BBC:A34 safety improvements planned for problem route

[c2R]

Here's a news article big on headlines and short on detail:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-o ... e-49070054


and that detail that there is, isn't quite right... "The A34 is a 62-mile route from Winchester to Bicester"

[Berk]

Just because we know that’s not the entirety of the route, it surely is the entirety of the trunk section??

And as the article points out, the proposals fall a long way short. Many of the problems seem to be conflicts with motorbikes and lorries. Or the hill section at East Ilsley.

[Paul7755]

Just because we know that’s not the entirety of the route, it surely is the entirety of the trunk section??

And as the article points out, the proposals fall a long way short. Many of the problems seem to be conflicts with motorbikes and lorries. Or the hill section at East Ilsley.

Sad for families involved, but I have difficulties blaming the road for pretty rare accidents involving pedestrians walking along the A34 in the middle of the night. No amount of signs would prevent that, so what else could reasonably be done?

Paul

[Berk]

Besides which, I think the ‘big hill’ plays a factor in driver behaviour. It causes some to brake or slow down irrationally; if the road ahead is clear, why would you slow down or brake just because it’s a little bit steeper than usual??

No worse than the A30 or A38 anyway. I think it was something like this that leads to the stationary traffic sometimes found there. Which in turn lead to the inattention collision - because the Polish lorry driver was listening to music, not observing that the traffic had stopped, before ploughing into the back of a family car.

[Johnathan404]

Here's a news article big on headlines and short on detail:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-o ... e-49070054

That will be the result of a Highways England press release, and you have outlined the Highways England mantra. Not only does the road technically not end at Bicester, but according to Highways England's signs it is in fact 63 miles long. (That is hardly the error of the century, but then there are few major roads who's length I know off-by-heart!)

The alignment of the A34 is absolutely fine when traffic is light and everybody is paying attention. The problems are:

- it is often carrying dense flows of traffic which means changing lanes and joining the road requires additional caution

- the frequent gradients and short slip roads encourage lane changing and joining from a slow speed

- a lot of the route is severely congested which means heavy braking is common (Abingdon to the M40 and around Winchester)

- the high proportion of HGVs and their 'elephant racing', as well as all the army convoys, create their own queues and add to the domino-braking. Over the last few years I also recall encountering pedestrians, cyclists, tractors and stranded vehicles.

- when something does go wrong the carriageway is often narrow with little space to swerve; in addition visibility is poorer than you might expect from a fast road and there is very little VMS coverage

- in addition, a point that doesn't receive much attention: much of the route is prone to severe fog, which is something natives to the south Hampshire end of the route will not be used to.

These issues cannot be fixed without a significant and costly re-build: we are talking 62 (or 63) miles of reconstruction. I would not expect that to be announced any time soon. No hard shoulder is going to be provided as that's not HE policy. With that in mind, additional signs to highlight the hazards is all we can reasonably expect. I'd class it as routine refurbishment rather than a major upgrade, though.

Closing lay-bys as an answer is cheating, because the lay-bys are a problem but the HGVs are not resting in them for fun: it's just changing a problem rather than solving it.

With regards to the incidents listed, most appear to be caused by an obvious human error. Neither article is clear on exactly where the pedestrian was struck, but all of the A34 from Newbury to Chieveley has a clearly signed safe route for cyclists, most of which is joined by a pedestrian footway.

However, while those collisions may have been easily avoidable, for the reasons outlined above the A34 is a magnet for serious collisions, especially rear-end shunts. Simply put, careless behaviour that could happen anywhere is more likely to go wrong on the A34.

Besides which, I think the ‘big hill’ plays a factor in driver behaviour. It causes some to brake or slow down irrationally; if the road ahead is clear, why would you slow down or brake just because it’s a little bit steeper than usual??

It is not exactly ground-breaking that gradients affect traffic flow. They affect people's speed and some drivers are more alert to that than others. There is a reason why the most common Talivan parking spots on the A34 are all at the bottom of hills.

I'm not sure what the reference to brakes is because drivers are taught (rightly or wrongly) to use the brakes to control their speed on a downhill, and besides on a fast and steep downhill like at East Ilsley there are few other options for those who don't want to exceed the legal speed limit. The problem is people not paying attention - whether that's to your own driving or to what those around you are doing.

[hoagy_ytfc]

and that detail that there is, isn't quite right... "The A34 is a 62-mile route from Winchester to Bicester"

istm that it's an accurate statement of the problem section they're referring to. Though arguably you could just say Newbury to Bicester which is the worst part.

[nowster]

Maybe they forgot that a 3 zone road reaches Salford?

[hoagy_ytfc]

By any reasonable definition, the A34 in the Manchester area is a different road to the A34 under discussion, but happens to share a number for historical reasons.

[Micro The Maniac]

By any reasonable definition, the A34 between Solihull and Salford is a different road to the A34 under discussion, but happens to share a number for historical reasons.

FTFY It's a lot more than just "the Manchester area"

Even this ignores the fact that this stretch is now two disconnected sections, although it is reasonable (IMHO) that they retain a shared number - it's just a matter of debate as to whether it should be the A34