Another crash at Woodmere Avenue width restriction (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Yet another crash renews calls for Woodmere Avenue width restriction to be altered
4:12pm Thursday 18th October 2012 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Another crash at Woodmere Avenue width restriction
A serious crash at a controversial north Watford width restriction, which left a young woman trapped and hysterical in her car, has prompted renewed calls for it to be altered.
Firefighters had to cut the top off the red Renault Clio to free a 24-year-old woman after it became wedged in the bollards in Woodmere Avenue on Wednesday morning.
The young female motorist was complaining of neck and back pain after the accident and was later taken to Watford General Hospital.
Barry Felton, a Woodmere Avenue resident who lives next to the restriction, came out to help when he heard the Renault smash into the bollards.
He said: "The girl was crying and hysterical, I felt so sorry for her. She was trapped and I could not force the doors open. When she started to complain about her back and neck I told her to stay upright."
The accident is one of the more serious recent incidents to happen at contentious width restriction, which has seen scores of vehicles damaged since it was made narrower in February last year.
Hertfordshire County Council was taken to court by one motorist last year who unsuccessfully tried to sue the authority for the damage the width restriction did to his vehicle.
Residents in the road have made repeated calls for the traffic calming measure to be modified to stem the frequent accidents. Highways bosses have painted extra road markings to guide drivers but refused to make substantial changes to the restriction.
Mr Felton, a 66-year-old retired driving instructor, said there were still regular accidents there including one recently involving a car containing a six-month-old baby.
He called on the county council to remove some of the bollards for the restriction to make it less hazardous.
He said: "Why do they want to see people’s vehicles smashed to smithereens? They are determined not to take it out. If they take it out they will be accepting liability.
"If they take eight poles out, people could get through it without damage. It is just senseless. It is utterly criminal that damage is being done."
Mr Felton added that Woodmere Avenue residents were also having their cars damaged by vehicles turning around in the road to avoid the restriction.
Following the latest crash, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, who sits on the town’s highways panel, said were no plans to alter the width restriction.
He said the number of accidents and complaints had slowed down since it was first altered.
Councillor Giles-Medhurst added: "There were quite a few complaints in the beginning when people were not judging the width of their vehicles. But when I have been down there I have followed transit vans that have gone through without any problem.
"I have a slightly wider car and have to go through slowly, but that is the reason for a width restriction."
Comments(84)
captain lard
says...
4:42pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Whilst I have to chuckle to myself at the drivers who through their own inability to navigate a restriction blame the design that thousands of others manage perfectly well, there is a serious point here. The car pictured will be scrapped which means the insurance company will be picking up the bill (assuming fully comp insurance) which means my insurance will increase to cover the liability.This restriction is there to stop large vehicles, not test the competence of those driving small vehicles. Whilst the council will no doubt remain stubborn, they must realise there are financial implications. If the restriction is damaged it will need to be repaired, the emergency services have yet again had to attend and as previously mentioned insurance companies will have another excuse to raise premiums. The council doesn't have to admit any liability but it does have to except that the restriction is not their to cost me money, so get a grip and get it sorted.
LSC
says...
4:46pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Well, that's alright then. The number of people contracting Swamp Fever has slowed down too over the years, so I suggest we do nothing more about it and don't try to find a cure once and for all.
TRT
says...
4:47pm Thu 18 Oct 12
"Width Restrictions
Width restriction are a self enforcing means of restricting access for large vehicles. Posts or bollards are placed in the road about 2.1 metres (7 feet) apart, such that vehicles wider than this cannot pass between them. There must be an alternative route available for large vehicles such as refuse collection vehicles and this sometimes limits their application in residential areas.
Sometimes a gate is provided for use of fire engines and other emergency vehicles. The gate is kept locked but emergency vehicles carry keys.
Many residents mistakenly ask for width restrictions to be introduced as a means of slowing down traffic. Width restrictions do not, and are not intended to, reduce traffic speed."
Relikade
says...
6:05pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Drive in between the bollards and not in to them.
Case closed.
crazyfrog
says...
6:20pm Thu 18 Oct 12
jalvin
says...
7:35pm Thu 18 Oct 12
pepsiman
says...
9:08pm Thu 18 Oct 12
deadphill
says...
9:23pm Thu 18 Oct 12
They have spent money on it and now cannot face the embarrassment of admitting it is unpopular and is obviously causing more issues than before. I think the first question to ask before more than most is why was it modified in the first place. But people, start threatening these stupid road planners with changing your vote. That will get them thinking.
LSC
says...
9:50pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Relikade wrote:So your solution is to do nothing and just put up with the weekly crashes?
I have a solution!
Drive in between the bollards and not in to them.
Case closed.
Perhaps gently mocking people from the roadside for being poor drivers as they are carted away by ambulance?
Fine by me; YOU pay for the ambulance though.
I don't want to anymore.
pepsiman
says...
9:50pm Thu 18 Oct 12
nibs
says...
9:57pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Sorry, but it made me laugh
LSC
says...
10:09pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Older readers might remember the DeHavilland Comet. A fantastic piece of design, still in use today as the Nimrod.
One SLIGHT problem was they kept crashing because the windows fell out.
They weren't supposed to do that, and never did on paper in the design studio.
The Sherman tank was nicknamed the Ronson (after the lighter company) because it caught fire so much and so easily. But the design was sound, and that simply shouldn't have happened.
But all the above DID happen and the only solution was to change the design. Not change or blame the drivers or the pilots, or the tank crew.
THE DESIGNS WERE FLAWED IN PRACTICE, no matter how they looked on paper.
As is obviously the case here. A 5 year old could see it.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
10:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cathbal66
says...
6:52am Fri 19 Oct 12
As for the decrease in the number of complaints recently - that's because a lot of people now avoid the road altogether and drive down alternative routes, thus increasing the traffic in other parts of the estate which I'm sure residents are not pleased about.
Nick Lincoln
says...
7:20am Fri 19 Oct 12
Our elected betters spend our money on something that doesn't work; when those that elect said people complain, the governing class simply state "Move on - nothing to see here."
Anyone who's council seat is dependent on the votes from those in the Woodmere Avenue / Tudor estate area should have just enough sentient intelligence to recognise that this issue AIN'T going away and that we - the people of Watford - are utterly fed up with inaction.
It's time for change, people - none of the parties on the council give a fig about you. Having grainy photos of councillors pointing at repaired potholes in their propaganda sheets doesn't cut the mustard - the Woodmere Avenue width restriction is a real issue and it's been totally ignored.
Remember that when the same tired messages are peddled at your doorstop come the next round of elections.
Relikade
says...
8:20am Fri 19 Oct 12
LSC wrote:How is this related to poor driving?
Remember the Suzuki Jeep that rolled over when it went round a corner? That shouldn't have happened; the design was quite a sound one.
Older readers might remember the DeHavilland Comet. A fantastic piece of design, still in use today as the Nimrod.
One SLIGHT problem was they kept crashing because the windows fell out.
They weren't supposed to do that, and never did on paper in the design studio.
The Sherman tank was nicknamed the Ronson (after the lighter company) because it caught fire so much and so easily. But the design was sound, and that simply shouldn't have happened.
But all the above DID happen and the only solution was to change the design. Not change or blame the drivers or the pilots, or the tank crew.
THE DESIGNS WERE FLAWED IN PRACTICE, no matter how they looked on paper.
As is obviously the case here. A 5 year old could see it.
PhilCox
says...
9:10am Fri 19 Oct 12
Whether you live in Woodmere Avenue or anywhere else in Watford, ask your county councillor what they would personally do to resolve this issue. It is costing us all money until it gets fixed, no matter where you live.
If they will do nothing, look for a candidate at the election who would fix it.
It's only by luck the County has only messed up Woodmere Ave. Given the chance they would mess up everywhere.
If your county council is not up to the job, it is your responsibility to remove them and replace them with people who are better.
Next year is your opportunity.
I will be writing to my councillor even though I am not anywhere near Woodmere Avenue.
Mike Watford
says...
9:12am Fri 19 Oct 12
TRT
says...
9:37am Fri 19 Oct 12
@Cathbal66, the height of the posts was reduced because they were originally so high that many wing mirrors clipped BOTH sides simultaneously.
This restriction is completely unforgiving because the metal posts are square topped and flush with the front edge of the kerb. Most cars belly out between the top of the tyre and the start of the window, so that the bodywork will hit the post before the tyre hits the kerb. This drags the car towards the side that hit, impaling it further on the other posts.
If they had used Titan or Treif kerbs that passively push the tyre away from the kerb by design, spaced the posts further apart so that you can still see the line of the kerb whilst driving through it, concreted the posts in towards the middle or the rear edge of the posts, and used rounded or roller tops on the posts, then the frequency and severity of impacts would be reduced.
This restriction is actually doing exactly what it was designed to do. It is trapping the vehicles that come into contact with it. Trouble is that it is trapping cars who are slightly (or grossly) out of position. It's not supposed to trap cars, only vehicles wider than 7 feet. The reason they wanted to trap them? To recover the cost of repairing the old bollards that were being struck by wide vehicles.
If that was such a problem, they should have been reevaluating the requirement for the restriction given that the roads around Watford had changed since the lorry ban was made legal. What's wrong with camera enforcement of the ban, eh?
watford06
says...
9:40am Fri 19 Oct 12
Nick Lincoln
says...
9:48am Fri 19 Oct 12
raphaelmort
says...
9:50am Fri 19 Oct 12
Why is this width restriction designed so differently to all the others? I've never seen one like this anywhere else around Watford!
TRT
says...
10:36am Fri 19 Oct 12
LSC
says...
1:01pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Relikade wrote:Because there are poor drivers out there. That is a fact. So can either clear up the mess every week or design something that does what it is intended to do without causing harm to those a little less skilled than others.
LSC wrote:How is this related to poor driving?
Remember the Suzuki Jeep that rolled over when it went round a corner? That shouldn't have happened; the design was quite a sound one.
Older readers might remember the DeHavilland Comet. A fantastic piece of design, still in use today as the Nimrod.
One SLIGHT problem was they kept crashing because the windows fell out.
They weren't supposed to do that, and never did on paper in the design studio.
The Sherman tank was nicknamed the Ronson (after the lighter company) because it caught fire so much and so easily. But the design was sound, and that simply shouldn't have happened.
But all the above DID happen and the only solution was to change the design. Not change or blame the drivers or the pilots, or the tank crew.
THE DESIGNS WERE FLAWED IN PRACTICE, no matter how they looked on paper.
As is obviously the case here. A 5 year old could see it.
By your argument, there is no need for safety rails on the balconies of tall buildings. Anyone with any sense wouldn't fall off and those stupid enough to go too close to the edge deserve what they get.
But I would get fed up with scraping them up off the pavement, personally.
garston tony
says...
1:09pm Fri 19 Oct 12
LSC your analogies are wrong, all the vehicles you mentioned DID have inherent design flaws which caused the accidents to occur. These restrictions are wide enough, the problem is the attitude, ability and attention of the drivers going through it.
Does something need doing, probably but the bottom line is that is due to continued driver error and nothing else.
crazyfrog
says...
1:11pm Fri 19 Oct 12
PhilCox wrote:Good post ! your right this issue effects every single Herts Taxpayer in regards to callout costs and time tied up by emergency services when they can be out on other emergencies, note to the WO: is there a way you could estimate, time taken up by emergency services and the callout costs from info gained under FOI requests? as it would be so interesting to know how much the Herts CC incompetence is costing us
There are elections to the county council next year. That will be your chance to do something about it.
Whether you live in Woodmere Avenue or anywhere else in Watford, ask your county councillor what they would personally do to resolve this issue. It is costing us all money until it gets fixed, no matter where you live.
If they will do nothing, look for a candidate at the election who would fix it.
It's only by luck the County has only messed up Woodmere Ave. Given the chance they would mess up everywhere.
If your county council is not up to the job, it is your responsibility to remove them and replace them with people who are better.
Next year is your opportunity.
I will be writing to my councillor even though I am not anywhere near Woodmere Avenue.
LSC
says...
1:24pm Fri 19 Oct 12
garston tony wrote:As I just posted in the other thread, we KNOW drivers make errors. That is why cars have safety belts and laminated windscreens, crumple zones and airbags.
No its not a speed restriction, yes it is a width one BUT drivers DO still need to slow down for it as they SHOULD at ANY TIME the conditions dictate it. There is only one reason for needing to be cut out of a vehicle after failing to get through these restriction and that is going too fast for the condition of the road.
LSC your analogies are wrong, all the vehicles you mentioned DID have inherent design flaws which caused the accidents to occur. These restrictions are wide enough, the problem is the attitude, ability and attention of the drivers going through it.
Does something need doing, probably but the bottom line is that is due to continued driver error and nothing else.
They aren't there for fun, they are there because people crash, and most crashes are driver error.
So, if we know and accept drivers make errors, why have a design that turns a misjudgement into a major incident?
garston tony
says...
1:33pm Fri 19 Oct 12
HertsPeter
says...
3:35pm Fri 19 Oct 12
hector
says...
3:45pm Fri 19 Oct 12
garston tony wrote:Garston Tony
No its not a speed restriction, yes it is a width one BUT drivers DO still need to slow down for it as they SHOULD at ANY TIME the conditions dictate it. There is only one reason for needing to be cut out of a vehicle after failing to get through these restriction and that is going too fast for the condition of the road.
LSC your analogies are wrong, all the vehicles you mentioned DID have inherent design flaws which caused the accidents to occur. These restrictions are wide enough, the problem is the attitude, ability and attention of the drivers going through it.
Does something need doing, probably but the bottom line is that is due to continued driver error and nothing else.
I think you have it wrong!!!!.
This girl was cut out of the car, not because she was speeding through the restriction, but she complained of neck and back injury.
In those cases the emergency services always err on the side of caution, in case of causing more injury, so cut people out regardless of the state of the car.
It appears that the air bags did not go of on the impact, so the car was probably doing less than 20mph if not slower. it is more than likely the car has bounced of the kerb, skewed and then jammed.
These restrictions are dangerous, especially if driving up Woodmere avenue from the A41, there is going to be a case where cars emerging from the barriers wanting to turn into Douglas avenue will get wiped out by a bus thinking the can beat the car. I know this going to happen at some point as I was nearly taken out by one of the hopper buses not so long ago.
raphaelmort
says...
3:58pm Fri 19 Oct 12
TRT wrote:@TRT
@Mike Watford, it is not a speed restriction, it is a width restriction.
@Cathbal66, the height of the posts was reduced because they were originally so high that many wing mirrors clipped BOTH sides simultaneously.
This restriction is completely unforgiving because the metal posts are square topped and flush with the front edge of the kerb. Most cars belly out between the top of the tyre and the start of the window, so that the bodywork will hit the post before the tyre hits the kerb. This drags the car towards the side that hit, impaling it further on the other posts.
If they had used Titan or Treif kerbs that passively push the tyre away from the kerb by design, spaced the posts further apart so that you can still see the line of the kerb whilst driving through it, concreted the posts in towards the middle or the rear edge of the posts, and used rounded or roller tops on the posts, then the frequency and severity of impacts would be reduced.
This restriction is actually doing exactly what it was designed to do. It is trapping the vehicles that come into contact with it. Trouble is that it is trapping cars who are slightly (or grossly) out of position. It's not supposed to trap cars, only vehicles wider than 7 feet. The reason they wanted to trap them? To recover the cost of repairing the old bollards that were being struck by wide vehicles.
If that was such a problem, they should have been reevaluating the requirement for the restriction given that the roads around Watford had changed since the lorry ban was made legal. What's wrong with camera enforcement of the ban, eh?
"This restriction is completely unforgiving because the metal posts are square topped and flush with the front edge of the kerb. Most cars belly out between the top of the tyre and the start of the window, so that the bodywork will hit the post before the tyre hits the kerb. This drags the car towards the side that hit, impaling it further on the other posts. If they had used Titan or Treif kerbs that passively push the tyre away from the kerb by design, spaced the posts further apart so that you can still see the line of the kerb whilst driving through it, concreted the posts in towards the middle or the rear edge of the posts, and used rounded or roller tops on the posts, then the frequency and severity of impacts would be reduced. This restriction is actually doing exactly what it was designed to do. It is trapping the vehicles that come into contact with it. Trouble is that it is trapping cars who are slightly (or grossly) out of position. It's not supposed to trap cars, only vehicles wider than 7 feet. The reason they wanted to trap them? To recover the cost of repairing the old bollards that were being struck by wide vehicles. If that was such a problem, they should have been reevaluating the requirement for the restriction given that the roads around Watford had changed since the lorry ban was made legal. What's wrong with camera enforcement of the ban, eh?"
I agree. The council's agenda for this width restriction is questionably. Again, I wonder why this is the only one of its kind in Watford? And why couldn't the problem be resolved with a camera instead? It would be much less intrusive for residents of Woodmere Road and save taxpayers money - win win all round.
Reg Edit
says...
4:16pm Fri 19 Oct 12
It's ridiculous that every politician of every colour has just washed their hands of this accident blackspot. They should hang their heads in shame and be made to visit the victims to explain why they will not do anything about it.
That would be all the Watford Councillors (I know it's not their remit, but then neither are potholes and you can't keep them away from them at election time), all the County councillors for Watford and the MP Harrington. It's not Harrington's job either, but he is our MP and so he should sort out any messes that our other elected masters are incapable of solving. Pressure from an MP does wonders.
Let's put councillors on a 12-month cycle, so if they screw up, as they are doing, we can get rid of them quicker. I for one would like to see the back of all councillors who are in a position to do something about this but either hide in the corners or wring their hands and say there is nothing they can do.
Something must be done, something will be done, it's merely a matter of when it is done and by whom.
If the current lot won't fix it, then they must be replaced by others with more common sense and care for the people of Watford.
Mrs Droftaw
says...
4:44pm Fri 19 Oct 12
People continually blame the drivers - IF it is driver error how come there are not the same amount of accidents at the other width restrictions - one in Bushey Mill Way and the other Park Avenue. I do not see as many accidents (in fact any accidents) at these 2.
Could the Observer perhaps confirm this with the Emergency services? Then also get a cost so far that these call outs have cost so far?
OAC Bailiff
says...
8:18pm Fri 19 Oct 12
dontknowynot
says...
2:21pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Having a width restriction that traps people in damaged cars is inviting a tragedy, surly it is just a matter of time before one of these cars is damaged in such away as to catch fire. It is surly time to get rid of four of the posts and make it so drivers and passengers don't have to be cut out of the **** thing.
Also in an earlier accident a wheel went flying across the pavement and had someone been there they could have been seriously hurt so something should also be done about the high and sharply rising curbs to elevate this problem.
craftyval
says...
7:47pm Sat 20 Oct 12
TRT
says...
9:23pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Here's one to search for.
Item 5 Appendix C Woodmere Ave Oct 11
TRT
says...
9:24pm Sat 20 Oct 12
jaijai
says...
2:12pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT
says...
2:36pm Mon 22 Oct 12
You might *think* you've not had a problem with it, and that it only affects the BAD drivers, but you know that traffic jam you got caught in the other day... and that extra 5p per week on your council tax bill, and that time you didn't realise it, but you waited an extra five minutes for an ambulance or a fire engine...
It is an inevitable fact that some drivers are going to get wedged here, but HCC have specifically engineered this restriction to prevent vehicles that fall foul from being driven away. This causes tailbacks, emergency service call outs and highways engineer call outs.
jaijai
says...
2:45pm Mon 22 Oct 12
The restriction is well known, it's clearly laid out and marked, if you are incapable of negotiating it, then it's time to walk, get a bike, or catch a bus.
A 7FT wide spacing to get a 6FT wide car through...and still manage to wedge it, this is purely down to the idiot driver.
But I tell you what, I'll have a go tonight on the way home, running the gauntlet of the static posts, i wonder, will they "junp" out at me...will they mysterious get narrower as i approach? or will i simply go through with no icident asi have many other width restrictions over the last 24 years of driving....
Width restriction roulette it is!
raphaelmort
says...
3:03pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Self-righteous mumblings - none of your comments are actually very constructive...in fact they are verging on arrogant. And if you are going to subject the rest of us to your rantings then do a spell check before you hit 'submit'.
You are completely missing the point...points that have been raised time and time again but have been ignored by those with the power to do something about it.
TRT
says...
3:08pm Mon 22 Oct 12
As I suggested elsewhere, and as you mentioned roulette, try watching the Horizon broadcast on chance.
It is inevitable that there will be driver error. It is inevitable that there will be "idiot drivers". It is not inevitable that the emergency services will have to get involved quite as often as they appear to do.
As you mentioned 24 years of driving... the restriction was initially put in place in 1980, that is 32 years ago; I have a copy of the notification of the enforcement in law somewhere. From 1980 to 2010 there were inevitably some vehicles that struck the posts, the engineers were called out, the ambulances, fire engines, police etc. *Some* vehicles.
Then in 2010 HCC got fed up with paying for repairs to the posts and decided to redesign the restriction and reinforce it in order to trap the vehicles that were damaging it and be able to claim off their insurance.
Between 2011 and 2012, there has been a dramatic increase in the frequency and severity of collisions between vehicles and the posts. THIS is what people are moaning about. People who, like myself, have not managed to catch their vehicles on these posts but who can see that having a 24 year old woman stuck in her car hysterical and having to be cut free and taken to hospital is quite clearly NOT what HCC had in mind when they moved the posts to the front of the kerb.
jaijai
says...
3:22pm Mon 22 Oct 12
as for constructive comments...how aren't they? I'm advocating the affected drivers learn to control their vehicles properly, to pay attention to the road and its layout, to drive properly. So many can manage the apparently complicated feat of threading a 6ft wide car through a 7ft wide opening, and yet these incapable few prove time and again, driving is not for everyone.
The HCC may well be wrong, yep, it's entirely possible. But, the simple fact remains, they have placed the onus on the driver to show some skill and sense, and if you can't..you really need to question your place behind the wheel.
Nick Lincoln
says...
3:26pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Local residents will be there and have asked the standing parties to send along their representatives to give short speeches and put forward ideas as to how they would make a local difference.
Given that Central Ward is next to Tudor ward (home of the infamous width restrictions that we're all going on about) it will be an opportunity to ask the Liberals (dominant locally) and the Conservatives (in charge at county level) exactly what their stance is on this fiasco.
All three councillors in the Tudor ward are LibDems; the two remaining ones in the Central Ward are likewise. What action are they taking / have they ever taken on this matter on behalf of their electorate?
UKIP will also have their candidate at the Hustings Event on the 12th. It should be fun!
TRT
says...
3:28pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Very simple question then. In your opinion, rip it out or leave as is?
jaijai
says...
3:35pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Btw, looking back over some other articles of a similiar nature, how fast was elderly corsa driver going when they "smashed" into the posts, causing major front end damage?
Seems to me, a pattern of incomptence emerging, and not from HCC.
jaijai
says...
3:38pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT
says...
3:39pm Mon 22 Oct 12
jaijai
says...
3:45pm Mon 22 Oct 12
ee and still co-exist?
Hurrah!
TRT
says...
3:52pm Mon 22 Oct 12
It would be a very dull world indeed in which everyone was the same, had the same opinions, the same driving skills...
jaijai
says...
3:59pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Nick Lincoln
says...
4:29pm Mon 22 Oct 12
jaijai wrote:Thanks for your comment.
@NL, I may well have to turn up for this, it's been a while since i've been to live comedy show. Literally dozens of angry townsfolk up in arms over a correctly spaced width restriction, slimely earnest politicos clambering over each other to show the public who can suck up to them the best over a total non issue...should be comedy gold
It's quite unlikely that there will be "literally dozens of angry townsfolk up in arms" at the Hustings Event. However it is clear from the stream of comments that always attend "Woodmere Avenue latest crash" stories that it is of interest to a wide group of people.
You included.
My point about the apparent lack of political interest in this matter by our elected bettors was missed by you, for which I apologise; my point was too obtuse, perhaps. I, for one, would welcome any local politician making any sort of comment or "suck up" on this subject.As far as I can tell there has been nothing but a deafening silence: "Move on, nothing to see here".....
I fear it won't be "comedy gold" but I welcome your optimism.
jaijai
says...
4:39pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Drunken, anti-social behaviour in town centres, fly tipping on street corners, these and many other issues deserving of political involvement.
The inability of a driver to safely negotiate a width restriction....guess what?
Hopefully, said elected officials, have acknowledged existence of matter, and have given it due consideration...ie: none.
TRT
says...
5:05pm Mon 22 Oct 12
LSC
says...
5:28pm Mon 22 Oct 12
jaijai wrote:I take it from this post your car doesn't require safety belts and airbags. Or child seats, crumple zones, door bars, safety glass, pre-tensioners, collapseable steering columns, safety cages, pedals that snap off, roll bars, anti-lock braking systems or any of the other horrendously expensive things built into cars; because you will never have a crash.
i apologise for the missed spell checker, but not for the "rant". What exactly are the powers the be to do for the little lambs who are incapable of operating their cars? Perhaps a little hut with a driver at the start of the restriction could be provided, they will guide your car through, safely and without incident, ensuring you don't "smash it to smithereens". Which by the way leads me to...how fast do you have to be going to do that? Looking at other articles, bits of bumper, ball bearings, trim etc strewn across the road...really?
as for constructive comments...how aren't they? I'm advocating the affected drivers learn to control their vehicles properly, to pay attention to the road and its layout, to drive properly. So many can manage the apparently complicated feat of threading a 6ft wide car through a 7ft wide opening, and yet these incapable few prove time and again, driving is not for everyone.
The HCC may well be wrong, yep, it's entirely possible. But, the simple fact remains, they have placed the onus on the driver to show some skill and sense, and if you can't..you really need to question your place behind the wheel.
I have news for you. All that is there because despite the fact they shouldn't, people do crash cars.
jaijai
says...
5:50pm Mon 22 Oct 12
All these features were no doubt built into Miss Clios car, and still she managed to trolley it into the width restriction.
Let's go over it again, for those that missed it: a width restriction 7ft wide, a modern, safety feature laden 6ft wide car, broad daylight, what's missing? A basic ability to guide car in proper fashion.
Had this been an unsighted corner, and the approach was a bit swift, encountering a...oooh say broken down car in the road, and Miss Clio slammed on brakes, wrenched the wheel over in panic, then yes we are talking safety systems. ESP, ABS, crash cells, etc etc.
Alas, none of these will help her, at 5 mph through a well sighted, fixed width restriction.
The posts are not to blame, the idiot driver who failed to control her/his/their vehicle properly is.
raphaelmort
says...
6:05pm Mon 22 Oct 12
jaijai
says...
6:08pm Mon 22 Oct 12
ps: that bit was immature, but just for you
raphaelmort
says...
6:17pm Mon 22 Oct 12
jaijai
says...
6:21pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Seriously, what's the problem? You have a differing point of view to mine, that's enough for it to be immature?
Show me your intelligence, explain the "thoughtlessness" of my remarks?
TRT
says...
7:02pm Mon 22 Oct 12
The problem is that people WILL keep hitting these posts, they WILL keep getting stuck and they WILL keep the firecrews from attending other incidents.
If I told you that the council were forcing us to use a device that would prevent you getting out of your car if you had an impact, you'd be up in arms over the sheer stupidity of it. Well, that's just what they've done. Yes there's 6 inches of spare room, but that six inches means you can't get the doors open if you have a problem. And people will always have problems.
jaijai
says...
7:18pm Mon 22 Oct 12
ie: Lets dumb it down to their tiny level of competency.
The "problem" only arises if you approach the gap too fast, or not in line to negotiate it.
Again though, I'm seeing a lack of information on how fast Miss Clio was driving, any less than 10mph through there, i cannot see how she would have got stuck so badly she ended up screaming hysterically and had to be cut out. Any more....well the restriction is clearly posted, if you can't read the signs, or are prepared to act on them, even the most innocent of things may come back to bite you on the roof of your new car.
if we take the "blame the council" approach for creating this "deathtrap", where does that leave the plethora of other street furniture drivers have to contend with?! Look out for that lamp post on the pavement! beware the armco lining the A road. Oh those kerbs are the devils work.
It's very simple, I'll say it again: be responsible for your actions.
TRT
says...
7:44pm Mon 22 Oct 12
The posts keep you trapped in your vehicle. It takes an age to sort the problem of a stuck vehicle out. This causes traffic jams and a dozen other negatives. The negative effects, in my opinion, outweigh any positive effects.
crazyfrog
says...
8:01am Tue 23 Oct 12
jaijai wrote:The fact of the matter is there are good drivers there are bad drivers there are good drivers that have a bad day there are drivers that ill judge the restriction BUT no matter what there is no other width restriction in the county that has had this bad an accident rate, its costing us taxpayers money and creating problems for other road users and people requiring emergency services, so if we have to "dumb this down" to solve this farce then so be it. this has gone on far to long and created far to much damage and has costed taxpayers far to much money !
So, because of some people can't drive properly through a gap bigger than car, we change the gap to suit them. ie: Lets dumb it down to their tiny level of competency. The "problem" only arises if you approach the gap too fast, or not in line to negotiate it. Again though, I'm seeing a lack of information on how fast Miss Clio was driving, any less than 10mph through there, i cannot see how she would have got stuck so badly she ended up screaming hysterically and had to be cut out. Any more....well the restriction is clearly posted, if you can't read the signs, or are prepared to act on them, even the most innocent of things may come back to bite you on the roof of your new car. if we take the "blame the council" approach for creating this "deathtrap", where does that leave the plethora of other street furniture drivers have to contend with?! Look out for that lamp post on the pavement! beware the armco lining the A road. Oh those kerbs are the devils work. It's very simple, I'll say it again: be responsible for your actions.
if you cant see that then i suggest your a perfect candidate (in herts CC eyes anyway) to sit on Herts CC highways committee.
garston tony
says...
11:44am Tue 23 Oct 12
Maybe these restrictions should become part of the driving test, cant get through them cant get a licence. Of course with periodical retesting (not just to test for these restrictions of course) say every year for 5 years after passing your test, then every 10 years until say the age of 60 then 65 then 70 then yearly after that.
Its obvious that there are many people on the road that were lucky to pass their test or who have fallen into bad habits since passing and of course age and wear and tear on the body and mind has its affects too and its ridiculous as a general point that once you get a licence your ability to drive a vehicle is not re tested after that
TRT
says...
12:16pm Tue 23 Oct 12
I would draw you a diagram of bell-curves, driving ability, cut-off points etc etc but I can only use text in this comments section. This would show you that the driving test is fine as it is and that statistically speaking there is a chance of a car accident at each and every point both on and off the UK highways. Some sections of road are more prone to accidents than other, and this is one of those. The consequence of coming a cropper in this stretch of metal posts is that you get trapped in your vehicle and have to be rescued by the emergency services. This is BY DESIGN and is a consequence of wrong thinking.
Yes, the posts are set apart at an approved and lawful distance, but those lawful standards are incomplete as they do not mention the rest of the restriction's dimensions such as length, kerb height, clearance for wing mirrors, width and height of the post, colour of the post, reflectors, keep left signs and so on. That is to say that the law has nothing to say about how often the restriction can be repeated; for speed humps it is specified that there should be at least 20 metres between humps, excepting at specific road features such as pedestrian crossings where the humps may be no closer than 5m apart.
There is a problem here, the evidence suggests that there is a problem here and HCC should be addressing that problem.
crazyfrog
says...
12:22pm Tue 23 Oct 12
garston tony wrote:In the perfect world then that would of course be an answer, but we dont live in a perfect world or shall i say perfect country, to get anything meaningful done quickly in British politics takes years if it doesnt go by the wayside first (or hit a width restriction) so in the mean time the only logical answer is to alter the restriction, put a camera there and if a lorry goes down it clickity click and the Driver gets prosecuted simples!
TRT maybe the solution to why should people suffer as a consequence of other peoples poor driving is to remove the poor drivers from the road? Maybe these restrictions should become part of the driving test, cant get through them cant get a licence. Of course with periodical retesting (not just to test for these restrictions of course) say every year for 5 years after passing your test, then every 10 years until say the age of 60 then 65 then 70 then yearly after that. Its obvious that there are many people on the road that were lucky to pass their test or who have fallen into bad habits since passing and of course age and wear and tear on the body and mind has its affects too and its ridiculous as a general point that once you get a licence your ability to drive a vehicle is not re tested after that
LSC
says...
1:43pm Tue 23 Oct 12
jaijai wrote:The whole world is 'dumbed down' to suit human ability. The reason I'm using Windows on this computer is because I can't write LINUX or HTML codes. They are perfectly good codes, but if I tried to use them I would keep crashing the computer.
So, because of some people can't drive properly through a gap bigger than car, we change the gap to suit them.
ie: Lets dumb it down to their tiny level of competency.
The "problem" only arises if you approach the gap too fast, or not in line to negotiate it.
Again though, I'm seeing a lack of information on how fast Miss Clio was driving, any less than 10mph through there, i cannot see how she would have got stuck so badly she ended up screaming hysterically and had to be cut out. Any more....well the restriction is clearly posted, if you can't read the signs, or are prepared to act on them, even the most innocent of things may come back to bite you on the roof of your new car.
if we take the "blame the council" approach for creating this "deathtrap", where does that leave the plethora of other street furniture drivers have to contend with?! Look out for that lamp post on the pavement! beware the armco lining the A road. Oh those kerbs are the devils work.
It's very simple, I'll say it again: be responsible for your actions.
So Bill Gates DESIGNED a system that someone as thick as me could use.
That is how the whole world works.
You might be skilled enough to catch, butcher and cook your own dinner tonight.
I am not. So someone DESIGNED a ready meal, and a microwave.
These things are of good design, and they work. The restriction clearly isn't, because it doesn't.
jaijai
says...
1:52pm Tue 23 Oct 12
The design is sound, and executed perfectly, it's simple, obvious and plain for all to see. If you cannot use it as it is intended, then as stated previously, find yourself an alternative, that will not inconvienence anyone else, and suits your reduced level of mental capacity. Like you say you can't use LINUX so you use windows, great, moron drivers who cannot take a car through the gap need to either walk or bike.
How about this for a different tack, take out the restriction completely, it serves no purpose right? I'm sure the multitude of large van and lorry drivers will ignore it as a route to the industrial estates beyond. The local residents can have them rumbling past 24/7 rather than the odd moron crashing into a steel post.
TRT
says...
2:05pm Tue 23 Oct 12
And that is the nature of the statistics of a population.
"The design is sound, and executed perfectly, it's simple, obvious and plain for all to see."
Then there should not be so many reports of accidents here, should there?
raphaelmort
says...
2:22pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Why does it differ in design from every other width restriction?
The answer has already been covered above of course.
LSC
says...
3:31pm Tue 23 Oct 12
jaijai wrote:I think you are being deliberately obtuse (or you designed it!). It isn't the width, it is the design.
And yet, day after day, thousands of others pass through without incident. Even if we made it 8ft wide, these morons will still contrive to smash into it, then what?
The design is sound, and executed perfectly, it's simple, obvious and plain for all to see. If you cannot use it as it is intended, then as stated previously, find yourself an alternative, that will not inconvienence anyone else, and suits your reduced level of mental capacity. Like you say you can't use LINUX so you use windows, great, moron drivers who cannot take a car through the gap need to either walk or bike.
How about this for a different tack, take out the restriction completely, it serves no purpose right? I'm sure the multitude of large van and lorry drivers will ignore it as a route to the industrial estates beyond. The local residents can have them rumbling past 24/7 rather than the odd moron crashing into a steel post.
Hence we do not have these incidents at all the other width restrictions all over town, and there are plenty of them.
This is the ONLY one of this design, and people keep crashing into it.
Doesn't that suggest something?
evergreenfc
says...
5:28pm Tue 23 Oct 12
It's about time a camera was set up to catch all the "bus drivers" who think they are above the law and drive straight through the middle.
The posts are on the pavement your car is on the road, go figure
TRT
says...
12:21am Wed 24 Oct 12
I've worked out that at 730mm, the height of the posts, the vehicle would be 6 inches wider if it were tilted by 11.6 degrees. Any last minute steering manoeuvre might slew the car's body enough to contact the post. OK, I appreciate that this doesn't happen to the vast majority of vehicles using this route, but there has to be a reason why this is so intolerant of error.
raphaelmort
says...
9:40am Wed 24 Oct 12
Are they ignoring him too?
John Howard Norfolk
says...
9:53am Wed 24 Oct 12
Second, how did it happen? If she was driving west then surely she cannot have reached such a high speed that it was impossible to judge the width?
Third - DO THESE MOTORISTS GET CHARGED WITH CARELESS DRIVING?
TRT
says...
10:08am Wed 24 Oct 12
LSC
says...
12:43pm Wed 24 Oct 12
John Howard Norfolk wrote:John, the last is a question I have also asked, and the answer appears to be no.
Firstly I hope the injured motorist is OK.
Second, how did it happen? If she was driving west then surely she cannot have reached such a high speed that it was impossible to judge the width?
Third - DO THESE MOTORISTS GET CHARGED WITH CARELESS DRIVING?
I think the WO have a duty to ask for a statement from the emergency services on what THEY think of this restriction.
I'd value their opinion way over some council spokesman or all the perfect drivers we have on here.
watfordood
says...
1:15pm Wed 24 Oct 12
No point blaming the insurance companies or the restriction for bad drivers. They'll only crash into another car or hit something else anyway. BAN intensive driving courses.
TRT
says...
1:22pm Wed 24 Oct 12
No-one has blamed any insurance companies for "bad drivers". I don't know what you are talking about, which would appear to make two of us.
John Howard Norfolk
says...
2:19pm Thu 25 Oct 12
I am not entirely sure why I am calling these "accidents" as that would imply they were avoidable. In fact every time this happens it is straightforward carelessness by the driver as I am unaware of a sngle instance where a genuinely wide vehicle has been trapped.
TRT
says...
2:34pm Thu 25 Oct 12
Any HGV driver who DOES end up turning down here is going to nip through the bus lane anyway, as they won't be able to turn around and reversing out onto the A41 is both plain stupidity and illegal (against the best practice recommendations of the Highway Code at least).
http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/91
05619.Firefighters_c
alled_to_width_restr
iction_crash/
TRT says...
4:16pm Thu 18 Oct 12
EH-ORRRRR!
Wrong. It is NOT a speed restriction. Did he really say that, WO?