P/T Indie wrote:They should have just driven carefully to begin with and not be such numpties.
Keith wrote:P/T Indie wrote:They should have just driven carefully to begin with and not be such numpties.
Problem is, numpties don't just kill themselves, they kill other people too. It quite clearly became an accident blackspot within weeks of opening. You'd have thought they would have fixed it by now though!
Freez wrote:Personally, When it opened on 30.10, the clocks were just going back, it was dark at 8am and was dark again at 4pm. With rush hour in the darkness people not used to the new road went flying along and the new roundabout surprised a few in the first couple of weeks, lorries, a bus and a couple of cars all went too fast in the dark.
Just a thought that if it had opened this month, with it light at 6am until 8.30pm, people could have got used to it in daylight and PERHAPS driven a little more sensibly in the dark later in the year?
Just a thought!
Bare Grills wrote:We spend too much time & money protecting idiots from themselves.
KenH wrote:Bare Grills wrote:We spend too much time & money protecting idiots from themselves.
It's not so much protecting them against themselves, it's more about protecting other innocent parties they may plough into.
What if those idiotic drivers who couldn't slow down had ploughed into another car going round the roundabout or a stray pedestrian?
I couldn't give a toss whether some idiot writes off their own car by ploughing into the roundabout or injures themselves - that's Darwinism. But innocent people in front of them DO need protecting.
Bare Grills wrote:I'm not aware there's been anyone injured on the new road yet
seasonsinthesun wrote:The approach to that particular roundabout from both ways is steeper and drivers don't adapt to that.
It is very simple.
Drive to the conditions and don't be a dickhead.
I also wonder when those cones will ever be removed.
parceldave wrote:Maybe if they could see the roundabout it might help , what cost a few street lamps when you have just spent 155 m on a new road , penny pinching or what . I bet they have spent as much on the bladdy cones and the time in manpower it takes to put them down and pick them up again . There is more than enough street lighting at either end of the bypass so they could have used less there and plonked some in the middle .
KenH wrote:parceldave wrote:Maybe if they could see the roundabout it might help , what cost a few street lamps when you have just spent 155 m on a new road , penny pinching or what . I bet they have spent as much on the bladdy cones and the time in manpower it takes to put them down and pick them up again . There is more than enough street lighting at either end of the bypass so they could have used less there and plonked some in the middle .
I think it was more of a sop to the nimbys who were complaining about the light pollution in a rural area rather than the cost. The original plans did include lighting.
1953 wrote:--The new link road is not a motorway (NOT 70 mph limit) but 40's and 50's. .
1953 wrote:Information for numpties---The new link road is not a motorway (NOT 70 mph limit) but 40's and 50's. Stop blaming the layout,it is you that is at fault.
marky No.1 wrote:I find it strange coming past the cross keys towards Lancaster now all the cones have gone. You come onto the 40 limit then past the end of Hest Bank Lane which was a 30 zone during the roadworks.
The 30 signs have now disappeared until Beaumont College where there is a tiny 30 sign behind a tree branch just before the speed camera, which has been there for years.
Don't think there is a 40 coming out the other way either - just not finished!
The street lamps are the only indication I guess
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 57 guests