Aaargh.

Actually, sod it. I'm not going to let that be the last word on this.

My reply to the 'Scoping Note' fob-off the Highways Agency provided:

============================================================
3 September 2013

To: Highways Agency
CC: Tom Thacker (HCC), Sir George Young, MP, Cllrs Keith Watts & Eric Dunlop (B&DBC), Whitchurch Town Council


Dear ...

Thankyou for providing me a copy of the Scoping Note, which I re-attach here for those in CC.     (http://goo.gl/IqiynT)

I would like to raise the following points where I feel the Scoping Note misses the point or draws incorrect conclusions:

1) Page 15: 'Possible Remedial Options' - "Remedial measures at this location will not save any of the recorded personal injury collisions that have occurred on the slip road during the last 10 years, irrespective of severity of collision"

The three recorded crashes on the sliproad were the result of cars driving too fast, not being able to remain on the road, and crashing - for example: "Car travelling north  along slip road negotiates left hand bend at speed and driver lost control". These are a direct result of the speed limit posted being too high, drivers being lulled into thinking that the national speed limit is appropriate having just exited a 70MPH carriageway, and finding out too late there is a sharp corner to negotiate.

It is obvious that were the speed limit to be reduced on the slip road, these vehicles would not have crashed as they would not have been travelling at speeds too fast for the corner.

2) The conclusion (page 15, options 1 & 2) goes on to state: "However, if funded, some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road"

This is absolutely the case, and is what locals have been asking for. However, the eminently sensible suggestions are then shot down by the statement on the following page that: "In our conclusion it is stated that there are no solutions to mitigating the collisions identified and as such the score generated would not generate a positive score, with costs outweighing any Benefit"

This is total nonsense. These are two completely separate issues - one is concerning the SPEED of vehicles on the sliproad, the other is of vehicles driving the WRONG WAY up the sliproad.

Your report claims (wrongly) that nothing could have been done to prevent the three speed-related crashes on the sliproad, then goes on to say that because they couldn't have been prevented, there's no point in spending any money on the completely unrelated issue of HGV's and cars driving the wrong way up the sliproad. That this totally flawed logic made it into a formal report written by a senior road safety engineer and was allowed to then be issued to the public beggars belief. Is this Enterprise Mouchel/Highway Agency's usual standard?

Conclusions

In the conclusion, the report states that:

"Whilst statistics show that this area is above the investigatory levels and trends, the actual collision numbers are low. Any small increase or decrease in collisions, which could be subject to random fluctuations, results in a significant percentage change and as such these trends and investigatory levels should be treated with caution"

Who decides the benchmark here? The number of collisions in relation to vehicle movements is either above or below the 'trigger levels' for work. Binary - yes or no. The number of crashes is ABOVE the national average by THREE TO FOUR TIMES, yet your report dismisses this as needing to be 'treated with caution' - funnily enough, exactly how locals have come to treat this intersection, for fear of life or limb. The three collisions wer all of the same type - loss of control due to excess speed. These are not 'random fluctuations', rather built-in design failings.

"Any decision to change a speed limit is to be guided by the level of collisions occurring on that stretch of road. The relationship between the speed limit and collision frequency has led to the establishment of Investigation Levels, which trigger if action is required. From the information provided by the Safety Team this trigger point has not been reached"

What are the 'trigger levels'? How many more people need to be hurt? Is 3-4 times the national or area average not high enough?

"Reduction in the speed limit is unlikely to alleviate the concern of vehicles going the wrong way up the slip road"

I could not agree more. 

"None of the remedial works proposed, if funded, would save any STAT19 personal injury collisions, however, some remedial works may alleviate the anecdotal problem of vehicles heading the wrong way up the slip road"

Yes. Finally. So what I would like to see is for HCC / Highways Agency plan to put in place the suggested remedial works in Options One and Two to prevent vehicles driving up the sliproad the wrong way - which should also have the add-on effect of preventing vehicles exiting the sliproad from crossing onto the wrong side of the road into the face of oncoming Tufton-bound traffic - a problem reported by locals but not acknowledged in the report at all.

And also I would like EM/HA to acknowledge that these are two completely separate issues and therefore the flawed cost/benefit assumptions are not relevant.

Regards