stretch of A46 one of the most dangerous in UK (From Hereford Times)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting HT NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Stretch of A46 one of the most dangerous in UK
12:20pm Saturday 9th February 2013 in Ledbury
CALL FOR ACTION: The stretch of A46 between Evesham and Beckford has been responsible for the deaths of three people and many injuries since July 2010
THERE has been a call for action on a stretch of road labelled one of the most dangerous in the country after three deaths in the last two-and-a-half years.
The leader of Worcestershire County Council Adrian Hardman wants to see safety improvements made on a five-mile section of the A46 Evesham Bypass, between Evesham and Beckford.
In his campaign for action, he has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin. Since July 2010, two fatal and seven serious accidents have taken place on this part of the A46.
Coun Hardman, who represents the Bredon ward on the county council, said: “I have written to Patrick McLoughlin, asking him to take action. I have asked him to revisit the question of dual carriageway, or improved safety measures on this section.
“I think this must be one of the most dangerous length of roads in the county if not country, since on average we are having five people either killed or seriously injured every year on this five-mile stretch.
“We must act. This road is cutting Beckford in half and worrying all who live along it, or by it.”
Diana Burgess, aged 40, died in the most recent fatal incident on the road after her motorbike was involved in a collision with a car at the entrance to Bell Service Station near Ashton on October 16 last year.
The driver of the black Peugeot 308 car involved in the crash has been charged with death by dangerous driving and will appear at Worcester Magistrates Court on Tuesday, February 19.
In July 2010 two people were killed after a crash on the road near the junction between the A46 Sedgeberrow bypass and Cheltenham Road.
Hayley Nalepa, aged 23, and her passenger, 45-year-old Chris Ball, both from Longlevens, Gloucester, died at the scene. Witness reports said Miss Nalepa’s car appeared to have lost control after overtaking at the same time as a vehicle in the opposite direction.
Tracey Davies, who escaped serious injury following an accident on the A46 between the Twyford roundabout and the B4035 last January says she would support a campaign to make the road safer, calling it a “death trap”.
She said: “It needs to be made no overtaking in one direction all along the A46. “There is far too many accidents and too many people dying. I am not driving any more and I refuse to go on that road. “The A46 is a death trap.”
Comments(71)
Name unknown
says...
1:35pm Sat 9 Feb 13
CYNIC_AL wrote:Ever seen Ice Road Truckers?
There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...
broadwas
says...
1:40pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Jabbadad
says...
1:51pm Sat 9 Feb 13
So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment.
So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they?
It's CRUNCH TIME for someone.
Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
i-cycle
says...
4:30pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Jabbadad wrote:Jabbadad
I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car.
So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment.
So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they?
It's CRUNCH TIME for someone.
Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Doesn't the Director responsible for Highways have a Jag?
Probably just popping over for a chat with the Leader!
Biggles
says...
5:45pm Sat 9 Feb 13
.
I do not pay to drive a powerful car to have it limited, simples !
.
Actually mine is limited, it is limited to 155 mph ...... and I'm still alive, and haven't killed anyone yet.
.
None of the military vehicles I ever drove had speed limiters fitted, but the army do strange things generally lol
asumabstainer
says...
5:50pm Sat 9 Feb 13
the overtaking Jag has far more room on this carriageway than is available on most single carriageway roads when vehicles overtake. I remember when the old A44 at Cropthorne suffered more deaths & serious injuries in the 1990s .The County Council then changed the road category to a `B` road & therefore immediately lowered the incident statistics for the A44(now the Old Worcester Rd)
Landy44
says...
6:29pm Sat 9 Feb 13
i-cycle
says...
7:42pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident.
203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.
309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.
Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car.
The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.
DarrenM
says...
7:49pm Sat 9 Feb 13
DarrenM
says...
7:51pm Sat 9 Feb 13
i-cycle
says...
8:05pm Sat 9 Feb 13
And how would you feel if it was one of your own family that got injured or killed?
I doubt you'd see it as just another unreliable statistic then eh?
Come on mate, think about your driving responsibly.
Jabbadad
says...
10:35pm Sat 9 Feb 13
And Biggles I was a vehicle Mechanic in the REME and it was our job to see the speed limiters were in place on the Vehicles that could exceed the speed limits of course. The Austin Champ an all terrain vehicle was one such case which had a Rolls designed engine which was very fast when de-restricted, but most of the old Bedford QL's or the Old V8 Fords would do about 45 mph max loaded or a bit faster downhill or with the wind.They were designed with pulling power in mind not speed.
And during the 60's I owned a jaguar s'type and in the 70's I owned several Jaguar XJ's that were very fast indeed, and it didn't make me a better driver than my brother in his old Ford.
Speed does kill and bad drivers who drive at the wrong speeds for the conditions are the reason.
And there are thousands who own cars that are a lethal weapon if in the wrong hands, even the hands of advanced drivers hands who make errors in judgments.
Vox populi
says...
11:41pm Sat 9 Feb 13
It's an Aston Martin numpties, causing no issues rather than invoke the green eyed monster here and succeeded... Probably waited all day for that photo. There is plenty of room, no issue and if you really want something to whinge about look at the stopping distance the lorry gas left between in and the car in front.
(oh and HGVs of that size are limited to 56mph too....)
Vox populi
says...
12:05am Sun 10 Feb 13
Jabbadad
says...
10:34am Sun 10 Feb 13
Vox populi
says...
11:28am Sun 10 Feb 13
Get real Jabbadad, a £10k hatchback has 100% more engineering and safety features, dynamics and better handling than any of the cars you mention.
The fact is driving holds risk as does any activity, you cannot remove it unless you stop in bed. Live with it...
Have some faith in your fellow humans ability eh?
Vox populi
says...
11:38am Sun 10 Feb 13
You ignore the 44 tonne lorry with the potential to do far more damage, that is restricted to 56 mph driving less than a cars length behind another vehicle??? Really?!?!
Jabbadad
says...
12:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13
But the main question to you is why have a car capable of 155 mph and more if deregulated when the maximum speed limit is 70 mph? And in the hands of people who think they are invincible?
As to the damages issue, which again you dismiss, (must have been a bystander) it was for a number plate which I gladly replaced and apologised.
As to your reference to the Truck in the picture, yes he is certainly breaking the law of common sense, and I would wager your hero in the Aston is also exceeding the speed limit. But of course that's okay since his car is capable of much higher speeds. And "GET A LIFE" is far better than "TAKE A LIFE" .
Vox populi
says...
12:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13
If pointing that out makes me a smart Alec then so be it.
Having a faster vehicle can actually make you a better driver - see your butt clenching moments... Try driving a high performance rwd in snow for example....
That's the point Jabbadad, "you wager and judge" with a bee in your bonnet about speed, not common sense because you consider anyone with a fast car a danger...
i-cycle
says...
1:11pm Sun 10 Feb 13
203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.
309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.
SPEED KILLS
It arrogant people like Vox Populi, Biggles and Darren M who think they have the right to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can show off their affluence by parading around in a fast car.
jovialcommonsense
says...
1:14pm Sun 10 Feb 13
I'm not happy for someone to be driving at 40mph who is concentrating on what they are going to have for tea.
Lack of concentration/awaren
ess is the biggest issue on our roads.
There will always be accidents whatever systems are in place.
Vox populi
says...
1:30pm Sun 10 Feb 13
i-cycle wrote:Here we go....
The facts speak for themselves:
203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.
309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.
SPEED KILLS
It arrogant people like Vox Populi, Biggles and Darren M who think they have the right to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can show off their affluence by parading around in a fast car.
Want to relate it to a political party next too?!
Speed does not kill. If so you would die every time you got off an aeroplane...
It's accidents that kill I.e stopping really quickly. Speed is often a contributory factor but one of many factors.
You can be killed below the speed limit, even fall over when walking.
Inappropriate speed can be a contributing factor to an accident and the damage/injury can be proportionately higher if the speed is: physics and energy but often it isn't the root cause.
billybobuk
says...
1:43pm Sun 10 Feb 13
So by and large people police themselves and when you look at the stat's (2009) 1 fatal & 99 collisions in total - 75% were in TT fortnight so most were not Manx.
Scrap the limits on most roads and trust people?
i-cycle
says...
1:47pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Not sure where you get the political party thing from.
I do however see to remember its was you who put all cyclists in a Labour Party box and then admitted you're cyclist yourself.
To put the matter straight I have no political party allegencies.
Vox populi
says...
2:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Can you please tell me if I have a fast car how I am "parading" around endangering people's lives" please?
Does the fact I have a fast car mean I am endangering people?! No you are judging that I am some kind of boy racer. Interesting as it is a family car...
I guess as you have a knife in your kitchen you are a murderer too...
Jabbadad
says...
2:23pm Sun 10 Feb 13
As to Vox having Butt clenching from his powerful car in the snow, I have to remind him that it is paramount of all drivers and pedestrians, to take reasonable care with all road conditions, which also includes volume of traffic be it pedestrians, animals or vehicles. So Vox if you were having a joyous and safe time in the snow within the law you would not be having Butt clenching other than due to someone else's bad behavior, or perhaps you were driving dangerously under the unsafe road conditions?
Jabbadad
says...
2:24pm Sun 10 Feb 13
As to Vox having Butt clenching from his powerful car in the snow, I have to remind him that it is paramount of all drivers and pedestrians, to take reasonable care with all road conditions, which also includes volume of traffic be it pedestrians, animals or vehicles. So Vox if you were having a joyous and safe time in the snow within the law you would not be having Butt clenching other than due to someone else's bad behavior, or perhaps you were driving dangerously under the unsafe road conditions?
i-cycle
says...
2:30pm Sun 10 Feb 13
So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political?
Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there.
My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car.
Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.
i-cycle
says...
2:30pm Sun 10 Feb 13
So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political?
Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there.
My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car.
Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.
Vox populi
says...
2:40pm Sun 10 Feb 13
The fact remains is that the general view here mainly purported through dislike and jealousy ? Is that anyone who has a high performance vehicle is a danger to others... Maybe we should start on gun ownership next...
You can't judge without facts or knowing people life is a bit more complicated than an opinion.
After all prohibition solves everything doesn't it?!
Vox populi
says...
2:58pm Sun 10 Feb 13
i-cycle wrote:You used the terms affluent and arrogant I believe.
Vox Populi
So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political?
Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there.
My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car.
Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.
Never once have I said speeding should be encouraged have I?
It is not my job to educate people? Is it yours? I can respect that people have intelligence and can make up their own mInds without trying to back socially acceptable inaccurate badly thought out mantras such as "speed kills"
Poor driving kills, at any speed.
i-cycle
says...
3:37pm Sun 10 Feb 13
You can't judge without facts or knowing people life is a bit more complicated than an opinion.
Your words
So why make such judgement of others as you did in my case?
Like most cyclists, I'm also a driver. The problem we experience of inconsiderate and even downright dangerous driving is noticeably growing.
Ironically there's actually a common interest in getting more to use their bikes and especially on those shorter utility trips around town, as this reduces traffic congestion and frees up more parking spaces.
However the biggest deterrent to getting more people cycling is inconsiderate drivers.
In surveys a massive 75% of drivers agree with having 20mph limits in their own neighbourhoods, because I assume they see the dangers to their own families.
Its unfortunate that some of these drivers don't seem to want to stick to speed limits in other areas. I'm not saying you're one of these, but it doesn't help to be commenting in ways that could encourage others to drive recklessly.
As a cyclist yourself I'm sure you've been on the receiving end.
Perhaps time to pull together and encourage cyclists as well as drivers to respect each others interests more?
Vox populi
says...
4:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Inconsiderate and poor driving full stop is a problem, and as for the use of mobile phones etc...
If you don't like the perceived message I send out I could perceive your view as "it's ok to do whatever you like as long as you are doing 20mph." after all 1000s of accidents due to lack of concentration at 20mph are better than 1 at 30mph...
I never condone excessive speed, there is a time a place for everything and those who cannot use sensible speed judgement within the confines of the law should be targeted and dealt with not blanket laws and reduced speed limits to cater for any amoebas that might be using our road network. That's the polices job and what I pay my taxes for...
TDH123
says...
6:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Jabbadad wrote:Limiting a vehicles speed would hinder the ability to accelerate await from a hazard or to quickly and therefore safely overtake a vehicle.
Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously.
And Biggles I was a vehicle Mechanic in the REME and it was our job to see the speed limiters were in place on the Vehicles that could exceed the speed limits of course. The Austin Champ an all terrain vehicle was one such case which had a Rolls designed engine which was very fast when de-restricted, but most of the old Bedford QL's or the Old V8 Fords would do about 45 mph max loaded or a bit faster downhill or with the wind.They were designed with pulling power in mind not speed.
And during the 60's I owned a jaguar s'type and in the 70's I owned several Jaguar XJ's that were very fast indeed, and it didn't make me a better driver than my brother in his old Ford.
Speed does kill and bad drivers who drive at the wrong speeds for the conditions are the reason.
And there are thousands who own cars that are a lethal weapon if in the wrong hands, even the hands of advanced drivers hands who make errors in judgments.
If all vehicles drove at an appropriate speed rather than dawdling along with no consideration for other road users there would be no need to overtake!!
If someone either cannot drive at an appropriate speed or their vehicle is slow - get off the roads!!
DarrenM
says...
7:06pm Sun 10 Feb 13
And how would you feel if it was one of your own family that got injured or killed?
I doubt you'd see it as just another unreliable statistic then eh?
Come on mate, think about your driving responsibly."
What total nonsense! What if a 747 dropped out the sky and landed on them, what if they were walking past a building site and a piano dropped on them? what if aliens from mars beamed down, what if......
Is your argument that all these kinds of decision should be made emotionally, not logically founded on proven facts then?
(btw debate fans - that's called an appeal to emotion)
"!Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously."
Exactly - sorry I thought you were in favour of speed limiters not against, I must have misread your post, or are you in favour of speed limiters only motorway and dual carrageways which are 70mph but couldn't care less about all the other roads with lower speed limits where the majority of accident occur?
Bonzodog
says...
8:22pm Sun 10 Feb 13
Jabbadad
says...
9:13pm Sun 10 Feb 13
So I won't reply any more to your wildly inaccurate interpretations.
MrWXYZ
says...
7:43am Mon 11 Feb 13
If theres 2 tractors coming towards each other on that bit of road and cars pull out simultaneously to overtake ignoring oncoming traffic because theres 'plenty of room' then bang - wasn't so much room afterall.
The car in the picture is still on the wrong side of the road, and may way well have crept through the lorrys blind spot before reaching where it is now - not ideal if the lorry doesn't expect someone to be overtaking against traffic and adjusts his carriageway position for a hazard.
MJI
says...
9:26am Mon 11 Feb 13
.
A46 is Cheltenham, Winchcombe, Broadway, Stratford.
MJI
says...
9:28am Mon 11 Feb 13
CYNIC_AL wrote:Bad signage, poor surface, too much signage, blind summits, junctions on corners.
There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...
.
These can be dangerous.
.
No need to trot out the same text all the time.
MJI
says...
9:29am Mon 11 Feb 13
Arthur Blenkinsop
says...
9:54am Mon 11 Feb 13
i-cycle
says...
10:29am Mon 11 Feb 13
Speeding when its not safe is bad and dangerous driving.
Speed limits are usually introduced on roads where its not safe.
Breaking the speed limit is therefore likely to be seen as bad driving.
That's certainly the position that will be taken in court.
Whether you like it or not speeding is therefore almost always going to be considered as bad driving.
But you are correct - speed in itself is not a killer.
Guy66
says...
11:27am Mon 11 Feb 13
Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days!
What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.
MrWXYZ
says...
12:37pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Guy66 wrote:would it not make more sense to drive a safe distance behind than overtake just based on vehicle height, especially if there is another vehicle infront of them and you are just cutting them up to get infront of them when they can't go any quicker anyway?
Arthur Blenkinsop wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days!
Vox populi
says...
1:29pm Mon 11 Feb 13
MrWXYZ wrote:Erm why would you be cutting up a vehicle in front? if safe stopping distances have been left then there should be room to pull back into the traffic after overtaking, so where is the example of poor driving?!?! ...........which brings you back to the real issue with this picture....
Guy66 wrote:would it not make more sense to drive a safe distance behind than overtake just based on vehicle height, especially if there is another vehicle infront of them and you are just cutting them up to get infront of them when they can't go any quicker anyway?Arthur Blenkinsop wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days!
I would suggest that we are getting into driving attitudes now though..
MrWXYZ
says...
2:14pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Safe distances aside its just basically bad manners and queue jumping to overtake someone if they are in a trail of traffic and can't go any quicker.
But as you say thats driving attitudes and whatever the subject on roads some people will want to drive safely and courteously, some will want to drive selfishly and justify it, and some will want to blame the authorities for everything.
Vox populi
says...
4:27pm Mon 11 Feb 13
You leave a safe stopping distance between the car infront of you. If that car changes then you adjust your speed.
It is just basically bad manners to restrict everyone else on the road to your speed too and not accept that if you are driving under the speed limit somebody may wish to overtake you, leave them room in a gracious manner. It is probably better as it causes less frustration and puts you in a safer position too rather than have somebody frustrated behind you.
Its a case of live and let live I am afraid not foist your rush or non rush on anyone. Some might cause it common sense.
MrWXYZ
says...
8:01pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Vox populi wrote:I accept that if there is room infront and someone wants to overtake then go for it if safe. If you can't go quicker as you are in a stream of cars then people should accept that and all drive a safe distance - not overtake on the premise that a vehicle may be big or going below the speed limit.
No MrWXYZ,
You leave a safe stopping distance between the car infront of you. If that car changes then you adjust your speed.
It is just basically bad manners to restrict everyone else on the road to your speed too and not accept that if you are driving under the speed limit somebody may wish to overtake you, leave them room in a gracious manner. It is probably better as it causes less frustration and puts you in a safer position too rather than have somebody frustrated behind you.
Its a case of live and let live I am afraid not foist your rush or non rush on anyone. Some might cause it common sense.
Yes if someone does overtake and cut into that gap you should leave the safe distance but it doesn't mean the overtaker isn't driving badly. Often it means they are driving v badly as they can only look 1 car ahead and not watch and anticipate other things developing ahead
Vox populi
says...
8:50pm Mon 11 Feb 13
I don't condone either behaviours as they cause frustration and accidents. It is purely about being aware and courteous to other road users.
Biggles
says...
9:25pm Mon 11 Feb 13
i-cycle wrote:Oh good god .... a cyclist.
Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category. Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident. 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car. The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.
.
All reasoning gone out of the window, everything is about them, now they are saving the planet, and how vunerable they are.
.
Senior observer, IAM here, I've spent a lot of time being taught, and teaching others how to drive their cars responsibly.
.
I will choose the speed I drive at, not some poxy cyclist.
.
So, you like quoting figures, along with Jaba the elder, you think anyone with an ungoverned shopping trolley is a menace on the roads, and you can't tell a jag from an aston !
.
What is your contribution to road safety ?
.
As I'm a jerk .... your words, I'll take any driving or riding (motorcycle, not poxy pushbikes, I grew out of those when I had my first licence at 16), assessment you like, road based, alongside you, lets see who the jerk is.
.
I don't actually like speeds above 120 mph, which I do very often on public roads, legally, but I'll be dammed if I'll be told by the likes of you, what is, and what isn't safe.
.
And I wish you well with speed limiters, the technology is there, and has been for quite a while, it'll be a brave government that tries to enact it, as your underpowered girly shopping trollies don't make much profit for car companies, or for the tax revenue on fuel, as you will have seen in the press recently.
Biggles
says...
11:50pm Mon 11 Feb 13
Bonzodog wrote:These type of roads used to be three lane, one each way, sort of thing, then one in the middle either side could use for overtaking.
Although bad and inappropriate driving is the root cause, it has to be wondered why certain roads have higher accident rates than others? Is it because their poor design actively encourages bad driving? It seems that a fair number of modern bypasses fall into that category, not just the A46 but as an another example, the A5 approaching Oswestry is of a similar design and, also, a notorious blackspot.
.
That is the basis, you could actually use all three in one direction by law.
.
The center lane was known as a "suicide lane", for obvious reasons.
.
These were evetually, largely, done away with, but instead of "dual carragewaying", as traffic density often demanded, the cheaper option of two wide lanes was chosen.
.
In some parts of the country, Devon springs to mind as one, the three lanes have remained in parts, but are accompanied by double whites, so giving one direction two lanes for a couple of miles, then the opposite direction two lanes for the next couple of miles, and so on ........ this seems to work well.
.
Overtaking on these wide two lane roads is very easy, if you have good observation skills, and a powerful car, (the power actually makes things easier, despite what the safety cretins on here will tell you, as it allows you to complete the overtake quickly and smoothly, reducing the time you are exposed).
.
I have noticed that these "bad" roads either have bends, lots of them, or very limited overtaking , sometimes a mix of both.
.
Poor observation and hazard perception seems to be the main causes, rather than speed.
.
Dawdlers are as responsible as loonies, only the latter seem to be villified though.
MrWXYZ
says...
9:50am Tue 12 Feb 13
And biggles no dawdlers aren't as responsible as loonies. Dawdlers (which some people define as those sticking to speed limits) can be safely overtaken if patient. Surely by definition loonies are just a danger?
Jabbadad
says...
10:02am Tue 12 Feb 13
ushmush83
says...
12:06pm Tue 12 Feb 13
Vox populi
says...
12:48pm Tue 12 Feb 13
Jabbadad wrote:I think you will find that the first thing anyone who has one of these "badges" (which incidently I have a number of) is taught is: there is no room for ego in driving.
By my definition loonies are those who think that their driving skills (I say this loosely) will compensate for them driving in a dangerous manner without any consideration for others, be it Cycles, Motor Cycles, Cars, Lorries and pedestrians, since they see themselves as good as the highly trained Racing, Rally, Or Emergency Services drivers. AND EVEN WITH THEIR EGO SKILLS AND A BADGE (God forbid) THEY DON'T COMPARE.
Still you have your perception...
As mentioned power does make overtaking easier but with power comes responsibility. It is down to education of the person in control not blanket laws and speed resticters as suggested. Motorways would be great, would take elephant racing to a whole new level...
mr_wilson15
says...
1:15pm Tue 12 Feb 13
Jabbadad wrote:Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions...
I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car.
So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment.
So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they?
It's CRUNCH TIME for someone.
Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
More Tea Vicar
says...
3:24pm Wed 13 Feb 13
i-cycle wrote:I think you'll find the car is a Jag or probably an AM. In which case, the driver will quite legitimately expect other road users, Plebs, if you like, to know their place and get out of the way.
Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category.
Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident.
203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.
309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.
Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car.
The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.
Vox populi
says...
11:28pm Wed 13 Feb 13
Touch of the green eyed monster vicar?!
Shame in this country we can't celebrate success rather than consider everyone who has is successful to the be the enemy isn't it?
Makes you want to claim benefits and live off the state or complain about them on here without examining your own attitude...
Biggles
says...
12:29am Thu 14 Feb 13
mr_wilson15 wrote:Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
Biggles
says...
12:30am Thu 14 Feb 13
mr_wilson15 wrote:Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
pronstar
says...
9:26am Thu 14 Feb 13
Biggles wrote:
mr_wilson15 wrote:Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
Biggles wrote: I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it
Yeah me too. Now will you please just go and crack one off to Top Gear and stop this nonsense?
Men who are into cars are so boring.
i-cycle
says...
9:31am Thu 14 Feb 13
pronstar
says...
10:01am Thu 14 Feb 13
i-cycle wrote:are very cool
...and men who are into cycling?
Vox populi
says...
1:23pm Thu 14 Feb 13
pronstar wrote:Or quite clearly childish...
i-cycle wrote: ...and men who are into cycling?are very cool
MJI
says...
1:28pm Thu 14 Feb 13
Biggles wrote:I have had to, near end of overtake the person I was passing put his foot down, so I used my cars extra performance to finish the move safely as it was safer than braking.
mr_wilson15 wrote:Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
.
Already 3/4 past before they booted it.
.
Twice in 20 years, first was an idiot who tried it on with lots of cars, dealt with by a calling a friend with a white company car with blue lights at work, second was just a prat.
.
That first one was a common subject for at least a week among users of that road with his dangerous driving (dangerous overtakes, accelerating while being overtaken, no brake lights, brake testing with no brake lights, swerving all over the road)
MJI
says...
1:30pm Thu 14 Feb 13
i-cycle wrote:Own interesting cars like Porsches and Nissans.
...and men who are into cycling?
.
Based among a sample of cyclists I know.
Guy66
says...
11:14pm Thu 14 Feb 13
lillaneyb
says...
9:28am Fri 15 Feb 13
Accidents are caused by irresponsible driving, including speeding. Speaking as a relative of one of the fatalities from this stretch of road, speeding may not always cause accidents but when at speed the outcome is far worse. The 2010 fatalities were involved in a crash whilst the cars were travelling at 30mph. They died instantly on impact.
As a driver you are not only responsible for yourself but others using the road too, be it other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.
Consider the impact your driving could have on yourself, your family and others around you and drive responsibly. This shouldn't have to be imposed by laws or safety measures.
suzieball
says...
2:07pm Fri 15 Feb 13
CYNIC_AL says...
12:33pm Sat 9 Feb 13