A361 (was A39) Vergemasters - Update 05-07-07

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
ndp
Member
Posts: 1145
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 13:35

Post by ndp »

M19 wrote:Why don't they just mark them properly!!!!

Putting hazard lining adjacent to a lane shut off with bollards, it makes no sense. Surely a solid white line would have been consistent.
But still unlawful.

For the presumably-desired effect (i.e. removal of the central portion of the road as carriageway), I don't see what can be done lawfully bar installing a physical central reserve, or the same hatching without the bollards if no physical measures are acceptable. But one cannot derive a solution without knowing the problem....
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 24718
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Post by Helvellyn »

boing_uk wrote: But if there is nothing coming in lane 2, why should oposing traffic in the single lane be prevented from overtaking, if visibility and traffic conditions permit?
Because people aren't trusted to be able to make that judgement. If people only ever overtook when visibility permitted then there wouldn't be any need for the ordinary solid white line.
User avatar
coasterjunkie
Member
Posts: 2301
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 17:59
Location: Woodsetts, South Yorkshire

Post by coasterjunkie »

RichieGraham wrote:Image
If overtaking a cyclist, you are supposed to give a full car width as safety margin, in case the cyclist were to fall off whilst being passed. Here, there simply isn't room for anything larger than a van to pass a cyclist safely. Also, what would happen if a vehicle broke down? Or there was a tractor/milk float? That has to be the most unbelievably idiotic layout I have ever had the misfortune to set eyes on!

I'll be interested in the responses from the agencies involved with installing this, to see what justification they have!

Andy
Andy

If you've got it, a truck brought it!
User avatar
Roadtripper_Ian
Member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 21:14
Location: Central Buchan

Post by Roadtripper_Ian »

Thats just plain wrong. Broken line says you can cross it, bollards say you can't.

Iif they don't want people in the hatchings they just need a solid border to them. Why don't they know this?
"I don't make the rules, ma'am, I just make them up and write them down"
User avatar
highwaymana31
Member
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:27
Location: Keeping clear of idiots

Post by highwaymana31 »

Roadtripper_Ian wrote:Thats just plain wrong. Broken line says you can cross it, bollards say you can't.

Iif they don't want people in the hatchings they just need a solid border to them. Why don't they know this?
That's roughly what I wrote to there head of traffic management and head of the roads policing unit, but it took me two pages once my spleen had been fully vented. I've had a one-liner holding reply off the former, watch this space
Mr Brown, 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW_1rswyo
User avatar
RichieGraham
Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 00:27
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Contact:

Post by RichieGraham »

Update!

While I haven't yet received any replies to my letters, I drove up this stretch today, and the good news is that they have done something about the red/white hazard posts.
M4Mark wrote:They are only supposed to be used for warning of the edge of the carriageway or an obstruction near that edge (Not as an obstruction themselves)
and Glen then wrote:Are those posts correct? Shouldn't they be orange?
The bad news is that what they've done is changed these from being red/white posts to being orange posts...

Image

Sorry about the poor quality - I didn't notice the posts until I was on the way to meet somebody, so didn't get to the same bridge as before to take the photos. These therefore were done by my passenger in a moving vehicle in dim light...

You can just make out the now black posts on the opposite carraigeway. The lines look solid here - this was because we were moving. The sign on the bridge is one warning of likely queues; further proof that any emergency vehicles would be unable to get through!

Image
This pic shows that prior to the posts starting, double-whites mark the boundary to the hash markings. As the road was S2+1 here (two lanes this side, one the other), the road is three lanes wide, and here is where the opposite carraigeway now splits into the filter lanes for the Bishops Tawton (A377) roundabout.
I'm so embarassed that I wish everybody else would just die; Bender Bending Rodrẽguez, Futurama
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Post by traffic-light-man »

i was wondering why they didnt use them in the first place
Simon
User avatar
M4Mark
Member
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 22:17
Location: Reading

Post by M4Mark »

RichieGraham wrote:Update!
While I haven't yet received any replies to my letters, I drove up this stretch today, and the good news is that they have done something about the red/white hazard posts.
The bad news is that what they've done is changed these from being red/white posts to being orange posts...

You can just make out the now black posts on the opposite carraigeway. The sign on the bridge is one warning of likely queues; further proof that any emergency vehicles would be unable to get through!
They could paint them all the colours of the spectrum, IMO they are still an illegal obstruction of the highway.

The queue sign is also incorrect, I know the sign is far away in the picture but there appears to be no text plate with it.
The queue sign must be erected with a Queues likely plate to Diagram 584.1 below it.
Image
It only takes a few minutes to read the relevant parts of the TSRGD and Traffic Signs Manual which cover things like this.
Who on earth is in charge of this job, I suggest they get some training.
User avatar
RichieGraham
Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 00:27
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Contact:

Post by RichieGraham »

The sign on the bridge has been there for ages, before the works even. A sign further down does have the text plate. I have often seen both the signs shown on here as having no text plate attached - and you have to admit that not every sign confirms to the TSRGD.

As for the posts: from looking through this I'm not sure if they are completely illegal, but they are certainly dangerous.
I'm so embarassed that I wish everybody else would just die; Bender Bending Rodrẽguez, Futurama
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35880
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Post by Bryn666 »

I have seen reflector posts down the middle of a French S4 before, but that's a different context to doing it with a two lane road.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8399
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Post by DavidBrown »

RichieGraham wrote:Image
This pic shows that prior to the posts starting, double-whites mark the boundary to the hash markings. As the road was S2+1 here (two lanes this side, one the other), the road is three lanes wide, and here is where the opposite carraigeway now splits into the filter lanes for the Bishops Tawton (A377) roundabout.
Here's a high quality picture - taken from nearly exactly the same place - showing the layout before the bollards were changed.
DavidBrown
Member
Posts: 8399
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 00:35

Post by DavidBrown »

Another Update!

I have recieved a reply to this e-mail:
Dear Sir/Madam,

I have noticed that you have recently carried out improvement works on
the
A39 Barnstaple bypass, which includes new turning lanes and a quieter
surface - and on the whole a very good job has been done.

However, there is one particular stretch that gives me great concern.
This
is the A39 between the A377 at Bishops Tawton and the A361 at Portmore
Roundabout. The old eastbound overtaking lane has been hatched out to
accomodate a new turning lane approaching the A377 roundabout. Not only
this, but new hazard warning bollards have been installed.

The old overtaking lane apparently, according to yourselves, "had a
history
of accidents related to overtaking". However, in my opinion, the new
bollards will create far bigger dangers than before. Here are a series
of
"What If" scenarios for you:

What if a vehicle such as a lorry broke down in this section?
What if two cars shunted in heavy traffic?
What if roadworks affecting one lane needed to be carried out?
What if an emergency vehicle on a call was stuck behind, say, a tractor
or
other slow moving vehicle?
What if a motorcyclist came of his vehicle for whatever reason, ans
skidded
along the road surface?

Before the "improvements", all these situations could be easily dealt
with.
Traffic could be diverted around any breakdown or accident, a simple
lane
closure could enable roadworks to take place safely, emergency vehicles
could overtake slower vehicles and the motocyclists leathers (presuming
they
were wearing any, as they should) would protect them from the road
surface
and serious injury.

But now, any breakdown, accident or roadworks would force a complete
road
closure in at least one direction, so all traffic would have to be sent
through Barnstaple Town Centre.

Any emergency vehicle would have to wait for the end of the bollards
before
they could pass, wasting vital seconds and possibly costing lives. And
the
motorcyclist would slam into a bollard at 60mph, causing almost certain
serious, if not fatal injuries.

I also note that new signs warning of queuing traffic were installed on
this
stretch, and traffic will only get busier when the western bypass opens.
So
what is your solution for getting rid of congestion - by REDUCING the
road
space and capacity?! Wouldn't it have been a better idea, since this is
a
wide, open road, to have made it three lanes up to the Portmore
roundabout?
This would require no new tarmac, and added 50% to the roads capacity at

minimal cost.

I await your response with interest.

Yours faithfully,

David Brown.
This is their reply:
Dear Mr Brown,

Thank you for your recent email received at our offices in Exeter, on 8th December which has been forwarded to me to reply.

At the particular site to which you refer there is a history of injury accidents associated with overtaking and with vehicles travelling at speed over the brow and colliding with slower moving vehicles. One of the measures agreed to address the accident problem was to remove the overtaking lane whilst carrying out the major highway structural strengthening works.

At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to provide a longer right turn lane on the westbound approach to Bishops Tawton Roundabout. This is to improve the capacity of the approach once the new Bypass is opened when traffic levels on this approach are anticipated to significantly increase. This has been achieved within the existing road space without the need for widening.

I trust that the above explains the reasons for the recent changes. I would also add, for peace of mind, that the verge master posts placed within the centre lane can be removed within seconds, and can be knocked flat with very little effort. They therefore do not pose a problem for motorcycles or vehicle breakdowns.

Your sincerely

Simon Hill
So we have a proper name for the bollards - verge master posts.

I wouldn't exactly call it peace of mind, though. Yes, they can be removed in seconds, but it will take a lot more than 'seconds' for the police to get there so they can remove them in the event of breakdown/accident, and by the time they have got there long queues will have built up. It's also no good whatsoever for emergency vehicles on call.

And they can be knocked flat with very little effort? So can a big pile of bricks (not cemented together, of course), but that would still hurt a hell of a lot if hit at 60mph.

So, if these things are so easy to remove, how much do you dare me to carry on nicking them until they give up making any more! :wink:
boing_uk
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 16:01

Post by boing_uk »

It would be unlawful for a member of the public to remove the posts in the event of anobstruction of the traffic lane - it come under tampering with highway equipment which is covered in the highways act.

As M4Mark rightly says, these posts are an unlawful obstruction - well, at least thats my opinion.

And I wonder if the Engineer for the scheme is aware of those legal technicalities. I also wonder if they have ever riden a motorcycle... unless the aim of the scheme was to give motorcyclists a dedicated lane, which in this instance it would be perfectly legal for such to do so, given the broken line bordering the hatching.

I see a lawsuit ahead on this scheme...
User avatar
M4Mark
Member
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 22:17
Location: Reading

Post by M4Mark »

DavidBrown wrote:
Dear Mr Brown,
At the particular site to which you refer there is a history of injury accidents associated with overtaking and with vehicles travelling at speed over the brow and colliding with slower moving vehicles. One of the measures agreed to address the accident problem was to remove the overtaking lane whilst carrying out the major highway structural strengthening works.

I would also add, for peace of mind, that the verge master posts placed within the centre lane can be removed within seconds, and can be knocked flat with very little effort. They therefore do not pose a problem for motorcycles or vehicle breakdowns.

Your sincerely
Simon Hill
So we have a proper name for the bollards - verge master posts.
These are Glasdon Vergemaster Hazard Marker posts which according to Mr Simon Hill can be removed within seconds, knocked flat with little effort and do not pose a problem for motorcycles/vehicles. (He should have used the Flexmaster post rather than the Vergemaster as it is thinner and more suitable for being knocked over)

May I suggest he gets a series of them erected outside his office for him to drive in to at 30mph on both a car and motorbike and see if he can then tell me they can be knocked flat with little effort and pose no problem.

If he is responsible for this design and not just a council PR person I politely suggest that he reads the TSRGD and Traffic Signs Manual soon before coming up with anymore brilliant ideas.
User avatar
highwaymana31
Member
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:27
Location: Keeping clear of idiots

Post by highwaymana31 »

I received an e-mail reply on 22.12.06 and didn't get to see it until the evening of 24.12.06. Those that were in chat over Christmas were treated to the following snippets from there reply:

...You are quite right in your assertion that red and white vergemasters should not be positioned in the central area, as the Traffic Signs and General Directions only permits the use of uni-directional amber signs. This was an error in the Contract, which was not identified until the posts had been erected and has now been corrected on site.

...the County Council does not share your concerns on the placing of the vergemasters in the hatched area. Both during the design and auditing processes, safety of all users of the highway is at the forefront of our minds. However the County Council had concerns that the layout without the vergemasters may lead to a core of drivers overtaking in the hatched area regardless of any line restrictions. Since there was already a history of overtaking accidents on this section of road it would have been irresponsible to ignore this and rely solely on Police enforcement.

I would however add that your comments have been shown to our safety auditor and he will shortly be undertaking a post opening safety audit. Should this audit recommend any further changes other than those outlined above, please be assured that these will be carried out.


I shall not comment on the obvious

Watch this space I suppose :?
Mr Brown, 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW_1rswyo
A303Paul
Member
Posts: 5222
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 06:49

Post by A303Paul »

Why on earth dont they provide half width hard shoulders either side with the two carriageways further towards the middle separated with double SOLID white lines.
Last edited by A303Paul on Sat Dec 30, 2006 17:18, edited 2 times in total.
A303Paul
Member
Posts: 5222
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 06:49

Post by A303Paul »

boing_uk wrote:About time local councils lost all their highway authority powers to a regional agency, away from the political meddling. :furious: :furious: :furious:
Why dont you go the whole hog and abolish the HA too replacing with regional highway authorities for each region based on what happens in Greater London (where there are no longer any trunk roads at all - except the M1 M4 and M1)
User avatar
highwaymana31
Member
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:27
Location: Keeping clear of idiots

Post by highwaymana31 »

Do any of you believe a regional highway authority would be immune from political meddling. Where does the money come from :roll:
Mr Brown, 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwW_1rswyo
A303Paul
Member
Posts: 5222
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 06:49

Post by A303Paul »

Regional authorities have much bigger "wards" (in london each "ward" is the size of 2 or 3 london boroughs) because half of councillors are elected regionwide under PR therefore the potential for isshoooists in one town influencing them unduly is reduced, especially if the transport portfolio guy is one of the PR elected bods.
User avatar
RichieGraham
Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 00:27
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Contact:

Post by RichieGraham »

Personally, I'm still awaiting a reply from my letters; I mentioned this in Chat the other night that I received the standard 'It's nothing to do with us so we've passed your message on' letter from South West Highways (the people who carried out the works), so now Devon County Council has received three identical letters from me!

Let's just hope that they don't mind the fact that I actually work for them!

As also mentioned in Chat the other night, when Highwayman gave snippets of his reply, it appears that they wanted to change the three lanes into two, and that if such is the case they should have done what they did on the A361 at Knowstone - see here (thanks to DavidBrown for the photo again! I really ought to sort my own roads photo site out...)
I'm so embarassed that I wish everybody else would just die; Bender Bending Rodrẽguez, Futurama
Post Reply