Dinmore Hill yet again
Philip Dodd
Tuesday June 3 saw yet again another serious road accident at Dinmore Hill on
the A49. The road was closed for 5 hours, and two people are in hospital
with serious injuries. Everyone wishes them a speedy recovery.
It is heartbreaking for those of us living in north Herefordshire to hear
about these continual accidents. Walking round Leominster yesterday,
everyone was saying "Oh no ! Not again !".
The Highways Agency say they don't have the budget to do anything, and anyway
the road is no more dangerous than other trunk roads. They won't even put
warning signs up as that requires planning permission. Herefordshire Council
say that it's the Highways Agency's road.
A Shropshire senior police officer in an interview with the Ludlow Advertiser
said a few months ago that the A49 is OK - the problem is bad driving.
I agree with him totally. Every time I use the A49, I see many examples of
bad driving. People using mobile phones. People speeding. People
overtaking across solid white lines. Drivers far too close to the vehicle in
front. Drivers cannot be trusted to obey the Highway Code.
A way to make Dinmore Hill safe is to only allow overtaking by vehicles going
uphill, to put a "no-go" area between north and south carriageways, and to put
a 40 MPH speed limit on all the hill. A few months back, the Hereford Times
published my letter saying exactly that. The cost of paint needed to do it
pales into insignificance compared to e.g. the three Heads of Department jobs
described in the (London) Times last week each at salaries of 56,000 with
Herefordshire Council.
The public bodies concerned have reasons to do nothing, so the deaths and
injuries continue in the frequent incidents on the hill. If it's any
consolation to the people involved in the accidents and their relatives,
we in the Leominster area are exasperated by our inability to force the
authorities to act, but believe me it's not through want of trying.
Philip Dodd
--
Please replace NOSPAM with . for email contact
Philip Dodd - the website - http://home.freeuk.net/phildodd
Philip Dodd
wrote:
>I can assure you this isn't restricted to the A49.
No, but it's up to people within local communities to discuss openly problems
which affect them. One of the problems which affects us in north
Herefordshire is the high number of traffic incidents on Dinmore Hill. Many
people in Leominster town centre who I met on Tuesday were devastated that
there had been yet another accident, which closed the road for 5 hours.
Tragically, one of the people involved, who was seriously injured, hasn't
survived. Out of respect for that person's loss of life, if nothing else,
the debate of how to control traffic on the hill must surely be reopened.
>>A way to make Dinmore Hill safe is to only allow overtaking by vehicles going
>>uphill, to put a "no-go" area between north and south carriageways, and to put
>>a 40 MPH speed limit on all the hill.
>The type of driver you're complaining about won't take any notice of
>that.
>
That solution is one which has support amongst people driving over the hill
every day who I talk to. It has always been the case that roads with a
centre carriageway open for use by vehicles going in either direction have a
bad accident record. The first thing to do is to remove use of the centre
carriageway "both ways", as was quickly done on the upper stretch of the
Bewdley bypass after an initial spate of accidents when it was opened.
It will work on Dinmore Hill as there is so much traffic going over it, that
drivers won't have time to go onto the wrong carriageway between vehicles
coming the other way. Having hemmed drivers in to using the correct
carriageway, the next thing is to reduce their speed so that they retain
control on the bends.
This is a low-cost solution too. It can be implemented without the need to
go to the European Union for funding. A solution of widening the road to
dual-carrageway and putting metal safety barriers up the middle, as at Telford
would need E.U. funding.
I note in today's Ludlow Advertiser ( 5 June ), there is a report that
Councillor Peter Corbett of Woofferton Parish Council in S. Shropshire is
contacting the Highways Agency. The new bridge at Skew Bridge, Woofferton,
has meant that traffic on the A49 is going faster there ( exactly as I said it
would ). There is a new urgency to getting a roundabout at the Salway Arms.
He's rightly trying to get a solution for his local community.
Philip Dodd
>Devon recently and made two trips down there in the last 3 weeks. Some
>of the antics I saw on the M5 were unbelievable. I assume somebody got
>caught out when I came back last Friday evening because the whole
>motorway ground to a halt just south of Weston. I didn't find out why -
>I eventually was able to get off and bypassed that bit on the A38.
I'd always thought of the M5 as a good motorway as compared to, say, the M4.
Things must have changed for the worse.
You must be glad that those long journeys are over !
Tony Williams
Philip Dodd <p...@phildoddNOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> A Shropshire senior police officer in an interview with the Ludlow
For years the junction of the A438 and A417 at the
Trumpet was a regular widowmaker.... but with the
CC saying it was OK also. Then one day, as part of
yet another request to get something done about it,
a committee visited the junction, on yet another
fact finding visit. As they were walking back up
the road to their cars there was an almighty BANG
behind them..... yet another accident, right in
front of their eyes.
The Trumpet junction acquired a set of traffic
lights very soon after.
I don't do Dinmore Hill very often but on the few
times that I have it is obvious that it is a sudden
ambush on an otherwise fast road. Main trunk roads
should not have sudden ambushes on them, and I can't
see why that police officer regards it as OK.
Perhaps Philip the local council/police could be
persuaded to set up a video camera and record what
happens on Dinmore Hill for a a few days. See exactly
how many near misses there are, etc.
--
Tony Williams.
M. J. Powell
<to...@ledelec.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> For years the junction of the A438 and A417 at the
> Trumpet was a regular widowmaker.... but with the
> CC saying it was OK also. Then one day, as part of
> yet another request to get something done about it,
> a committee visited the junction, on yet another
> fact finding visit. As they were walking back up
> the road to their cars there was an almighty BANG
> behind them..... yet another accident, right in
> front of their eyes.
Wonderful committees you have - Eyes in the backs of their heads!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Tony Williams
M. J. Powell <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Wonderful committees you have - Eyes in the backs of their heads!
All committees run on hindsight........
--
Tony Williams.
Josey
"Philip Dodd" <p...@phildoddNOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbds6...@phildodd.freeserve.co.uk...
>
> A way to make Dinmore Hill safe is to only allow overtaking by vehicles
going
> uphill,
There is local precedence for doing this. This was done recently (in the
last year or two) on the Callow Hill on the A49 south of Hereford. You can
no longer overtake Northbound down the hill. I am not aware there has been
an accident there since, and IMHO it is much safer. Introducing a lower
speed limit at the same time may have been too draconian (it's still 60).
Jc.
M. J. Powell
<to...@ledelec.demon.co.uk> writes
Heh!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Philip Dodd
>
>> A way to make Dinmore Hill safe is to only allow overtaking by vehicles
>going
>> uphill,
>
>There is local precedence for doing this. This was done recently (in the
>last year or two) on the Callow Hill on the A49 south of Hereford. You can
>no longer overtake Northbound down the hill. I am not aware there has been
>an accident there since, and IMHO it is much safer. Introducing a lower
>speed limit at the same time may have been too draconian (it's still 60).
>
traffic on the Bewdley bypass "solid line" section abusing it.
There was yet another accident on the Leominster side of Dinmore Hill this
morning ( Friday ).
Aparently someone who has been championing making the Dinmore Hill "uphill
overtaking only" and has written to the lethargic Highways Agency many times
is a Hereford campaigner Edward Collier, so I'd better make it clear that
he must be credited with originating the idea, which is widely supported
by people in Leominster including myself as you gather.
It would be useful if the Highways Agency would admit that they need to
apply for E.U. money to make our roads safe for the current traffic that they
carry - especially our trunk routes.
Trevor Wright
"Philip Dodd" <p...@phildoddNOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbds6...@phildodd.freeserve.co.uk...
>
I agree with the one way overtaking lane part but the speed limit is likely
to only move the problem further down the road, the A49 (especially north of
Leominster) suffers from very few overtaking spots, Dinmore is a very good
overtaking opportunity, to put a 40MPH limit on it (and therefore ruin
another overtaking spot) would encourage more desparate overtakes on the
Leominster bypass and Wellington area.
Trevor Wright
> It will work on Dinmore Hill as there is so much traffic going over it,
that
> drivers won't have time to go onto the wrong carriageway between vehicles
> coming the other way. Having hemmed drivers in to using the correct
> carriageway, the next thing is to reduce their speed so that they retain
> control on the bends.
{rant mode}
We should not need a speed limit to prevent drivers crashing on bends. We
seem to be heading for a system where drivers assume that its impossible to
crash if they are within the speed limit. Perhaps more driver training is
required so that drivers look further ahead and adjust speed according to
road conditions. Those who are incapable of such a task should either
retrain or consider other forms of transport.
{end rant mode}
Thats better
Trev.
Trevor Wright
"Steve Glennie-Smith" <s...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4oBxHZBM...@glennie.demon.co.uk...
> In article <slrnbdvk...@phildodd.freeserve.co.uk> posted on Thu, 5
> Jun 2003, Philip Dodd <p...@phildoddNOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >The first thing to do is to remove use of the centre
> >carriageway "both ways", as was quickly done on the upper stretch of the
> >Bewdley bypass after an initial spate of accidents when it was opened.
> 'suicide lane'? Surely, these became obsolete many moons ago. There's
> an extra problem on the Hereford side of the hill: that very oblique
> turn-off to Bodenham, with northbound vehicles having to wait in the
> middle of the road for any southbound traffic before they can turn
> right.
>
>
They've prevented overtaking uphill before the junction now.
Trev.
Philip Dodd
wrote:
>needs replacing, but nothing else would get a chest of drawers *and* a
>mountain bike in the back, unless it is a 'V' word that isn't mentioned
>in polite company, certainly in the two-wheeled fraternity.
>
Sherpa vans have great popularity amongst 2-wheeled tourists as a means
of a mobile base. Undoubtedly you'd find one at the Russell, Baldwin &
Bright weekly car auctions at Leominster ( Wednesday nights, if I recall
correctly ). One of my work colleagues who lives in Ledbury has an old
dodge camper van which plugs in to any camping site in Europe ( if you
know what I mean ). Something along those lines. Or an Isuzu Trooper
long wheelbase - comfortable enough for a "day car" too and the third
safest vehicle on UK roads according to a recent survey ( the safest
being a Jaguar ). Only thing with the Troopers buying second-hand is to
pick one not rusty underneath at the back.
Philip Dodd
erve.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree with the one way overtaking lane part but the speed limit is likely
>to only move the problem further down the road, the A49 (especially north of
>Leominster) suffers from very few overtaking spots, Dinmore is a very good
>overtaking opportunity, to put a 40MPH limit on it (and therefore ruin
>another overtaking spot) would encourage more desparate overtakes on the
>Leominster bypass and Wellington area.
>
I'm working on the basis of a 40-limit means that they overtake at 55, giving
a combined crash speed of 40 + 55 = 95, instead of the present combined
crash speeds of up to 160 MPH. The "one-way overtaking" is the important
thing, and the change which everyone in Leominster that I talk to supports.
My own involvement with the Highways Agency relates primarily to the "Ford"
turn-off on the A49. When I first moved to Stoke Prior, I had an Astra
estate. One of the reasons I changed it for a Trooper ( although I now
have a Vitara ) was the number of times I went to go into the northbound
feeder lane to turn down to the golf course, to find cars coming towards
me the wrong way in the lane I wanted to use. The last occasion was when
I was already in the lane and a silver Volvo estate still entered the lane
from the wrong direction, overtaking a lorry. The reason that I'm not
typing this from a wheelchair is that I was able to pull back into the
northbound lane to avoid the Volvo.
After finding out that it was the Highways Agency who "own the road" and
that they are based in Birmingham, I wrote to them demanding warning signs
to southbound drivers at Ford, to slow down from 90 MPH and not to overtake.
After several weeks, the Highways Agency wrote back saying that they
wouldn't put up signs as they have to "apply for planning permission", and
that they'd try and see if they had spare capacity in their budget for
a future year to do something.
Thr trouble is that the Highways Agency and Herefordshire Council don't
have sufficient funds to make the roads idiot-proof. If they'd only admit
that fact, and draw up plans to go to the E.U. for funds to get decent
trunk roads, as Telford did in the 1980s.
Philip Dodd
erve.co.uk> wrote:
>{rant mode}
>
>We should not need a speed limit to prevent drivers crashing on bends. We
>seem to be heading for a system where drivers assume that its impossible to
>crash if they are within the speed limit. Perhaps more driver training is
>required so that drivers look further ahead and adjust speed according to
>road conditions. Those who are incapable of such a task should either
>retrain or consider other forms of transport.
>
>{end rant mode}
>
Probably that idea would meet with favour within the Government, as it would
mean not only the people doing the training/testing on wages of 5 pounds an
hour, but an army of pen-pushers behind them on salaries of 56,000 a year.
As you indicate, things seem out of control at the moment.
Tony Williams
Steve Glennie-Smith <s...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> They're just beginning - off to Newcastle on Sunday (though this one is
> self-inflicted). Just hope the old Montego holds together - it really
> needs replacing, but nothing else would get a chest of drawers *and* a
> mountain bike in the back, unless it is a 'V' word that isn't mentioned
> in polite company, certainly in the two-wheeled fraternity.
I thought the bike never mentioned by the two-wheeled
fraternity was the "Hardly Ableson".
--
Tony Williams.