Catthorpe re-modelling
Moderator: Site Management Team
- thatapanydude
- Member
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
- Location: Bedfordshire
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
I actually echo some of the comment to extend the A14 to the A5 for more reasons that just tidying up the non-motorway regulation issues. This also helps with access from the A14 to M1 South and it can be done easily via an old railway bridge under the M1.
Road is only 2 miles or so of S2 and helps access to the distribution centres taking HGVs off the M1, M6 at pinch points.
Road is only 2 miles or so of S2 and helps access to the distribution centres taking HGVs off the M1, M6 at pinch points.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
We can have a D3M A14 (previously M6) and it really won't do much.thatapanydude wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 15:28 I actually echo some of the comment to extend the A14 to the A5 for more reasons that just tidying up the non-motorway regulation issues. This also helps with access from the A14 to M1 South and it can be done easily via an old railway bridge under the M1.
Road is only 2 miles or so of S2 and helps access to the distribution centres taking HGVs off the M1, M6 at pinch points.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
My guess is that there wouldn't be; A14 J0-1 is not the sort of road that non-motorway traffic would want to go down.
The only figures I've seen in this respect were the traffic counts from before the upgrade, where the AADT for cyclists on A14 J1-0 was 0 for every year for which records were available. Those figures are rounded, so it doesn't necessarily mean that there were no cyclists, but it does imply an average of fewer than 1 cyclist attempting to use the stretch of road in question every 2 days. If the number of cyclists that were trying to use the road at the time when they had a legal exit from it is that low, the number of cyclists trying to use it nowadays is highly likely to be negligible/zero.
The only sort of non-motorway traffic that I'd expect could manage to make the journey down to A14 J0 is learner drivers without dual controls, and possibly mopeds. It would be a long, long distance on a busy D2 to cycle, or walk, or ride a horse. (Even then, I think you could make a plausible argument that most non-motorway traffic could simply just climb/jump over the fence blocking the emergency access sliproads; the sign on them is a "no motor vehicles" sign, after all. So it's motorised non-motorway traffic that would be in the most trouble upon reaching the junction.)
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
If people missed the signs at J1 what makes you sure they wouldn't do the same here ?thatapanydude wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 15:28 I actually echo some of the comment to extend the A14 to the A5 for more reasons that just tidying up the non-motorway regulation issues. This also helps with access from the A14 to M1 South and it can be done easily via an old railway bridge under the M1.
Road is only 2 miles or so of S2 and helps access to the distribution centres taking HGVs off the M1, M6 at pinch points.
In any case this junction is way overengineered for a simple escape road and t0o close to J0 to be regular junction. a simple slip down to Yelvertoft Road would do.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
If a learner without dual controls were to stop in a layby, remove L-plates, and then drive to the next exit off the M1 or M6, do you think they’d get away with it?ais523 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:24My guess is that there wouldn't be; A14 J0-1 is not the sort of road that non-motorway traffic would want to go down.
The only figures I've seen in this respect were the traffic counts from before the upgrade, where the AADT for cyclists on A14 J1-0 was 0 for every year for which records were available. Those figures are rounded, so it doesn't necessarily mean that there were no cyclists, but it does imply an average of fewer than 1 cyclist attempting to use the stretch of road in question every 2 days. If the number of cyclists that were trying to use the road at the time when they had a legal exit from it is that low, the number of cyclists trying to use it nowadays is highly likely to be negligible/zero.
The only sort of non-motorway traffic that I'd expect could manage to make the journey down to A14 J0 is learner drivers without dual controls, and possibly mopeds. It would be a long, long distance on a busy D2 to cycle, or walk, or ride a horse. (Even then, I think you could make a plausible argument that most non-motorway traffic could simply just climb/jump over the fence blocking the emergency access sliproads; the sign on them is a "no motor vehicles" sign, after all. So it's motorised non-motorway traffic that would be in the most trouble upon reaching the junction.)
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
If the learner is alert enough to stop in a lay-by before reaching the junction, they have a legal way to escape: simply swap places with the driver who's supervising them.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Probably, it would depend how advanced in their training they are. What would be better is a driver swap with the supervising driver taking over for that short distance, as long as they are insured. Although the learner wouldnt technically be insured to drive on the motorway anyway, so if the supervising driver isnt insured on the vehicle or hasnt got comprehensive able to drive other vehicles on another vehicle, then they are screwed either way.EpicChef wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 16:34If a learner without dual controls were to stop in a layby, remove L-plates, and then drive to the next exit off the M1 or M6, do you think they’d get away with it?ais523 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:24My guess is that there wouldn't be; A14 J0-1 is not the sort of road that non-motorway traffic would want to go down.
The only figures I've seen in this respect were the traffic counts from before the upgrade, where the AADT for cyclists on A14 J1-0 was 0 for every year for which records were available. Those figures are rounded, so it doesn't necessarily mean that there were no cyclists, but it does imply an average of fewer than 1 cyclist attempting to use the stretch of road in question every 2 days. If the number of cyclists that were trying to use the road at the time when they had a legal exit from it is that low, the number of cyclists trying to use it nowadays is highly likely to be negligible/zero.
The only sort of non-motorway traffic that I'd expect could manage to make the journey down to A14 J0 is learner drivers without dual controls, and possibly mopeds. It would be a long, long distance on a busy D2 to cycle, or walk, or ride a horse. (Even then, I think you could make a plausible argument that most non-motorway traffic could simply just climb/jump over the fence blocking the emergency access sliproads; the sign on them is a "no motor vehicles" sign, after all. So it's motorised non-motorway traffic that would be in the most trouble upon reaching the junction.)
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Only if the supervising driver is somehow insured to drive that vehicle.
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Although I haven’t looked up the law, the RAC at least suggests that anyone supervising a learner driver needs appropriate insurance (I suspect in most cases it’ll be the supervisor’s car and the learner would have additional insurance or be added to the supervisor’s policy).
Owen Rudge
http://www.owenrudge.net/
http://www.owenrudge.net/
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
If the learner's car being driven is shown as being taxed and insured on the police computer there will be little chance of being stopped if the L plates are removed. If the L plates are left on it will attract attention.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Locals on and around the A5 didn't want a link of this type. So why would we waste millions building one?thatapanydude wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 15:28 I actually echo some of the comment to extend the A14 to the A5 for more reasons that just tidying up the non-motorway regulation issues. This also helps with access from the A14 to M1 South and it can be done easily via an old railway bridge under the M1.
Road is only 2 miles or so of S2 and helps access to the distribution centres taking HGVs off the M1, M6 at pinch points.
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
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
- Patrick Harper
- Member
- Posts: 3202
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
- Location: Wiltshire
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Or just slap a motorway (to current design standards, i.e no hard shoulders) on the A14 as far as the first all-purpose junction east of Catthorpe.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
I would have thought that it is more likely than not that they are insured. The supervising driver is most likely to be a parent or a friend who owns the car or an instructor. I think only the very well-off learn to drive in a car they own themselves.lotrjw wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 18:32Only if the supervising driver is somehow insured to drive that vehicle.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 09:26
- Location: Littleport, Ely, Cambridge
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Out of interest, are they any other scenarios where someone can be fit to supervise but not drive a specific vehicle?
IIRC you can’t be on a phone, over the limit etc.
- Ruperts Trooper
- Member
- Posts: 12031
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
- Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
It's not a legal requirement https://www.gov.uk/driving-lessons-lear ... or-friends
Lifelong motorhead
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
No, it's not a legal requirement, which is why I said "should" rather than "must" – doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to have a supervising driver who is not able to drive the car if required.Ruperts Trooper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 09:37It's not a legal requirement https://www.gov.uk/driving-lessons-lear ... or-friends
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
I can tell you for sure as someone who isnt well off, I learned in my own car, so this was definitely an issue for me. I made sure that whoever was with me was either insured through their own insurance or through mine.trickstat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 22:53I would have thought that it is more likely than not that they are insured. The supervising driver is most likely to be a parent or a friend who owns the car or an instructor. I think only the very well-off learn to drive in a car they own themselves.
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
That is definitely very much advisable.lotrjw wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 14:21I can tell you for sure as someone who isnt well off, I learned in my own car, so this was definitely an issue for me. I made sure that whoever was with me was either insured through their own insurance or through mine.
To clarify, it just strikes me as a relatively unlikely scenario that a learner would be driving a road like the A14 to gain experience of a non-urban DC in a car that the person accompanying them is not insured to drive. Of course, you do get occasional incidents of foolish behaviour on our roads which go well beyond that.
Re: Catthorpe re-modelling
Well, that's not quite accurate. You've got a "no motor vehicles except authorised vehicles" access, so an errant cyclist can legally make their escape after passing the chopsticks. More concerning is the fact that the signage on the other end of these slip roads seems to be exactly the same. I.e. a cyclist can be riding along an all purpose road, proceed past only a no motors sign, and end up on the motorway.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 21:12There is an authorised vehicles only slip road for these eventualities. It's also where Mr Plod can give you a fine for ignoring the Section 36 traffic sign saying start of motorway 200 yards prior.Truvelo wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 21:02 I'm sure links to the local road network were removed to avoid ratrunning. Villages such as Swinford had plenty of traffic zooming through them prior to the junction being rebuilt. What I do agree with is a simple exit slip from the westbound A14 to allow prohibited traffic an escape route should it have continued past J1. Without an equivalent eastbound entry slip it would go some way to mitigating the effects of ratrunning.
There's enough warning on the westbound A14 even if it's unlawful and stupid signage.
I presume that therefore, while it would still be illegal, it would be unenforceable. And this applies to both the M1 and the M6!
Last edited by solocle on Mon May 10, 2021 12:29, edited 1 time in total.