Call for A12 speed reduction after latest serious smash

Gazette: Call for A12 speed reduction after latest serious smash Call for A12 speed reduction after latest serious smash

A PLEA has been made for immediate safety improvements on the A12 after yet another horror smash.

A 69-year-old Coggeshall woman was airlifted to Addenbrooke’s Hospital, in Cambridge, with serious head and chest injuries after the latest bad accident.

Lorry driver Stuart Smethurst, 24, of Stanway, was the first on the scene.

He was driving behind the two cars which initially collided.

“I had just got into the outside lane and, as soon as I did, all I could see was smoke and a red car spinning.

“At the last minute I saw a black car half in the middle lane and half in the outside lane.

“I managed to avoid it somehow, abandoned my car and ran across the traffic to help."

Nigel Fitch, chairman of Marks Tey Parish Council, has called for a 50mph speed limit to be imposed between Marks Tey and Ardleigh.

He said: “We are sick to the teeth of hearing about these incidents."

SEE FRIDAY'S GAZETTE FOR THE FULL STORY WITH REACTION

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:24pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Biggus Davus says...

Presumably Mr Fitch has evidence that each collision was attributable to excessive speed and not caused by any other factors?
Presumably Mr Fitch has evidence that each collision was attributable to excessive speed and not caused by any other factors? Biggus Davus
  • Score: 16

4:36pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Scoot says...

Thats the problem Biggus, there are people out there whose knee jerk reactions get listened to without establishing the facts. Lets let the Stanway Traffic guys give their input before jumping to conclusions.
Thats the problem Biggus, there are people out there whose knee jerk reactions get listened to without establishing the facts. Lets let the Stanway Traffic guys give their input before jumping to conclusions. Scoot
  • Score: 9

4:52pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Jack222 says...

Agreed. Let's deal with what the problem was once we know the problem.
Agreed. Let's deal with what the problem was once we know the problem. Jack222
  • Score: 4

4:54pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

Biggus Davus,

I presume you have evidence that speed ** wasn't ** the cause or a significant factor? We may not be talking about "excessive" speed but "inappropriate" speed, which meant the drivers either didn't leave themselves the time -- or were driving too closely -- to avoid a collision.

At 50 rather than 70 a driver has more time to react to a developing situation. At 50 stopping distance is 53m or 13 car lengths; at 70 it's 96m or 24 car lengths (nearly double that for 50mph). Following the "only a fool breaks the two-second rule" dictum for driving on ** dry ** roads, a driver at 50 has to leave 44m between themselves and the car in front; a driver at 70 has to leave 62m. How many A12 drivers do that?

Reducing the speed limit will not only mean greater safety but also mean it is possible to fit in more cars per mile of road, easing congestion.
Biggus Davus, I presume you have evidence that speed ** wasn't ** the cause or a significant factor? We may not be talking about "excessive" speed but "inappropriate" speed, which meant the drivers either didn't leave themselves the time -- or were driving too closely -- to avoid a collision. At 50 rather than 70 a driver has more time to react to a developing situation. At 50 stopping distance is 53m or 13 car lengths; at 70 it's 96m or 24 car lengths (nearly double that for 50mph). Following the "only a fool breaks the two-second rule" dictum for driving on ** dry ** roads, a driver at 50 has to leave 44m between themselves and the car in front; a driver at 70 has to leave 62m. How many A12 drivers do that? Reducing the speed limit will not only mean greater safety but also mean it is possible to fit in more cars per mile of road, easing congestion. Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -9

5:25pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Scoot says...

Maybe Brooks each car having a bloke in front with a flag is the solution. I suspect the majority of accidents (whatever speed) are down to driver error. However with a larger volume of traffic on the road more accidents will happen. If we persist in building large numbers of houses without the jobs locally then people will use their cars for shortish journeys because it is more convenient than public transport. For example the B road between Clacton and Wivenhoe has just had a new 40mph restriction put in because there have been a series of accidents along a particular stretch. The frequency of accidents has increased over the past 3 years or so on that stretch. Is it down to the road ? Well it hasn't changed in the past 15 or so years, but the volume of traffic has beacuse places of employment have not increased at the same rate as the house building so people use their cars. This particular stretch was an overtaking place . However I suspect the number of accidents has increased because those in a rush tried to overtake when it wasn't safe to do so i.e Driver Error.
Maybe Brooks each car having a bloke in front with a flag is the solution. I suspect the majority of accidents (whatever speed) are down to driver error. However with a larger volume of traffic on the road more accidents will happen. If we persist in building large numbers of houses without the jobs locally then people will use their cars for shortish journeys because it is more convenient than public transport. For example the B road between Clacton and Wivenhoe has just had a new 40mph restriction put in because there have been a series of accidents along a particular stretch. The frequency of accidents has increased over the past 3 years or so on that stretch. Is it down to the road ? Well it hasn't changed in the past 15 or so years, but the volume of traffic has beacuse places of employment have not increased at the same rate as the house building so people use their cars. This particular stretch was an overtaking place . However I suspect the number of accidents has increased because those in a rush tried to overtake when it wasn't safe to do so i.e Driver Error. Scoot
  • Score: 14

5:34pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Biggus Davus says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
Biggus Davus, I presume you have evidence that speed ** wasn't ** the cause or a significant factor? We may not be talking about "excessive" speed but "inappropriate" speed, which meant the drivers either didn't leave themselves the time -- or were driving too closely -- to avoid a collision. At 50 rather than 70 a driver has more time to react to a developing situation. At 50 stopping distance is 53m or 13 car lengths; at 70 it's 96m or 24 car lengths (nearly double that for 50mph). Following the "only a fool breaks the two-second rule" dictum for driving on ** dry ** roads, a driver at 50 has to leave 44m between themselves and the car in front; a driver at 70 has to leave 62m. How many A12 drivers do that? Reducing the speed limit will not only mean greater safety but also mean it is possible to fit in more cars per mile of road, easing congestion.
I certainly don't, but then I'm not calling for changes to a public utility which will affect millions based on a kneejerk reaction and based on nothing but personal opinion.

You make many good points, but rush hour congestion is it's own natural speed limiter and if people are driving too close that's down to bad education, bad habits and plain old bad driving, if you slow them down they'll just drive closer & accidents will (& do) happen whether the limit is 70, 50, 30 or 20.
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: Biggus Davus, I presume you have evidence that speed ** wasn't ** the cause or a significant factor? We may not be talking about "excessive" speed but "inappropriate" speed, which meant the drivers either didn't leave themselves the time -- or were driving too closely -- to avoid a collision. At 50 rather than 70 a driver has more time to react to a developing situation. At 50 stopping distance is 53m or 13 car lengths; at 70 it's 96m or 24 car lengths (nearly double that for 50mph). Following the "only a fool breaks the two-second rule" dictum for driving on ** dry ** roads, a driver at 50 has to leave 44m between themselves and the car in front; a driver at 70 has to leave 62m. How many A12 drivers do that? Reducing the speed limit will not only mean greater safety but also mean it is possible to fit in more cars per mile of road, easing congestion.[/p][/quote]I certainly don't, but then I'm not calling for changes to a public utility which will affect millions based on a kneejerk reaction and based on nothing but personal opinion. You make many good points, but rush hour congestion is it's own natural speed limiter and if people are driving too close that's down to bad education, bad habits and plain old bad driving, if you slow them down they'll just drive closer & accidents will (& do) happen whether the limit is 70, 50, 30 or 20. Biggus Davus
  • Score: 14

5:55pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Snowscreen says...

From what I've heard, the crash was the result of a car being at a standstill (possibly broken down?) in the 3rd (fast) lane without any hazard lights on.

You could possibly say a speed reduction might have helped avoid the aftermath I guess, or at least the gravity of the injuries.
From what I've heard, the crash was the result of a car being at a standstill (possibly broken down?) in the 3rd (fast) lane without any hazard lights on. You could possibly say a speed reduction might have helped avoid the aftermath I guess, or at least the gravity of the injuries. Snowscreen
  • Score: -3

5:56pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

Trouble is, Biggus and Scoot, that while congestion is a natural speed limiter, it doesn't limit it enough, and it doesn't limit everyone to the same degree (ie, they drive too closely and/or press on the traffic in front).

Yes, we can blame bad driving, education, habits and more traffic, but a reduced speed limit will affect the frequency/severity of RTCs - where a road death costs the public purse £1.4m and a serious injury £800k.

We cannot afford (financially or environmentally) the new roads needed for all the people who want to drive - and the evidence is that new roads fill up quickly anyway.

I was one of those calling for a 50 limit eight years ago, which Essex CC (which conducted the survey) and the Highways Agency ignored. How many lives could have been saved?

On top of a 50 speed limit, we need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace.
Trouble is, Biggus and Scoot, that while congestion is a natural speed limiter, it doesn't limit it enough, and it doesn't limit everyone to the same degree (ie, they drive too closely and/or press on the traffic in front). Yes, we can blame bad driving, education, habits and more traffic, but a reduced speed limit will affect the frequency/severity of RTCs - where a road death costs the public purse £1.4m and a serious injury £800k. We cannot afford (financially or environmentally) the new roads needed for all the people who want to drive - and the evidence is that new roads fill up quickly anyway. I was one of those calling for a 50 limit eight years ago, which Essex CC (which conducted the survey) and the Highways Agency ignored. How many lives could have been saved? On top of a 50 speed limit, we need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace. Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -5

6:00pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

Snowscreen's comment reflects the figures that Will Bramhall is giving out in his campaign at 20splentyforcolchest
er.org.uk: a car braking from 30 will still be doing 21mph at impact when one at 20 would have stopped. Sobering statistic.
Snowscreen's comment reflects the figures that Will Bramhall is giving out in his campaign at 20splentyforcolchest er.org.uk: a car braking from 30 will still be doing 21mph at impact when one at 20 would have stopped. Sobering statistic. Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -4

6:35pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Biggus Davus says...

"We need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace."

This I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't believe slowing the country down is the answer.

"Sobering statistic".
Nope, just physics, but what about a car doing 15 mph, or even ten? or 5mph? What's the point of using a car again?

The roads network is suffering from reduction after reduction in speed limits and these are seen as improvements.
That people are spending longer sitting in cars with no reduction in accidents (if Scoots figures are accurate) should be seen as a failure.
Has anyone calculated the cumulative extra hours motorists are spending behind the wheel due to speed reductions, how much this costs, how much extra pollution is caused and what knock on effects these extra hours have on driver fatigue and overall health?
"We need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace." This I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't believe slowing the country down is the answer. "Sobering statistic". Nope, just physics, but what about a car doing 15 mph, or even ten? or 5mph? What's the point of using a car again? The roads network is suffering from reduction after reduction in speed limits and these are seen as improvements. That people are spending longer sitting in cars with no reduction in accidents (if Scoots figures are accurate) should be seen as a failure. Has anyone calculated the cumulative extra hours motorists are spending behind the wheel due to speed reductions, how much this costs, how much extra pollution is caused and what knock on effects these extra hours have on driver fatigue and overall health? Biggus Davus
  • Score: 2

7:49pm Thu 6 Feb 14

crazy comments says...

The stretch of road on the A12 from the eight ash green roundabout to the turn of at spring lane is a very dangerous part of road and I totally agree with Mr Fitch a 50 mph limit should be put in place. Cars use this straight part of road like a race track and with cars joining the A12 from the slip way at the eight ash green roundabout its cars zig sagging from one lane to another.
The stretch of road on the A12 from the eight ash green roundabout to the turn of at spring lane is a very dangerous part of road and I totally agree with Mr Fitch a 50 mph limit should be put in place. Cars use this straight part of road like a race track and with cars joining the A12 from the slip way at the eight ash green roundabout its cars zig sagging from one lane to another. crazy comments
  • Score: -4

8:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

mr pants says...

I have travelled on the A12 on a daily basis for nearly twenty years. The stretch between Colchester and Hatfield Peveril has to be one of the most dangerous in Britain. There is an almost daily toll of misery and chaos and certainly plain bad driving plays a big part, but so very obviously does excessive speed. It must be worthwhile trying to limit speed to a maximum of fifty, at least for a trial period.
I have travelled on the A12 on a daily basis for nearly twenty years. The stretch between Colchester and Hatfield Peveril has to be one of the most dangerous in Britain. There is an almost daily toll of misery and chaos and certainly plain bad driving plays a big part, but so very obviously does excessive speed. It must be worthwhile trying to limit speed to a maximum of fifty, at least for a trial period. mr pants
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Biggus Davus says...

So you have difficulty with cars going faster than you and changing lanes?

Come on people, it's the A12, not Naples or Delhi.

With the greatest respect, if you find driving a stretch of modern trunk road intimidating you should really consider whether you should be driving.
So you have difficulty with cars going faster than you and changing lanes? Come on people, it's the A12, not Naples or Delhi. With the greatest respect, if you find driving a stretch of modern trunk road intimidating you should really consider whether you should be driving. Biggus Davus
  • Score: 13

10:23pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

I think a little lack of confidence is healthy when it comes to driving. Too much Jeremy Clarkson can be dangerous ... and I've seen police drivers make mistakes through overconfidence.
I think a little lack of confidence is healthy when it comes to driving. Too much Jeremy Clarkson can be dangerous ... and I've seen police drivers make mistakes through overconfidence. Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

Biggus Davus wrote:
"We need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace."

This I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't believe slowing the country down is the answer.

"Sobering statistic".
Nope, just physics, but what about a car doing 15 mph, or even ten? or 5mph? What's the point of using a car again?

The roads network is suffering from reduction after reduction in speed limits and these are seen as improvements.
That people are spending longer sitting in cars with no reduction in accidents (if Scoots figures are accurate) should be seen as a failure.
Has anyone calculated the cumulative extra hours motorists are spending behind the wheel due to speed reductions, how much this costs, how much extra pollution is caused and what knock on effects these extra hours have on driver fatigue and overall health?
Who says there isn't a reduction in collisions (they're not accidents) with lower speeds? When Portsmouth went area-wide 20mph, casualties fell 22%; when Hull went 20, child casualties fell 77%. And please don't trot out that hackneyed statistic that deaths/injuries in 20mph areas rose sharply about five years ago: the reason that happened was that the actual mileage of 20mph roads increased vastly over the time period.

A variable 50/70mph on the A12 is also likely to bring down the number of collisions. So far, variable limits in the UK have resulted in 20% fewer damage-only crashes and 10% fewer injury crashes. Travel time has improved with a smoother flow. See http://mobility.tamu
.edu/mip/strategies_
pdfs/traffic_managem
ent/technical_summar
y/Variable-Speed-Lim
it-4-Pg.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Biggus Davus[/bold] wrote: "We need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace." This I wholeheartedly agree with, but I don't believe slowing the country down is the answer. "Sobering statistic". Nope, just physics, but what about a car doing 15 mph, or even ten? or 5mph? What's the point of using a car again? The roads network is suffering from reduction after reduction in speed limits and these are seen as improvements. That people are spending longer sitting in cars with no reduction in accidents (if Scoots figures are accurate) should be seen as a failure. Has anyone calculated the cumulative extra hours motorists are spending behind the wheel due to speed reductions, how much this costs, how much extra pollution is caused and what knock on effects these extra hours have on driver fatigue and overall health?[/p][/quote]Who says there isn't a reduction in collisions (they're not accidents) with lower speeds? When Portsmouth went area-wide 20mph, casualties fell 22%; when Hull went 20, child casualties fell 77%. And please don't trot out that hackneyed statistic that deaths/injuries in 20mph areas rose sharply about five years ago: the reason that happened was that the actual mileage of 20mph roads increased vastly over the time period. A variable 50/70mph on the A12 is also likely to bring down the number of collisions. So far, variable limits in the UK have resulted in 20% fewer damage-only crashes and 10% fewer injury crashes. Travel time has improved with a smoother flow. See http://mobility.tamu .edu/mip/strategies_ pdfs/traffic_managem ent/technical_summar y/Variable-Speed-Lim it-4-Pg.pdf Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -4

11:32pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Assimilation says...

I live where there is a total 20 MPH speed limit, and it does not work. Everyone wants to get where they are going as fast as they can.

I watch them every day and the worst offenders are the local drivers who live here, the same ones all the time, the yummy mummies on the school runs doing their makeup and hair to look their best at the school gates trying to out do each other. And a few commercial vehicles.

The only way to stop speeding is speed cameras or better still, full withe speed humps. And that would hack everyone off. But it would slow people down.
I live where there is a total 20 MPH speed limit, and it does not work. Everyone wants to get where they are going as fast as they can. I watch them every day and the worst offenders are the local drivers who live here, the same ones all the time, the yummy mummies on the school runs doing their makeup and hair to look their best at the school gates trying to out do each other. And a few commercial vehicles. The only way to stop speeding is speed cameras or better still, full withe speed humps. And that would hack everyone off. But it would slow people down. Assimilation
  • Score: 6

11:42pm Thu 6 Feb 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

1.excellent idea how about 15 mph?

2.quadricycle cars only in the third lane?

3.all lorries and HGV restricted to the inside lane only?

4.all flick back uber hairstyle Essex boys curfew after 2200 hrs?

5.house wives in people carrier XYZ Max Diesel turbo's to have electronic restrictors on them that cut the car out at 1500 RPM

6.blonde bimbo girlies to have their mobile phones/nail files/ and mcwimp burger/shakes confiscated and given to charity:

7.police to be issued with Lambos and heat seeking missiles

8. POLICE air support to be equipped with blue thunder Apache choppers and hell-fire weapons.

I MEAN AFTER ALL THIS IS ESSEX?
1.excellent idea how about 15 mph? 2.quadricycle cars only in the third lane? 3.all lorries and HGV restricted to the inside lane only? 4.all flick back uber hairstyle Essex boys curfew after 2200 hrs? 5.house wives in people carrier XYZ Max Diesel turbo's to have electronic restrictors on them that cut the car out at 1500 RPM 6.blonde bimbo girlies to have their mobile phones/nail files/ and mcwimp burger/shakes confiscated and given to charity: 7.police to be issued with Lambos and heat seeking missiles 8. POLICE air support to be equipped with blue thunder Apache choppers and hell-fire weapons. I MEAN AFTER ALL THIS IS ESSEX? A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: 3

8:46am Fri 7 Feb 14

pinkteapot says...

Why not start by getting people to stick to 70mph, rather than the 80-90mph that many people on that stretch travel at? The averaging cameras on the A14 around Cambridge are effective at keeping the traffic on a very busy stretch to a steady speed.
Why not start by getting people to stick to 70mph, rather than the 80-90mph that many people on that stretch travel at? The averaging cameras on the A14 around Cambridge are effective at keeping the traffic on a very busy stretch to a steady speed. pinkteapot
  • Score: 4

9:54am Fri 7 Feb 14

Catchedicam says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
Trouble is, Biggus and Scoot, that while congestion is a natural speed limiter, it doesn't limit it enough, and it doesn't limit everyone to the same degree (ie, they drive too closely and/or press on the traffic in front).

Yes, we can blame bad driving, education, habits and more traffic, but a reduced speed limit will affect the frequency/severity of RTCs - where a road death costs the public purse £1.4m and a serious injury £800k.

We cannot afford (financially or environmentally) the new roads needed for all the people who want to drive - and the evidence is that new roads fill up quickly anyway.

I was one of those calling for a 50 limit eight years ago, which Essex CC (which conducted the survey) and the Highways Agency ignored. How many lives could have been saved?

On top of a 50 speed limit, we need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace.
Will you please stop coming on here and posting common sense, don't you know that common sense and factual information is banned here? These forums are only for uninformed hype gleaned from prejudice, the Daily Mail and sometimes sheer guesswork.
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: Trouble is, Biggus and Scoot, that while congestion is a natural speed limiter, it doesn't limit it enough, and it doesn't limit everyone to the same degree (ie, they drive too closely and/or press on the traffic in front). Yes, we can blame bad driving, education, habits and more traffic, but a reduced speed limit will affect the frequency/severity of RTCs - where a road death costs the public purse £1.4m and a serious injury £800k. We cannot afford (financially or environmentally) the new roads needed for all the people who want to drive - and the evidence is that new roads fill up quickly anyway. I was one of those calling for a 50 limit eight years ago, which Essex CC (which conducted the survey) and the Highways Agency ignored. How many lives could have been saved? On top of a 50 speed limit, we need five-yearly driving refreshers with those who fail seeing their insurance premiums rocket. We also need government action to reward companies that give jobs to people who live close to their workplace.[/p][/quote]Will you please stop coming on here and posting common sense, don't you know that common sense and factual information is banned here? These forums are only for uninformed hype gleaned from prejudice, the Daily Mail and sometimes sheer guesswork. Catchedicam
  • Score: -2

11:38am Fri 7 Feb 14

romantic says...

While I don't know the cause of this specific accident, it does seem to me that crashes are caused more by people being too close together than purely by speed. If I leave a safe distance to the car in front, it is quickly filled. The outside lane can be like a train of cars all way too close together. Not sure if reducing the speed limit would do much about that, although statistically, a 50mph crash will kill less often than a 70mph one. But then why not say 40mph or 30mph? If people drive sensibly, 70mph is a safe speed.

It makes a lot of sense to have re-tests every 5 years, and make sure they include driving on motorways/dual carriageways. When I learnt to drive, many years ago, we never got out of town, the fastest I went was 50. I'm sure lots of people know the 2-second rule, but perhaps lots of people don't. The Highway Code includes stopping distances, but the evidence from actual roads is that too many people don't pay any heed to these facts.

Of course, compulsory re-testing every 5 years would be political suicide for whoever suggested it.. While people would perhaps agree in principle, it wouldn't be long before thousands found themselves living in the sticks, without a licence and no alternative transport. Papers like the Daily Mail would no doubt campaign for this - and then spend the next years showing the terrible hardships caused by this draconian nanny state measure.

In places in Europe, they put up signs such as "48 deaths in the past 6 years, next 50 km" and maybe that would focus the minds of drivers. We have "Keep your distance" signs, but again they seem to have little impact at busy times.

I think there may be a case for variable speed limits, so maybe drop it down as the traffic flow increases. Outside rush hour, 70mph is fine, but perhaps drop it to 60 or 50 when things are busy.

If people don't know how to use slip roads and merge in and out, they should probably not be on the roads anyway.
While I don't know the cause of this specific accident, it does seem to me that crashes are caused more by people being too close together than purely by speed. If I leave a safe distance to the car in front, it is quickly filled. The outside lane can be like a train of cars all way too close together. Not sure if reducing the speed limit would do much about that, although statistically, a 50mph crash will kill less often than a 70mph one. But then why not say 40mph or 30mph? If people drive sensibly, 70mph is a safe speed. It makes a lot of sense to have re-tests every 5 years, and make sure they include driving on motorways/dual carriageways. When I learnt to drive, many years ago, we never got out of town, the fastest I went was 50. I'm sure lots of people know the 2-second rule, but perhaps lots of people don't. The Highway Code includes stopping distances, but the evidence from actual roads is that too many people don't pay any heed to these facts. Of course, compulsory re-testing every 5 years would be political suicide for whoever suggested it.. While people would perhaps agree in principle, it wouldn't be long before thousands found themselves living in the sticks, without a licence and no alternative transport. Papers like the Daily Mail would no doubt campaign for this - and then spend the next years showing the terrible hardships caused by this draconian nanny state measure. In places in Europe, they put up signs such as "48 deaths in the past 6 years, next 50 km" and maybe that would focus the minds of drivers. We have "Keep your distance" signs, but again they seem to have little impact at busy times. I think there may be a case for variable speed limits, so maybe drop it down as the traffic flow increases. Outside rush hour, 70mph is fine, but perhaps drop it to 60 or 50 when things are busy. If people don't know how to use slip roads and merge in and out, they should probably not be on the roads anyway. romantic
  • Score: 7

2:48pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Mind your own business says...

The only words you need to read about this accident is 69-year-old, and woman, that tells you everything you need to know.
The only words you need to read about this accident is 69-year-old, and woman, that tells you everything you need to know. Mind your own business
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Stan Dolphin says...

I use the A12 regularly and more policing dealing with all the nutter doing such crazy things like crazy tailgating and using their mobile phones whilst driving and that includes truckers. Also Big van drivers are lethal.

Lets see how many more serious accidents occur in the next few weeks.

In addition all the dangerous slip roads at Witham and Kelvedon East and Rivenhall both London and Colchester bound. Its time Essex CC actually used our taxc monies properly!
I use the A12 regularly and more policing dealing with all the nutter doing such crazy things like crazy tailgating and using their mobile phones whilst driving and that includes truckers. Also Big van drivers are lethal. Lets see how many more serious accidents occur in the next few weeks. In addition all the dangerous slip roads at Witham and Kelvedon East and Rivenhall both London and Colchester bound. Its time Essex CC actually used our taxc monies properly! Stan Dolphin
  • Score: 2

10:30pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Suffolkcommuter says...

Mind your own business wrote:
The only words you need to read about this accident is 69-year-old, and woman, that tells you everything you need to know.
Me thinks you are a misogynist
[quote][p][bold]Mind your own business[/bold] wrote: The only words you need to read about this accident is 69-year-old, and woman, that tells you everything you need to know.[/p][/quote]Me thinks you are a misogynist Suffolkcommuter
  • Score: 2

8:46pm Sun 9 Feb 14

wormshero says...

pinkteapot wrote:
Why not start by getting people to stick to 70mph, rather than the 80-90mph that many people on that stretch travel at? The averaging cameras on the A14 around Cambridge are effective at keeping the traffic on a very busy stretch to a steady speed.
Valid point. I used to travel daily on the A14 before I moved to the area and it was an absolute nightmare during rush hour taking me an hour to cover
[quote][p][bold]pinkteapot[/bold] wrote: Why not start by getting people to stick to 70mph, rather than the 80-90mph that many people on that stretch travel at? The averaging cameras on the A14 around Cambridge are effective at keeping the traffic on a very busy stretch to a steady speed.[/p][/quote]Valid point. I used to travel daily on the A14 before I moved to the area and it was an absolute nightmare during rush hour taking me an hour to cover wormshero
  • Score: 1

1:32pm Wed 12 Feb 14

wormshero says...

wormshero wrote:
pinkteapot wrote:
Why not start by getting people to stick to 70mph, rather than the 80-90mph that many people on that stretch travel at? The averaging cameras on the A14 around Cambridge are effective at keeping the traffic on a very busy stretch to a steady speed.
Valid point. I used to travel daily on the A14 before I moved to the area and it was an absolute nightmare during rush hour taking me an hour to cover
Only just noticed it removed half of my post...

-Whenever I go back now I find the traffic moves much smoother as people aren't slamming their breaks on whenever they see a camera (for one reason) - Never understood why people slow down even when they're already going well under 70 :s
[quote][p][bold]wormshero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pinkteapot[/bold] wrote: Why not start by getting people to stick to 70mph, rather than the 80-90mph that many people on that stretch travel at? The averaging cameras on the A14 around Cambridge are effective at keeping the traffic on a very busy stretch to a steady speed.[/p][/quote]Valid point. I used to travel daily on the A14 before I moved to the area and it was an absolute nightmare during rush hour taking me an hour to cover[/p][/quote]Only just noticed it removed half of my post... -Whenever I go back now I find the traffic moves much smoother as people aren't slamming their breaks on whenever they see a camera (for one reason) - Never understood why people slow down even when they're already going well under 70 :s wormshero
  • Score: 1

10:46pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Smartlad47 says...

The times I have seen drivers approaching the London bound Stanway and also Marks Tey slip roads, initially in the fast lane then cutting across all lanes who shoot up the slip road at the last minute, , , is unbelievable , all to either save a few seconds or just to have that racer adrenaline pumping enroute to work . . .both sexes are to blame for this, and also ranging in ages, so no stereotypical person here, just idiots who think they are safe to drive like that and are invincible . . .
The times I have seen drivers approaching the London bound Stanway and also Marks Tey slip roads, initially in the fast lane then cutting across all lanes who shoot up the slip road at the last minute, , , is unbelievable , all to either save a few seconds or just to have that racer adrenaline pumping enroute to work . . .both sexes are to blame for this, and also ranging in ages, so no stereotypical person here, just idiots who think they are safe to drive like that and are invincible . . . Smartlad47
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree