Do Sheffield City Council Have Something Against Roundabouts ?

[Chekhov]

5 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

4 slight accidents 

Interesting how they define a "slight accident".

An accident on Langsett Rd (just on the northbound exit from the village) in 2016 is down on crashmap* as a slight accident.

I know what happened there. An ****hole in an Audi (with his girlfriend in the car ! ) had hammered overtaking past multiple cars as they approached the blind bend. And I mean hammered it, I heard it and he was revving that car so high I thought it was  a motorbike. Till I heard a massive thud because a bus came round the corner and he hit it. All the air bags went off and his car was a write off, but they were very lucky. If it'd been a car coming, instead of a bus,  and it'd probably have been travelling faster than a bus too, it could have been fatal.

 

* I am assuming it was the same accident, it's even worse if it's actually referring to a different one and the above mentioned accident is not even on there !

 

12 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

11 slight accidents since 2013, which is when the camera speed control was introduced. No serious accidents, no fatalities.

If I zoom out to the area of North Sheffield, plenty more locations with serious incidents.

So, might be busy, awkward, whatever. But dangerous? The statistics say otherwise.

Say what you like but a roundabout would have been by far the best solution for that junction, and I am certain anyone who actually uses it would agree with me, and not you.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Chekhov

[altus]

10 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

11 slight accidents since 2013, which is when the camera speed control was introduced. No serious accidents, no fatalities.

 

If I zoom out to the area of North Sheffield, plenty more locations with serious incidents.

 

So, might be busy, awkward, whatever. But dangerous? The statistics say otherwise.

If an awkward junction means people pay extra attention it may well result in fewer accidents than if the junction were perceived to be easier to navigate.

[Bargepole23]

7 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Interesting how they define a "slight accident".

An accident on Langsett Rd (just on the northbound exit from the village) in 2016 is down on crashmap* as a slight accident.

I know what happened there. An ****hole in an Audi (with his girlfriend in the car ! ) had hammered overtaking past multiple cars as they approached the blind bend. And I mean hammered it, I heard it and he was revving that car so high I thought it was  a motorbike. Till I heard a massive thud because a bus came round the corner and he hit it. All the air bags went off and his car was a write off, but they were very lucky. If it'd been a car coming, instead of a bus,  and it'd probably have been travelling faster than a bus too, it could have been fatal.

 

* I am assuming it was the same accident, it's even worse if it's actually referring to a different one and the above mentioned accident is not even on there !

 

Say what you like but a roundabout would have been by far the best solution for that junction, and I am certain anyone who actually uses it would agree with me, and not you.

At what cost? Is it worth the money?

 

It may well be the optimum solution, but it would delay traffic on the A61, which has a time cost for those being delayed. Might lead to an increase in accidents, stopping traffic on a 50mph road. 

 

As per your other roundabout argument, you have no clue as to the costs and knock on effects.

[Chekhov]

5 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

At what cost? Is it worth the money?

It may well be the optimum solution, but it would delay traffic on the A61, which has a time cost for those being delayed. Might lead to an increase in accidents, stopping traffic on a 50mph road. 

As per your other roundabout argument, you have no clue as to the costs and knock on effects.

An extra roundabout would make sod all difference time wise, you want to see how many there are on Dearne Valley Parkway !

 

Most people don't actually have to stop to use a roundabout, if they time it right they just have to slow down.

If you are arguing a roundabout would be the best solution but they just don't want to spend the money that's a legitimate argument to make but, as stated above, there are loads of roundabouts on Dearne Valley Parkway so they can't be that expensive..... 

I just disagree with the view to you appear to have made more than once that roundabouts would not be the best solution.

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

23 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Interesting how they [crashmap] define a "slight accident".

An accident on Langsett Rd (just on the northbound exit from the village) in [June] 2016  is down on crashmap* as a slight accident.

I know what happened there. An ****hole in an Audi (it would be an Audi wouldn't it, and his girlfriend in the car.....) had hammered it overtaking multiple vehicles as they approached the blind bend. And I mean he hammered it, I heard it and he was revving that car so high I thought it was a motorbike. Then I heard a massive thud because he hit a bus coming round the corner.

His car was a write off, but they were actually very lucky.

The bus driver was lucky because the car hit the near side, not the corner where she was sat....

If it'd been a car coming (instead of a bus) it'd probably have been travelling faster than a bus so it could have been fatal.

If it'd been a truck (they don't crush as well because there's an engine there....) so again, possibly fatal.

It would almost certainly have been fatal had the vehicle coming the other way been a motorbike.

 

* I am assuming it was the same accident, it's even worse if it's actually referring to a different one and the above mentioned accident is not even on there !

I think @Planner1 might be interested in this.

I have checked in my diary and this is the same accident.

That was a "slight" accident ! ? ! Are they joking !

It was a high speed head on smash with potentially fatal consequences !

One wonders what they define as a "nothing" accident......

A friend of mine had what I would consider a "slight" accident (on Leppings Lane in 2012) and it isn't even on Crashmap.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Chekhov

[Planner1]

On 12/12/2023 at 21:41, Chekhov said:

I think @Planner1 might be interested in this.

I have checked in my diary and this is the same accident.

That was a "slight" accident ! ? ! Are they joking !

It was a high speed head on smash with potentially fatal consequences !

One wonders what they define as a "nothing" accident......

A friend of mine had what I would consider a "slight" accident (on Leppings Lane in 2012) and it isn't even on Crashmap.

Road traffic accidents are officially categorised by the severity of injuries which occurred:

• slight
• serious
• fatal

A slight injury is a sprain / strain or bruise. Serious is broken bones, hospitalisation.

 

The recorded statistics (Stats 19 reports) produced by the police don’t concern themselves with the potential consequences of any collision, they cover the facts, what happened, what was the outcome ( severity of injuries) and what were the causes.

 

Non injury accidents are not recorded, because they don’t need to be reported to the police.

 

The government is most interested in reducing killed and seriously injured casualties and funding generally goes into dealing with locations which have several of these in a 3 to 5 year period.

 

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Road traffic accidents are officially categorised by the severity of injuries which occurred:

• slight
• serious
• fatal

A slight injury is a sprain / strain or bruise. Serious is broken bones, hospitalisation.

The recorded statistics (Stats 19 reports) produced by the police don’t concern themselves with the potential consequences of any collision, they cover the facts, what happened, what was the outcome ( severity of injuries) and what were the causes.

Non injury accidents are not recorded, because they don’t need to be reported to the police.

The government is most interested in reducing killed and seriously injured casualties and funding generally goes into dealing with locations which have several of these in a 3 to 5 year period.

Thanks for your answer, it explains why that serious accident was reported as a slight accident !

 

>>The recorded statistics (Stats 19 reports) produced by the police don’t concern themselves with the potential consequences of any collision, they cover the facts, what happened, what was the outcome ( severity of injuries) and what were the causes.<<

 

This is a bit inconsistent.

The causes of that accident were serious, very serious.

 

and here :

>>The government is most interested in reducing killed and seriously injured casualties<<

 

If that is the case they should have been very interested in that accident

 

I'd be interested to know if the Audi driver was prosecuted for dangerous driving, he certainly should have been.

As an aside, if the government are "most interested in reducing killed and seriously injured casualties" the cheapest and most effective way of doing that is to have a website that dashcam footage [of dangerous driving] can be uploaded to and every single piece is  carefully watched by the police and acted on. Obvious dangerous driving would result on prosecution but even if it is only "risky" driving the police would contact the driver and warn them that their driving was unsafe and that has been recorded. Multiple reports would result in loss of licence.

Doing that would effectively, and cheaply, put tens of thousands of unmarked police cars on the roads.

[Planner1]

14 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Thanks for your answer, it explains why that serious accident was reported as a slight accident !

 

>>The recorded statistics (Stats 19 reports) produced by the police don’t concern themselves with the potential consequences of any collision, they cover the facts, what happened, what was the outcome ( severity of injuries) and what were the causes.<<

 

This is a bit inconsistent.

The causes of that accident were serious, very serious.

 

and here :

>>The government is most interested in reducing killed and seriously injured casualties<<

 

If that is the case they should have been very interested in that accident

 

I'd be interested to know if the Audi driver was prosecuted for dangerous driving, he certainly should have been.

As an aside, if the government are "most interested in reducing killed and seriously injured casualties" the cheapest and most effective way of doing that is to have a website that dashcam footage [of dangerous driving] can be uploaded to and every single piece is  carefully watched by the police and acted on. Obvious dangerous driving would result on prosecution but even if it is only "risky" driving the police would contact the driver and warn them that their driving was unsafe and that has been recorded. Multiple reports would result in loss of licence.

Doing that would effectively, and cheaply, put tens of thousands of unmarked police cars on the roads.

Well, according to the official way of categorising collisions, it wasn’t serious.

 

High speed may have been a factor and as I said, the police record the causation factors in the Stats 19 report.

 

Prosecutions are a matter of public record, but I’d think you would have to do a lot of research to find out whether a prosecution resulted from a particular incident.
 

As far as I’m aware, people can give camera footage to the police, who do take action in appropriate cases.

 

The money that the government / councils put into road safety engineering is generally targeted at locations which have higher numbers of recorded serious injury accidents or fatalities. Some councils put smaller amounts of money into addressing locations where there is a perception of being unsafe.

 

They do what they can with the money available to address the places where collisions are having the highest impacts on people, the NHS and emergency services and the economy as a whole.

 

What you are suggesting is an altogether greater order of magnitude. 
Latest figures for 2022 suggest:

1.7k killed

30k seriously injured

104k slight injuries

 

If you are expecting the authorities to investigate and take action on slight injury collisions and even ones which involve no injuries, it would be an enormous task needing huge investment. What other activity would you suggest cutting to pay for it, as there’s no “new” money, it has to come from somewhere.

[Chekhov]

4 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Well, according to the official way of categorising collisions, it wasn’t serious.

High speed may have been a factor and as I said, the police record the causation factors in the Stats 19 report.

Prosecutions are a matter of public record, but I’d think you would have to do a lot of research to find out whether a prosecution resulted from a particular incident.

As far as I’m aware, people can give camera footage to the police, who do take action in appropriate cases.

The money that the government / councils put into road safety engineering is generally targeted at locations which have higher numbers of recorded serious injury accidents or fatalities. Some councils put smaller amounts of money into addressing locations where there is a perception of being unsafe.

They do what they can with the money available to address the places where collisions are having the highest impacts on people, the NHS and emergency services and the economy as a whole.

What you are suggesting is an altogether greater order of magnitude. 
Latest figures for 2022 suggest:

1.7k killed

30k seriously injured

104k slight injuries

If you are expecting the authorities to investigate and take action on slight injury collisions and even ones which involve no injuries, it would be an enormous task needing huge investment. What other activity would you suggest cutting to pay for it, as there’s no “new” money, it has to come from somewhere.

I am taking issue with the fact that that particular accident is one that almost all would define as serious.

As to the cost of engineering and/or investigations to lower the appalling till that are road casualties, they found £400 Billion to spend of Covid didn't they ?

 

>>As far as I’m aware, people can give camera footage to the police, who do take action in appropriate cases.<<

 

I am suggesting use of that should go up by an order of magnitude. I am certain it would result of significantly less aggressive / dangerous driving, possibly even its elimination almost completely. And at very little cost.

The government should advertise the existence of the portal (for uploading cash cam footage of dangerous driving) and emphasise it is all taken very seriously and carefully scrutinised and that it does result in prosecutions and driving bans.

[Planner1]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I am taking issue with the fact that that particular accident is one that almost all would define as serious.

As to the cost of engineering and/or investigations to lower the appalling till that are road casualties, they found £400 Billion to spend of Covid didn't they ?

 

>>As far as I’m aware, people can give camera footage to the police, who do take action in appropriate cases.<<

 

I am suggesting use of that should go up by an order of magnitude. I am certain it would result of significantly less aggressive / dangerous driving, possibly even its elimination almost completely. And at very little cost.

The government should advertise the existence of the portal (for uploading cash cam footage of dangerous driving) and emphasise it is all taken very seriously and carefully scrutinised and that it does result in prosecutions and driving bans.

Irrespective of what you think, the official way of categorising road traffic accidents has been in place for decades. I remember it as far back as the early 1980’s.

 

Its an objective way of categorising, based on the outcomes in terms of injuries sustained.

 

Your categorisation is subjective, based on third hand accounts. They aren’t going to change an established national system that’s been operating just fine for a long time just because you don’t like it.

 

Why would they want to create a centralised portal? If you have a concern and you have footage, you send it to your local police. It’s simple, there’s no need to complicate it. You might also perhaps consider that your suggestion of everyone spying on each other and reporting any transgressions to the authorities might be seen as rather distasteful by many.