Is this a good time to note that it is not a requirement on the Council to implement / act on all suggestions set out in an RSA1? Has anyone read the Council's 'Designers Response' to the RSA, where they will have no doubt responded to this point? They defiitely should have.
As you might have guessed, I haven't btw, but it may well be that they ultimately determined that the principle of seeking to limit general traffic speeds to 20mph on the route overided the potential for the odd clown to drive through marked parking bays in order to try to avoid the need to slow down just a little bit.
The point of an RSA1 is for an independent party to review an initial scheme & highlight any potential issues for the original designer to consider in more detail and respond to when progressing their scheme. There are further stages to go through when designing the works in detail and implementing on the ground.
@Belly I have previously requested this information from the highways team and been met with a wall of silence other than two very succint statements.... (it took them 9 months to reply, despite repeated requests).
· Normal procedures and standards were not always observed
· A Road Safety Audit was carried out and did not identify the cushions outside of 85 Stockport Road as a hazard
point 1 suggests that it's OK to breach regulations written in law and point 2 is a lie if one cares to read para 8.4.2 of the RSA1.
I don't believe an RSA2 or stage 3 has been carried out as it should have been during the implementation phase and despite many opportunities for a "designers response" the only response provided when questioned has been the two points above. Similarly, the breach of The Highways Regulations (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 has not been explained ... namely cushions within 30m of a pedestrian crossing; again a wall of silence and not even information as to which regulations apply, even when asked! The RSA1 was done without any speed or traffic data so your suggestion that
the principle of seeking to limit general traffic speeds to 20mph is without foundation with no evidence to suggest that prior to the measures, speeds exceeded 20mph, similarly, there is no evidence that post implementation, speeds are below or limited to 20mph. It is worth noting however, that the measures were implemented to make social distancing safer as we came out of lockdown and the cushions next to laybys actually reduce safety in this regard as the RSA1 comments allude to in paras 8.4.1, 8.4.2 8.4.3 & 8.4.4. swerving is seen as the risk, NOT speed!
Recent Posts
