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

[nedsram]

See Down the Hatch on my website for a detailed look at the subject.

My understanding was that drivers:

1. should not enter a hatched area bounded by a continuous line on their side;

2. should only enter a hatched area bounded by a dashed line on their side if it is necessary to do so.

The second one of course begs the question what is meant by "necessary". I see tailbacks locally caused by drivers waiting to turning right but staying out of the hatched area, even though it is bounded by dashed lines, when if they pulled across to occupy the hatched area there would be room for following vehicles to get past. In this context I would interpret "necessary" as necessary in order to avoid causing an obstruction. However - as always - they manage to create so much confusion that most people just stay out of the hatched areas "to be on the safe side".

Also near me, there is an inadequately short right turn lane at some traffic lights, and before that there is a wide hatched area. It is perfectly safe (and arguably perfectly legal) to use the hatched area as an extension of the right turn lane, but few people do, and you sometimes get dirty looks (or even get hooted at) if you overtake in the hatched area to join the right turn lane.

(Peter will probably know where I mean in both cases; they are both in the "village" where I live.)

It seems clear to me that if there is a dashed line on one side of a hatched area, the intention is that one can cross it to overtake - or to position yourself to turn right - if necessary. If this is not the case, then why on earth did the HA put "get back to your own side of the road" arrows at the end of the dashed line sections when they dumbed down the A6 between Stockport and New Mills? I've yet to see anybody overtake on these sections, so they might as well have prohibited overtaking altogether. Enforcement by FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

[PeterA5145]

Is the road in question NSL, by the way?

[Dave908]

That is awful. What Tw@ decided to do that??

[highwaymana31]

That is awful. What Tw@ decided to do that??

Somebody somewhere needs a bloody rocket. No thought has gone into the "what if's" (suppose that artic in the photo breaksdown etc). Somebody's designed it, somebody's approved it, and others have passed it at the different audit stages (I assume). Questions should be being asked

[rhyds]

That is beyond stupid! At the very least it should be S2+1 up the hill with a double-white line, all that's done is wasted the time, effort and resources that were spent building the road

[Conekicker]

That is awful. What Tw@ decided to do that??

Somebody somewhere needs a bloody rocket. No thought has gone into the "what if's" (suppose that artic in the photo breaksdown etc). Somebody's designed it, somebody's approved it, and others have passed it at the different audit stages (I assume). Questions should be being asked

...and someone will have done a risk ASSessment - which just goes to show what a complete waste of time that "management tool" is if you don't know what you're doing in the first place

They look like one of the flexible types, so how long before the local pond life/twockers realise what fun they can have with them They've cored into a perfectly servicable pavement, so what damage will the water ingress cause

An utter no-brainer and a complete waste of time, effort and money - still, it makes the rest of us look good, eh highwayman?

[jamesd]

Not quite sure what someone unfamiliar with the road will make of that at night and/or in heavy fog. Keeping to the right of the red posts and left of the white posts doesn't leave much roadway.

[M4Mark]

Who the **** approved that
IMO that is an illegal obstruction of the highway.
What about the danger to road users when someone hits one and it flys in to oncomming traffic.
Even if they could legally put them there red is only supposed to be on the nearside not the offside.

The rest of us at least try and get our jobs right and then this happens and lowers everyones opinion of us.

Which local authority is this?

[boing_uk]

Blimey charlie.

Someone would have a great case against the local authority if they hit those... if that central section is indeed to be impassable then:

a) the road markings should be solid, not broken
b) the markers should be amber, not red

Im seriously tempted to send that to the DfT for their comment...

... although what the DfT would/could actually do I have no idea...

[highwaymana31]

Richie/anybody

Can you tell me who's the highway authority for this route? I genuinely fear for highway users safety on this route and feel that I must bring it to both their attention and to that of those that Police the route. I would sincerely hope that these issues have been raised, but somehow I doubt it. One things for sure, if it was brought to my attention, those vergemaster posts would have been cut to ground level IMMEDIATELY, followed by other actions

[PeterA5145]

Can you tell me who's the highway authority for this route?

I assume it's Devon County Council as it's not a trunk road.

[SouthWest Philip]

Can you tell me who's the highway authority for this route?

I assume it's Devon County Council as it's not a trunk road.

It is, indeed, Devon County Council. I don't think such a scheme would have been considered by the HA when the road was trunk. Whilst not serving the most populous area of the country, presumably the rationale for downgrading the route, I think the de-trunking was a mistake.

My view is that the changes are extremely misguided. The previous S2+1 layout worked perfectly well and wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, an accident black spot.

I fear that by denying safe overtaking opportunties here the problems on the A361 to the east will be exacerbated. Because almost the whole route between Barnstaple and South Molton is built on an old railway lane there are no hills (except where they bypassed a tunnel). No hills equals no overtaking lanes which in turns leads to some drivers taking ill-judged risks overtaking into on-coming traffic. It is on these standard S2 (not WS2 incidentally) sections that accidents tend to happen.

[DavidBrown]

Yes, it is Devon County Council territory, with South West Highways carrying out the actual works.

In the photo, the traffic going away from us had the overtaking lane.

I should also point out that at either end of this new layout, there are no keep left bollards of any sort.

The exact location of this is here, between the A377 roundabout and the yellow road bridge.

[RichieGraham]

Yes, the old 2+1 arrangement was in favour of the traffic heading away from the camera. At the bottom (behind me) by the A377 roundabout, the layout here has changed so this side has two lanes on the entrance to the roundabout with only one lane leaving.

I was going to say that traffic would lighten once the bypass is completed, but actually it won't.

They could always try an S3 or a WS2 instead

[PeterA5145]

The photo doesn't show the ramps at each end designed to allow emergency vehicles to pass through:

[RichieGraham]

Richie/anybody

Can you tell me who's the highway authority for this route? I genuinely fear for highway users safety on this route and feel that I must bring it to both their attention and to that of those that Police the route. I would sincerely hope that these issues have been raised, but somehow I doubt it. One things for sure, if it was brought to my attention, those vergemaster posts would have been cut to ground level IMMEDIATELY, followed by other actions

I know you have, and now I've also written a letter regarding this matter. When I first posted about this, I was looking on the more humerous side of it, but now, while still seeing the funny side, I can see the more serious side of it. I would also suggest that any people in this area (well, DavidBrown!) also writes about this - the more who do the more likely they'll do something about it.

[DavidBrown]

I would also suggest that any people in this area (well, DavidBrown!) also writes about this - the more who do the more likely they'll do something about it.

E-mail already sent to DCC!

[novaecosse]

Blimey charlie.
a) the road markings should be solid, not broken
b) the markers should be amber, not red

Im seriously tempted to send that to the DfT for their comment...

... although what the DfT would/could actually do I have no idea...

That layout is absolutely diabolical!! Did that go through a safety audit?!

Whoever designed that needs to have a serious think about a change in career....
I've emailled the photo around some of my learned colleagues for some feedback..

[DavidBrown]

This was the content of my 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.

Sorry about the poor alignment - copied directly from Hotmail.

This is their reply:

Thank you for your email - this has been forwarded onto our engineering
design team to look into the issues you raise and to respond to you
direct.
Denise
Environment,Ecomony & Culture Directorate

Watch this space...

[scynthius726]

Don't you remember, David? I told you that overtaking was only ever performed by madmen and speedophiles. Won't you think of the childruuuuuuunn?