Roundabout row: ‘drivers to blame’ (From Worcester News)

Seems simple enough for those turning left give way to traffic coming from he right and if that's a struggle for some try harder, now let's stop moaning

I use this roundabout everyday, my tip is to not use the slip road at all, just turn left at roundabout and smile as you pass a fifteen car queue struggling to creep out!

How dare Mr Fraser blame drivers. Sure, drivers need to follow the highway code with these give way markings, but that does not prevent Mr Fraser from taking responsibility for this new roundabout design which is entirely flawed and downright dangerous. Along with Peter Blake, this man should resign immediately for failing to take responsibility and apportioning blame on to the public in typical council style.

Mr Fraser says, We will continue to monitor the situation to assess what effect these changes have on driver behaviour and to ensure the junction works effectively and safely in the future.
Is that not his job? should have got it right the first time.

Still moaning !

wooshman wrote:
Still moaning !

Probably because it's still not a proper resolution. It provides precious little improvement over the old roundabout.

Personally not found a problem just need spacial awareness and look out for idiots.

The only problem I have had was yesterday 2.30pm when one lane was closed causing chaos. Two Highways trucks parked in closed lane but not a lot of work going on? Otherwise no problem. I use it everyday.Those who struggle should try the mad roundabout in Swindon.. Now that's a challenge. 6 islands that you drive round the wrong way!

I still think traffic lights would ease the problem! Better still (but a lot more expensive - dual Cookbarrow way!)

They should have installed peak "busy" hour traffic lights as was originally planned when the road was built.
These would have improved the flow of traffic and reduced congestion at peak times.

Instead the council takes the "paint more lines on the road" approach which has no doubt cost us, the tax payer, a lot more than the original installation of traffic lights would have cost.

Also, reversing the lanes at the St Peters end of the three lane down from Whittington needs some more white paint. A "Right Turn only" arrow on the middle lane will stop those drivers who cut across the roundabout and head towards the Ketch causing others to have to brake hard. A "left turn/straight on" arrow on the left hand lane would also remove all doubt.
Another accident black spot in the making.

Worcester is renowned for its poor traffic management - I recall that a tourist guide advised that if you wanted to drive through Worcester after 4 o'clock - DON'T. It seems that our planners are trying to create an environmental disaster (due to fumes from stationary traffic) and a superior form of traffic jam for its drivers.

So the drivers are iinocent are they? Ask Cludgehill who seems to think it is clever.

Cludgehill isnt doing anything wrong, he just goes to the roundabout and turns left, thats correct driving

wooshman says...
10:30am Sat 22 Sep 12
Still moaning !

DO YOU live in the area? doubt it very much, its a nightmare and despite what the council tells you it has not made the traffic flow better its made it more dangerous, lets get the roundabout right then no one will moan.

It was all coned off this afternoon with a "Slip road temporally closed" sign on it.

Looks like they aren't convinced about it themselves.

The slip road from the river bridge near The Ketch onto the A38 going into Worcester works perfectly well, you have to wait to join the traffic, I am not sure what the difference is here.

I use it everyday and if drivers simply pay attention there will be no problem, we simply have to be careful to those inconsiderate drivers who don't and that goes for most junctions, this is a non story. Zzzzzzzzz

I fully agree with Cludgehill....becaus
e I have forward looking eyes like most folks, I struggle to turn my neck 120 degrees to see what is coming down the main road from Whittington island.......so now I too go to the roundabout and turn left....or just for a change of scenery I go around the roundabout and then down the main road.......forward thinking!!

Now then! Have a look where the new give way line is. That's right it is further back, so you still need to be an owl to view the oncoming traffic from the right!
Also as it is set further back it becomes more dangerous as it allows more time for cars turning left to appear.
Finally as you are waiting in rush hour you will not be able to jump into the flow of traffic because your too far back! So in short it has become more dangerous, will cause huge rush hour delays for cars using the slip road, what are the idiots responsible for this playing at!

Cludgehill;;your right, i have no faith at all in the local council or the highways as they are absolute idiots where safty comes up they are in a world of there own, there has been so many complaints about them i do wonder why the taxpayer stands for it?

Car drivers want, want, want.
Always somebody elses fault when things are inconvenient for them. Demanding more public money be wasted on a transport system which self defeats every time.
If you build more roads, make junctions easier to use, it encourages more driving, ipso facto there are more cars on the road and it becomes more difficult.
What's the answer - live closer to where you work, go to school and shop. Walk, cycle, use public transport. Stop poisoning the air, stop wasting public money, spend less time driving and more time enjoying life. That £1 million could have made some decent wide cycle paths or funded country bus services, what a waste!

TmP wrote:
Personally not found a problem just need spacial awareness and look out for idiots.

"......and look out for idiots."


They are easy to spot..... they will be the ones wearing yellow jackets with Worcestershire Highways written on the back.....

The answer is 42 wrote:
Car drivers want, want, want.
Always somebody elses fault when things are inconvenient for them. Demanding more public money be wasted on a transport system which self defeats every time.
If you build more roads, make junctions easier to use, it encourages more driving, ipso facto there are more cars on the road and it becomes more difficult.
What's the answer - live closer to where you work, go to school and shop. Walk, cycle, use public transport. Stop poisoning the air, stop wasting public money, spend less time driving and more time enjoying life. That £1 million could have made some decent wide cycle paths or funded country bus services, what a waste!

I bet you love the smell of your own **** too don't you?

ushmush83 wrote:

The answer is 42 wrote:
Car drivers want, want, want.
Always somebody elses fault when things are inconvenient for them. Demanding more public money be wasted on a transport system which self defeats every time.
If you build more roads, make junctions easier to use, it encourages more driving, ipso facto there are more cars on the road and it becomes more difficult.
What's the answer - live closer to where you work, go to school and shop. Walk, cycle, use public transport. Stop poisoning the air, stop wasting public money, spend less time driving and more time enjoying life. That £1 million could have made some decent wide cycle paths or funded country bus services, what a waste!

I bet you love the smell of your own **** too don't you?

Oh c'mon, that's not even close to swearing!!!

Smell of your own trumps.

So lets try and help the integrated transport department out with future transport ideas, that hopefully will not be a waste of money. Firstly it's obvious the villages of crowle an tibberton need a 10 min park and ride service using huge Mercedes buses run from say a new 10 million pound hub located in flyford flavell! Next lets build a dual carriageway to link alfrick with spetchley and how about another bus lane in dines green following the success of the last one, don't worry if they fail after all its only tax payers money!

Cludgehill wrote:
So lets try and help the integrated transport department out with future transport ideas, that hopefully will not be a waste of money. Firstly it's obvious the villages of crowle an tibberton need a 10 min park and ride service using huge Mercedes buses run from say a new 10 million pound hub located in flyford flavell! Next lets build a dual carriageway to link alfrick with spetchley and how about another bus lane in dines green following the success of the last one, don't worry if they fail after all its only tax payers money!

Moderation please! "Integrated" is a foul and unnecessary word to use in the company of WCC highways.... And, not too many projects at once, because with all the cut backs they probably only have one set of crayons between them.....

Quite hilarious short sighted attitude to blame drivers for what is a ridiculous and dangerous bit of road design.

I have only driven there twice since the modification, and on 1 of those times saw a near miss when a white Toyota Rav 4 drove straight out from the junction into the traffic at speed causing a car approaching from the roadabout to brake so heavily the skid caused significant tyre smoke.

Blaming the drivers when there are so many near misses and incidents is the wrong attitude. The road designers need to go and find out what THEY have done to create so much confusion - hopefully before someone is injured or worse.

Was the headline written after the comments?
Cludgehill, hillbilly and especially takeadeepbreath all examples of drivers you help clog up the roundabout by using it incorrectly and against highway code.
Traffic lights would be a good idea, but difficult because of size of roundabout.

Since when has turning left at an island been against the highway Code in a country that drives on the left.

Zzzzzzzz

Guns don't kill people rappers do.

There is nothing dangerous about an inanimate piece of tarmac.

The danger is caused by people using it incorrectly i.e not using their eyes, brains or motor neurone skills correctly.

This story and many of the comments on here are embarassing.

Might as well be headlined:

"Worcester Hicks cannot read signs and road markings."

Take some responsibility for your actions as a motorist!

Apart from Mr Blake and Mr Fraser needing to resign ASAP for this farce and blatant example of incompetence, which is inherent throughout the highways department, the county council's senior highways liaison engineer for the area needs to held to account or dismissed too as he is responsible for highways in Wychavon and no doubt ultimately responsible for making this roundabout far more dangerous than it was, to the point where a serious accident will occur. And all because of blind idiocy and not having a clue what he was doing. Will he be accountable and be culpable when an injury occurs?

The public could clearly see the problems with the new layout, so why couldn't the do called highway experts who needed an audit to make changes, which still haven't gone far enough. Heads should roll, their high salaries cut and they should become accountable to the public.

zx12r - since there has been a sign in that lane to say straight ahead only because there is another lane that road users turning left at should have used

hopefully the changes haven't made users any 'less scared' to use the roundabout as i actually found it not too bad when i used it last week though.

Some of the points suggesting that the junction itself isn't dangerous are a bit simplistic.

I have an interest in air-safety, and the potential flaws in the machines which have led to accidents. Many of these have been down to poor design, misleading information etc. When this occurs, these aspects of the design are changed to remove the possibility of the accident occurring again.

Given the amount of near misses and accidents that have happened at this junction already, as opposed to a.n.other piece of tarmac, do you not think it would be amiss to just suggest 'drivers read the signs' etc?

It's quite similar to saying to the pilot who ran out of fuel because his gauges were out of sight line and difficult to read that it's his fault, and leave the design as is so the accident can happen again, rather than checking to see if the design could be improved.

Whilst they were moving the give way line they should have repainted the arrows at the top of the hill that say M5 straight on. Whittington village is straight on, the M5 is right!

You now have people in the left hand lane of a roundabout going round the outside to turn right because it is marked M5.

If I remember rightly wasn't there similar arrows outside the hospital earlier on this year stating the hospital was straight on instead of right at the top of Newtown Road, and they got repainted?

Wilko J; Totally agree with you and as i have always said the Highways have a desperately bad record of incompetance when it comes to doing a job that includes the health and safety on our roads.
No one seems to be accountable but i do think that if a serious accident occurs and it's down to the design etc then the law should look at the competance of these people.

There is also the carelessness of drivers who think they are the next Louis Hamilton that should be dealt with, it should never be the case where you overtake on an island, it is maddness and it only takes a little longer to be safe.

MrWXYZ wrote:
zx12r - since there has been a sign in that lane to say straight ahead only because there is another lane that road users turning left at should have used hopefully the changes haven't made users any 'less scared' to use the roundabout as i actually found it not too bad when i used it last week though.

OK, so Mr WXYZ, if I come up the road from St Peters to the island, the arrows on the road point straight ahead. Using your logic, its incorrect to turn right towards the M5! there's nothing wrong with going to the island and turning left, it doesnt clog up traffic, in fact if all the cars doing this werent doing it, where would they be? Sat in a long line of traffic clogging up the left hand lane back to the motorway roundabout. I do this too as it is safe, and with good visibility. In fact at the moment its all you can do, because the left slip road is coned off yet again. What I don't understand is why, with the majority of traffic hitting the island from the motorway going left onto the Southern Link Road, there are effectively two lanes serving the minority of traffic, and only one lane serving the majority?

If you're looking for something more informative than 'pub talk' or Goldie Lookin Chain lyrics, I recommend the following website :

http://www.eurorap.o
rg/about

EuroRAP is a sister project to EuroNCAP , but deals with the road network itself. As well as companies such as Mercedes, its GB partners include the Highways Agency & at least one local authority (sadly not ours!).

I think its message is balanced and realistic. Collisions do tend to have multiple contributory factors. Willfully ignoring the rules of the road should be punished, but everyday mistakes should not warrant injury or death. There is more that can be done in designing roads so as not to invite mistakes. Read it for yourselves and form your own opinions.

It's a shame that some people's default response is to blame "the driver" entirely without considering whether there are any other issues that could be addressed.

Update used the junction twice today and I did..............not crash phew

WilkoJ wrote:
Apart from Mr Blake and Mr Fraser needing to resign ASAP for this farce and blatant example of incompetence, which is inherent throughout the highways department, the county council's senior highways liaison engineer for the area needs to held to account or dismissed too as he is responsible for highways in Wychavon and no doubt ultimately responsible for making this roundabout far more dangerous than it was, to the point where a serious accident will occur. And all because of blind idiocy and not having a clue what he was doing. Will he be accountable and be culpable when an injury occurs?

The public could clearly see the problems with the new layout, so why couldn't the do called highway experts who needed an audit to make changes, which still haven't gone far enough. Heads should roll, their high salaries cut and they should become accountable to the public.

I second your comments. The highways department should not be allowed to simply get away without only squandering tax payer's money on poorly thought-out and designed schemes, but also on schemes that cause a genuine hazard to the road user like this one. I sincerely hope that, finally, the highway engineers responsible for this roundabout are called in question and are told to step down immediately because this farce is the latest in a line of well documented calamities from Worcestershire's highways department and enough is enough.

May be if the national press and local TV were invited to report on this roundabout, we'd finally see heads roll in shame.

SkipMaster wrote:

Cludgehill wrote:
So lets try and help the integrated transport department out with future transport ideas, that hopefully will not be a waste of money. Firstly it's obvious the villages of crowle an tibberton need a 10 min park and ride service using huge Mercedes buses run from say a new 10 million pound hub located in flyford flavell! Next lets build a dual carriageway to link alfrick with spetchley and how about another bus lane in dines green following the success of the last one, don't worry if they fail after all its only tax payers money!

Moderation please! "Integrated" is a foul and unnecessary word to use in the company of WCC highways.... And, not too many projects at once, because with all the cut backs they probably only have one set of crayons between them.....

The only thing integrated about this department is utter stupidity! Still, no doubt they all earn well over £50k for the privilege!

Andy-Apache wrote:
Some of the points suggesting that the junction itself isn't dangerous are a bit simplistic.

I have an interest in air-safety, and the potential flaws in the machines which have led to accidents. Many of these have been down to poor design, misleading information etc. When this occurs, these aspects of the design are changed to remove the possibility of the accident occurring again.

Given the amount of near misses and accidents that have happened at this junction already, as opposed to a.n.other piece of tarmac, do you not think it would be amiss to just suggest 'drivers read the signs' etc?

It's quite similar to saying to the pilot who ran out of fuel because his gauges were out of sight line and difficult to read that it's his fault, and leave the design as is so the accident can happen again, rather than checking to see if the design could be improved.

A very good analogy.

Andy-Apache wrote:
Some of the points suggesting that the junction itself isn't dangerous are a bit simplistic.

I have an interest in air-safety, and the potential flaws in the machines which have led to accidents. Many of these have been down to poor design, misleading information etc. When this occurs, these aspects of the design are changed to remove the possibility of the accident occurring again.

Given the amount of near misses and accidents that have happened at this junction already, as opposed to a.n.other piece of tarmac, do you not think it would be amiss to just suggest 'drivers read the signs' etc?

It's quite similar to saying to the pilot who ran out of fuel because his gauges were out of sight line and difficult to read that it's his fault, and leave the design as is so the accident can happen again, rather than checking to see if the design could be improved.

The signage and lack of it is a major contribution to the problem.
Arrows that do not point to the correct direction and the lack of warning signs is dangerous.

It says M5 for both lanes coming up the hill though - as intended for both to turn right. Granted the straight ahead arrow is retarded but thats worcester road signs for you, but the words M5 indicate what it is meant for @ Jeff Broad.
And a v short sighted view on turning left. You say it doesn't clog up traffic - yet you turning left at the roundabout takes a gap someone on the slip road can use. All it does is jump you past the cars on the slip road, not make the slip road queue vanish as you seem to think. And make as well as reducing the number of gaps for people on the slip road to get out of you are also making their visibility worse by coming at an harder to see angle you shouldnt be coming from. At least they stand a slightly higher chance of spotting people coming round the roundabout.
Plus you slow cars going straight over, and performing that manouvre without indicating slows stuff turning right up the hill as well.

I can see why people do it, but its not to say they should. Its the kind of driving that caused issues at the roundabout before the changes.

Andy-Apache wrote:
Some of the points suggesting that the junction itself isn't dangerous are a bit simplistic. I have an interest in air-safety, and the potential flaws in the machines which have led to accidents. Many of these have been down to poor design, misleading information etc. When this occurs, these aspects of the design are changed to remove the possibility of the accident occurring again. Given the amount of near misses and accidents that have happened at this junction already, as opposed to a.n.other piece of tarmac, do you not think it would be amiss to just suggest 'drivers read the signs' etc? It's quite similar to saying to the pilot who ran out of fuel because his gauges were out of sight line and difficult to read that it's his fault, and leave the design as is so the accident can happen again, rather than checking to see if the design could be improved.

But how much of the running out of fuel issue was pilot error? Potentially a pilot that has 1000's of hours on the specific aircraft? Was he trained correctly? Was he a pilot that was tired doing split shifts - an industry regulation issue then...

All of these are subjective of course but at the end of the day the pilot is accountable for his flying if he has been trained correctly. Yes it maybe wise to attempt to reduce risk by redesign, that is all you are doing but there is a multitude of factors at work in any accident which brings it down to the person in control. There are many accidents caused by pilot error. Therefore surely a viable solution is driver training?

I am sure many here would be happy to step into google designed electric boxes that convey them automatically to their destinations via GPS whilst their grey matter detoriates to jelly safe in the knowledge that somebody else is in control who they could blame in a crash. I am sure with H&S and safety improvements this will be the future. Devoid of choice or responsibility.

The lack of responsibility is driving (pun) in a direction where there is no human input or interaction. Afterall we are always the weakest link, therefore 99% of the time the cause of the accident. ;-)

I don't want to get into a ping pong match of what percentage of this and that etc, but the fact that the world of aviation agrees with me I think adds weight to my earlier post.

There is a whole field of study called cockpit ergonomics, and people who specialise in human factors, aviation psychology etc who attempt to make the possibility of air accidents vanishingly small (with significant success when you compare aviation safety with road safety). Yes, there are times when pilots do daft things, and where design doesn't point out their errors, but on the whole, very clever design and the willingness to look into root cause rather than just assuming the human was 100% at fault has given us a mode of transport which could barely be any safer.

There is no reason at all (except for pig headedness and inability to accept a design is could be better) why roads could not be made safer than they are by looking at human factors as an integral part of the road design.

As a slight aside, "Aircraft Safety: Accident Investigations, Analyses, & Applications" by Shari Stanford-Krause ISBN-10: 0071409742 explains these factors extremely well - and is quite an eye opener for the layman.

The new road layout is straightforward.

Drivers want to open their eyes and think.

End of conversation.

MrWXYZ wrote:
It says M5 for both lanes coming up the hill though - as intended for both to turn right. Granted the straight ahead arrow is retarded but thats worcester road signs for you, but the words M5 indicate what it is meant for @ Jeff Broad.
And a v short sighted view on turning left. You say it doesn't clog up traffic - yet you turning left at the roundabout takes a gap someone on the slip road can use. All it does is jump you past the cars on the slip road, not make the slip road queue vanish as you seem to think. And make as well as reducing the number of gaps for people on the slip road to get out of you are also making their visibility worse by coming at an harder to see angle you shouldnt be coming from. At least they stand a slightly higher chance of spotting people coming round the roundabout.
Plus you slow cars going straight over, and performing that manouvre without indicating slows stuff turning right up the hill as well.

I can see why people do it, but its not to say they should. Its the kind of driving that caused issues at the roundabout before the changes.

It says M5 yes, so does this mean the M5 is also straight on ? This whole traffic island is pretty diabolical however you plan to use it.

It was reported in the British media that over 3,500 Met Police vehicles were involved in collisions in the 09/10 financial year.

In motorsport (on the weekend its community celebrated the life of safety pioneer Sid Watkins) 7-time F1 Champion Michael Schumacher, and multiple WTCC Champion Yvan Muller, both caused collisions.

Do these drivers fall below the standard of Vox Populi, or are they just human?

Driving standards are certainly important, but lets be thankful that the wider transport community is not so narrow-minded that it looks at the human operator in a vacuum.

In the last 2 decades - during which vast progress has been made in the interconnected fields of vehicle safety, road infrastructure, driver psychology, medical science, etc. - GB road casualties have been reduced by around half.

Andy-Apache wrote:
As a slight aside, "Aircraft Safety: Accident Investigations, Analyses, & Applications" by Shari Stanford-Krause ISBN-10: 0071409742 explains these factors extremely well - and is quite an eye opener for the layman.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Similarly, 'Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response' by Olson is a good reference.

Can't help feeling that we're banging our heads against a brick wall with some people!

Just like the old school report, "could have done better". That said I am amazed at how many people have to turn in their seats to see what the traffic is like coming from the right. Personally I have had no problem looking at traffic as I navigate the slip road and positioning the vehicle so that my wing mirrors are the means to negotiate entry. I do however think that the CC should have done away with the lay-by and taken the slip road from that point. That would have helped divert the traffic in that direction and reduced the ability for inconsiderate drivers that double park on the dual carriageway. It would also provide a more meaningful slip road.

Name unknown wrote:
It was reported in the British media that over 3,500 Met Police vehicles were involved in collisions in the 09/10 financial year.

In motorsport (on the weekend its community celebrated the life of safety pioneer Sid Watkins) 7-time F1 Champion Michael Schumacher, and multiple WTCC Champion Yvan Muller, both caused collisions.

Do these drivers fall below the standard of Vox Populi, or are they just human?

Driving standards are certainly important, but lets be thankful that the wider transport community is not so narrow-minded that it looks at the human operator in a vacuum.

In the last 2 decades - during which vast progress has been made in the interconnected fields of vehicle safety, road infrastructure, driver psychology, medical science, etc. - GB road casualties have been reduced by around half.

And all of those accidents happened negotiating a clearly signposted traffic island did they!?

So why look at the traffic island in a vacuum then? That's what this story and many of the posts do in an attempt to dodge driver responsibility.

Amazes me how 1000s of people must have had a lucky escape negotiating that island today..

Its just the stupid drivers of Worcester, you would really wonder how many people even passed their tests !!

Also the OAP's are the next worse, they should be re-tested at a certain age, I witnessed one in Malvern stop and indicate to turn left coming out of Morrisons, usually this would be fine but he was in the filter lane and just stopped and indicated nearly causing an accident.

Nothing wrong with the roundabout so stop your moaning

RosieL wrote:
The slip road from the river bridge near The Ketch onto the A38 going into Worcester works perfectly well, you have to wait to join the traffic, I am not sure what the difference is here.

The angles, as far as I can see.

Or crap design, to put it another way.

Fact is, if the design was ok, the Council wouldn't be making changes. This is yet another foul-up a bunch of overpaid people who really need sorting out.

It's really an insult to taxpayers that we are forced to pay these people cushy salaries, no matter how bad a job they do. They have a childish unwillingness to accept responsibility in the way grown ups normally have to.

County Hall and the City have so much in common.

If you think Worcester drivers are stupid you want to come to Bromyard at 3.30 when the Mums are picking their little darlings up from school in their Chelsea tractors.

Fact is that the Roundabout is at a major national junction used by people from all over the Country - not just locals. Locals get used to junctions and quickly learn to use them properly. Outsiders need good clear signage and consistency with other junctions.

Worcestershire Highways are not the best and have created many white elephants. Maybe with Council cutbacks they will have to leave well alone in the future.

Keith B wrote:
If you think Worcester drivers are stupid you want to come to Bromyard at 3.30 when the Mums are picking their little darlings up from school in their Chelsea tractors. Fact is that the Roundabout is at a major national junction used by people from all over the Country - not just locals. Locals get used to junctions and quickly learn to use them properly. Outsiders need good clear signage and consistency with other junctions. Worcestershire Highways are not the best and have created many white elephants. Maybe with Council cutbacks they will have to leave well alone in the future.

New junctions are often most difficult for locals to get used to, as they are having to re-adjust. I doubt whether Worcester drivers are any better or worse than Bromyard ones, and that either group is uniquely good or bad.

What does seem true is that Worcester is blighted by some pretty stupid 'work' done by talent-free, responsibility-shy people at County Hall.

I feel very strongly that these people should 'man-up' and take responsibility for their mistakes.

There should be power of recall for councillors and managers involved in acts of stupidity above and beyond the call of duty.

There is for Councillors ... it's called an election.

As for the Managers .... local government is not the safe job it once was.

But Highways just keep on spending.

Put a moratorium on all spending on the road projects for 5 years like they seem to have done in the North - you won't need speed bumps as the ruts in the road will calm the traffic. Lots of problems solved in one policy.

Keith B wrote:
There is for Councillors ... it's called an election. As for the Managers .... local government is not the safe job it once was. But Highways just keep on spending. Put a moratorium on all spending on the road projects for 5 years like they seem to have done in the North - you won't need speed bumps as the ruts in the road will calm the traffic. Lots of problems solved in one policy.

I like your thinking but I pay road tax for a level of service.

When this isn't delivered the local authority can expect bill for the pothole damage to my tyres, alloys and suspension. Check out the rise in claims following the last cold Christmas. :-)

Interesting thought ... you pay road tax to the Government who are cutting back grant to local government ... but it is local government responsible for road repair who pays out the claims - paid for of course by us through Council Tax.

Maybe we should pay road tax directly to the local authority .... or scrap both road tax and road repair - just let the motorist take their chances with the roads, a bit like rural South American or African "roads".

In our present culture everyone is looking to claim from someone else for every misfortune that befalls them ... which is the reason for the rise in damage claims against local authorities, as well as bogus insurance claims.

Greed culture is the rule of thumb.

Vox populi wrote:

Keith B wrote:
There is for Councillors ... it's called an election. As for the Managers .... local government is not the safe job it once was. But Highways just keep on spending. Put a moratorium on all spending on the road projects for 5 years like they seem to have done in the North - you won't need speed bumps as the ruts in the road will calm the traffic. Lots of problems solved in one policy.

I like your thinking but I pay road tax for a level of service.

When this isn't delivered the local authority can expect bill for the pothole damage to my tyres, alloys and suspension. Check out the rise in claims following the last cold Christmas. :-)

But as a driver, you should be aware of potholes etc, so can avoid hitting them. Or are you suggesting that the engineers should study the holes and understand that by changing them (filling them in) they make the road safer?

Interesting idea...

Keith B wrote:
There is for Councillors ... it's called an election. As for the Managers .... local government is not the safe job it once was. But Highways just keep on spending. Put a moratorium on all spending on the road projects for 5 years like they seem to have done in the North - you won't need speed bumps as the ruts in the road will calm the traffic. Lots of problems solved in one policy.

Doesn't work that way, though. The gap between elections means people can foul up and still be in power for a long time.

Also, voters tend to vote for parties, not individuals. All the self-serving politician has to do is get themselves a safe seat, and they're pretty much home and dry.

I am glad being in local government is not as safe a job as it once was, but there is still way too much sheer stupidity and unwillingness to face up to responsibility in the culture.

The multi-road ****-ups inflicted on us by our Council would seem to typify the problem.

Andy-Apache wrote:

Vox populi wrote:

Keith B wrote: There is for Councillors ... it's called an election. As for the Managers .... local government is not the safe job it once was. But Highways just keep on spending. Put a moratorium on all spending on the road projects for 5 years like they seem to have done in the North - you won't need speed bumps as the ruts in the road will calm the traffic. Lots of problems solved in one policy.

I like your thinking but I pay road tax for a level of service. When this isn't delivered the local authority can expect bill for the pothole damage to my tyres, alloys and suspension. Check out the rise in claims following the last cold Christmas. :-)

But as a driver, you should be aware of potholes etc, so can avoid hitting them. Or are you suggesting that the engineers should study the holes and understand that by changing them (filling them in) they make the road safer? Interesting idea...

No I am saying I pay for a service I expect - simple.

Whilst I am quite happy to avoid potholes (to an extent) do you advocate them as a widespread viable traffic calming solution? Similar to a traffic island or junction that is difficult to negotiate therefore has the same effect? ;-)

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Keith B wrote:
If you think Worcester drivers are stupid you want to come to Bromyard at 3.30 when the Mums are picking their little darlings up from school in their Chelsea tractors. Fact is that the Roundabout is at a major national junction used by people from all over the Country - not just locals. Locals get used to junctions and quickly learn to use them properly. Outsiders need good clear signage and consistency with other junctions. Worcestershire Highways are not the best and have created many white elephants. Maybe with Council cutbacks they will have to leave well alone in the future.

New junctions are often most difficult for locals to get used to, as they are having to re-adjust. I doubt whether Worcester drivers are any better or worse than Bromyard ones, and that either group is uniquely good or bad.

What does seem true is that Worcester is blighted by some pretty stupid 'work' done by talent-free, responsibility-shy people at County Hall.

I feel very strongly that these people should 'man-up' and take responsibility for their mistakes.

There should be power of recall for councillors and managers involved in acts of stupidity above and beyond the call of duty.

I agree entirely More Tea Vicar and I am becoming increasingly frustrated at the seemingly endless examples of utter incompetence emanating from the highway department at the tax payer's expense. It's one thing after another, and I'm sure I'm not the only one peeved off with the ineptitude of this department.

It gets even worse when they even fail to take responsibility for foul ups, or even acknowledge a problem with scheme despite such issues being quite obvious to the general public, i.e. the people who apparently know nothing in the eyes of the highways department.

And it's more galling as, which you mentioned previously, we pay these idiots a huge salary, which is in no doubt topped up be generous perks and benefits. I bet they don't even pay council tax!

The highway engineers need to be come directly accountable and responsible to the public and soon, otherwise Worcester will continue to suffer from their incompetence, as well as become a more dangerous place to drive around if the Whittington roundabout and other ill conceived schemes around the city are anything to go by. Sadly, the current system means that these engineers are protected and will never be paid to pay the price, become responsible or become accountable to the public. Only a mass protest at the doorstep of County Hall may start to focus their minds.

Mr Blake, Mr Fraser, liaison engineers, and the rest of you, whoever you are and whatever your title is, you should all wake up, have a conscience and take responsibility for once in your council life. And take a leaf out of the private sector so you know what competence and efficiency is all about. At the moment, you're all a disgrace and you should hang your heads in shame, with the worst of the worst culprits being shown the door marked exit.

I'd hate to be working in the highways department right now. Apart from being one of the least liked people at the best of times, there is certainly a crusade against this department which is escalating to the point where I can see highway officers either being verbally abused or even attacked, such is the anger against them at the moment. And it will only get worse until the public get what they want.

Those that criticise, do you honestly think that you could do a better job in managing the road network when you consider the framework and legislation which this department must work within, not to mention the meddlings of councillors? If you genuinely think that this department is being deliberately incompetent and cannot manage the road network, you have the power to change things. Turn up at County Hall, have a protest, contact the press, pester your MP/Councillor, contact the local government ombudsman. I suspect that all things carefully considered, very few will do anything because they probably know that in reality they couldn't do a better job. And before anyone asks, I do not work for the council.

Neither do I Lizzie R ...... and no lover of inefficient staff but what an unfair comment from DEMRICS.

Officers of the Council are not by any means feather bedded. There are no perks with the job, pay has been frozen for a number of years, they have been forced to take 3 days unpaid leave a year to save the Council money, they are having to put more into their pension funds, salaries are nothing special compared to the private sector, and job security is almost zero. As for the stupid comment about not paying Council Tax, the public sector are probably the most carefully regulated of all by HMRC.

And they ARE accountable. It's called elections. If you don't like what they do, win an election and you can be their boss.

Andy-Apache wrote:

Vox populi wrote:

Keith B wrote: There is for Councillors ... it's called an election. As for the Managers .... local government is not the safe job it once was. But Highways just keep on spending. Put a moratorium on all spending on the road projects for 5 years like they seem to have done in the North - you won't need speed bumps as the ruts in the road will calm the traffic. Lots of problems solved in one policy.

I like your thinking but I pay road tax for a level of service. When this isn't delivered the local authority can expect bill for the pothole damage to my tyres, alloys and suspension. Check out the rise in claims following the last cold Christmas. :-)

But as a driver, you should be aware of potholes etc, so can avoid hitting them. Or are you suggesting that the engineers should study the holes and understand that by changing them (filling them in) they make the road safer? Interesting idea...

But what if, to avoid the pothole, you have to change direction, maybe into another lane, or into on-coming traffic. Potholes usually appear in the driving line, where all the wheels go, so avoiding the pothole becomes a dangerous manouevre.
Do you really want drivers swerving to avoid potholes on busy roads? Interesting idea!

Keith B, you may have missed my point. I'm not advocating that the roads are left to ruin.

What I was suggesting was that if the driver must accept all risk, and and responsibility for accidents on badly designed roads and junctions, then by the same logic, any accidents on badly maintained roads are the fault of the driver alone, and the people responsible for the highways can absolve themselves of responsibility again.

Also, I don't think anyone here is suggesting the public servants responsible are under threat of abuse! How ridiculous! What I and others would like to see is them taking a look at their design, and seeing where it could be improved, as anyone involved in design of safety critical systems would, rather than taking the easy route and blaming the end user for issues that's all.

Hmmm

I think in this case a pothole would be considered a hazard. A traffic island is not.

Not sure if there is a correct way to safely negotiate a pothole whereas this can be achieved at this traffic island

Lizzie R wrote:
I'd hate to be working in the highways department right now. Apart from being one of the least liked people at the best of times, there is certainly a crusade against this department which is escalating to the point where I can see highway officers either being verbally abused or even attacked, such is the anger against them at the moment. And it will only get worse until the public get what they want.

Those that criticise, do you honestly think that you could do a better job in managing the road network when you consider the framework and legislation which this department must work within, not to mention the meddlings of councillors? If you genuinely think that this department is being deliberately incompetent and cannot manage the road network, you have the power to change things. Turn up at County Hall, have a protest, contact the press, pester your MP/Councillor, contact the local government ombudsman. I suspect that all things carefully considered, very few will do anything because they probably know that in reality they couldn't do a better job. And before anyone asks, I do not work for the council.

I'm afraid that the abuse towards highways staff started a long long time ago, way before the Whittington roundabout scheme was even conceived, while this scheme has merely heightened the angst against this department according to a couple of people I know at the County Council. It seems that everyone loves to hate the highways department as whatever they do is wrong and therefore results in complaints, some of it being extremely savage and personal.

Keith B wrote:
Neither do I Lizzie R ...... and no lover of inefficient staff but what an unfair comment from DEMRICS.

Officers of the Council are not by any means feather bedded. There are no perks with the job, pay has been frozen for a number of years, they have been forced to take 3 days unpaid leave a year to save the Council money, they are having to put more into their pension funds, salaries are nothing special compared to the private sector, and job security is almost zero. As for the stupid comment about not paying Council Tax, the public sector are probably the most carefully regulated of all by HMRC.

And they ARE accountable. It's called elections. If you don't like what they do, win an election and you can be their boss.

And those in the private sector haven't been affected too? If anything, council workers still have a cushy number compared to workers in the private sector who have had to suffer much more, and continue to do so, as well as having substantially less pay. And when someone fouls up in the private sector, they tend to pay the price. In the highways department, nothing of the sort happens and I'm quite sure no one will be sacked, even disciplined, for the chaos and danger caused by the changes at this roundabout.

It's quite interesting reading the views on this junction, as someone who is involved in the design and engineering of roads.

Before you all shoot me I wasn't involved in the design of this junction. I just try and offer a bit more of a fact based assessment of the comments and concerns, based upon engineering background.

Firstly the junction as it stands appears to perform well, with lower levels of congestion during the key peak period. It would appear the Ketch roundabout is causing the majority of the delays on the link road, following on from the improvements to the Powick, Whittington and Norton roundabouts over the last couple of years. Hopefully the improvements coming next year will improve the situation along the whole link road.

Having driven the southern link for a few years, I am aware with its operation, and from observation, there seems to be little requirement for it to be dualled. As it seems that the junctions are the cause of the congestion, primarily as a result of drivers not being able to pull out into gaps in the traffic, which are plentiful.

Possibly due to a lack of confidence on the roads, or maybe a lack of driving ability/skill. Something that could be remedied across the country by simply introducing mandatory driving retests for all drivers, say every 5-10 years, what needs to be realised is that other professional drivers, be it HGV or Airline, have to undergo regular checks, as i understand it, thus maintainting a degree of knowledge about modern conditions.

I certain wouldn't want to get on a plane knowing the pilot passed in 1950 and hasn't retrained for modern conditions or kept himself up to date, however this is what happens with some drivers. I passed my test 10 years ago, and whilst some may say that things haven't changed much in 10 years, driving conditions have changed. For example 10 years more traffic growth (admittedly not in the last 3 years), new innovations in transport systems, such as red routes in London, and now other cities, in recent years, cycle superhighways in London etc.. there are numerous others.

The fact that the Whittington roundabout has been designed in the way it has, appears to be fully in line with design standards. In so far that adequate signage has been provided in line with national legislation, from what I can see there is little difference to the left turn slip onto the Bath Road at the Ketch roundabout, yet you don't hear about people crashing into the back of other vehicles.

Also a near miss is not a collision, the term is quite obvious, in addition there is a perception that the new road is dangerous. This can not be proven without collision statistics, typically a new highway scheme is reviewed after 1 year and 3 years. This then provides an evidence base before further money is spent on over-reacting to members of the public complaining, and political over-reaction.

I also don't know what the Labour councillors are discussing, as there was a high level of public consultation prior to the scheme being implemented, and political point scoring is not really necessary in this case.

The signage is not the issue, it is the drivers who expect a slip road to be there that isn't provided. As such "Driving without due care and attention", it should be noted that the drivers who stated this in the initial story, should possibly be penalised by the police, on his own admission!

DEMRICS wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Neither do I Lizzie R ...... and no lover of inefficient staff but what an unfair comment from DEMRICS.

Officers of the Council are not by any means feather bedded. There are no perks with the job, pay has been frozen for a number of years, they have been forced to take 3 days unpaid leave a year to save the Council money, they are having to put more into their pension funds, salaries are nothing special compared to the private sector, and job security is almost zero. As for the stupid comment about not paying Council Tax, the public sector are probably the most carefully regulated of all by HMRC.

And they ARE accountable. It's called elections. If you don't like what they do, win an election and you can be their boss.

And those in the private sector haven't been affected too? If anything, council workers still have a cushy number compared to workers in the private sector who have had to suffer much more, and continue to do so, as well as having substantially less pay. And when someone fouls up in the private sector, they tend to pay the price. In the highways department, nothing of the sort happens and I'm quite sure no one will be sacked, even disciplined, for the chaos and danger caused by the changes at this roundabout.

DEMRICS - you've fallen for the Government manipulation - setting one set or workers in the private against other workers in the public sector. We ALL work for a living and should be supporting each other, not playing the Governments divisive game. Meanwhile the villains in the Banks and the City continue to make money off the backs of working people.

As long as there are people around willing to attack their own, the Islington set of Cameron, Clegg and Milliband will continue will keep rubbing their hands with glee

Layout at the Ketch is totally different, angles, traffic volumes etc. What should have happened at Whittington is three lanes at the roundabout, the seperation by the kerbing is what makes it dangerous as it implies a new lane going down the hill as would be the case with that layout in most other parts of the UK. The Whittington layout has created an accident blackspot, that's now proven, it's outragous that those responsible are still trying to defend it. It must be reworked to behave in a more conventional way. We have to accept the money has been wasted but more must be spent to remove the danger or somone will be killed there, messing around with signs and paint is idiotic. Either leave it coned off so it's safe or get the diggers out and make it right

Hurrah to bodgerandbadger. A sensible post without emotion knee jerk!

Vox populi wrote:
Hurrah to bodgerandbadger. A sensible post without emotion knee jerk!

Yes, factually incorrect and fails to apportion any blame on the poor design but what just you expect from a wet behind the ears highways engineer.

brooksider wrote:

Vox populi wrote:
Hurrah to bodgerandbadger. A sensible post without emotion knee jerk!

Yes, factually incorrect and fails to apportion any blame on the poor design but what just you expect from a wet behind the ears highways engineer.

So what are the facts of your rebuttal?
At least B&B was trying to help those of us without formal Highways qualifications understand better.
In fact the comments about little need to dual were enlightening to me.

B&B facts that don't stand up to scrutiny.

He states adequate signage has been provided.
No there hasn't, warning signage is woeful on all the roads leading to the Whittington roundabout.
Most dangerously there is not give way warning sign on the slip lane and coming drivers from the roundabout have no warning about traffic approaching from the left.

I question B&B's claims to be involved with highway design as he fails to comprehend the difference in traffic flow and behaviour between the Ketch and Whittington island slip roads.

B&B asserts the junction performs well on the basis of congestion alone, 2 extra lanes have been added, what does he expect?
Unfortunately for blase' highway engineers, safety of road users is also a factor when judging a junctions performance.

As for the red herring about driver competence is typical incompetent highway engineer buck passing, so maybe he is a green highways engineer after all.

Bodger & Badger, what are you on about? A driving test teaches you very little about how to handle a car and find those gaps that you refer to. As is commonly suggested by 'petrol heads', you don't start learning how to drive until you've actually passed your test.

I would prefer to get into a car with a guy who has 20 years experience than a guy who has 1 year experience. And I bet that the person with more experience would be able to handle new legislation and road layouts better than the inexperienced driver.

Besides all that, there will be people that aren't as good at driving as others. My girlfriend is terrible for example! Road layouts, signage etc should account for bad drivers. There are bad drivers and that is not going to change. Your proposal of retaking tests constantly is an interesting proposal, and one I am not totally against. However, what would these tests involve? Who would police it? Who would pay for it? It just wouldn't work. Personally, I believe the initial test should be harder, like the Swedish test.

Bodger & Badger, there may be design standards, but they are also open to interpretation, in addition to common sense, so that they can be applied to each unique local environment. What we have at Whittington is a total lack of common sense and a lack of proper interpretation of legislation. And the fact the public can see this new layout is a danger, and a major accident waiting to happen, just highlights the sheer lack of competence from the highways department.

If motorists didn't think there was in issue, irrespective of their experience behind the wheel, we wouldn't be concerned or ask that heads at County Hall should roll. A concerted campaign calling for answers, accountability and resignations should start now.

I've heard rumours that further corrective works are due to take place next week to try and make the new layout less dangerous. So more of the tax-payer's hard-earned cash is to be spent on trying to cure a disease of their own making. And to make matters worse, I believe they're going to be carried out during the rush hour. You couldn't make it up!

Ironically what you all seem to advocate is designing roads at great expense for the lowest common denominator. Driving amoebas if you like. This increases risk for everyone on the roads. Why not make signs bigger and give partially sighted people a shot too eh?

What is being suggested above is that removal of these amoebas or better education of them would save many more lives than making driving on our roads easier. Has been proved - Swedish driving conditions generally awful, driving test difficult including skid training etc and the lowest accident rate in the developed world.

Shock, horror but danger and training actually can increase competency. May also mean people arent scared of a traffic island. :-)

If the problem with this traffic island is all down to driver faults, then how come its been cordoned off now for over a week? Surely that, and the revised layout, and the plans for further revision of the layout, speaks for itself. Its been badly designed and badly implemented. How BodgerandBadger can compare this to the Ketch island is very strange. At the Ketch island, the traffic using the slip roads are a minority of flow, entering a road which is is a minority of flow. At the Whittington island, you have the majority of traffic coming off that island trying to join the majority of traffic flow, all using a single badly designed, badly signed, and badly implemented junction with visibility which is far worse than at the Ketch island.

"If the problem with this traffic island is all down to driver faults, then how come its been cordoned off now for over a week?"


To protect the amoebas? :-)

Vox populi wrote:
"If the problem with this traffic island is all down to driver faults, then how come its been cordoned off now for over a week?"


To protect the amoebas? :-)

Yeh, within the Council!

I'm waiting for the next article regarding this roundabout which will hopefully say that the Director of Environmental Services (Mr Hobbs), the Head of Integrated Transport (Mr Blake), Mr Fraser, highways liaison engineers, and in fact highways staff associated with this farce, have resigned. Could be a long wait though!

brooksider wrote:

Vox populi wrote:
"If the problem with this traffic island is all down to driver faults, then how come its been cordoned off now for over a week?"


To protect the amoebas? :-)

Yeh, within the Council!

That's not fair on amoebas.

WilkoJ wrote:
I'm waiting for the next article regarding this roundabout which will hopefully say that the Director of Environmental Services (Mr Hobbs), the Head of Integrated Transport (Mr Blake), Mr Fraser, highways liaison engineers, and in fact highways staff associated with this farce, have resigned. Could be a long wait though!

........ and you replace them with??????? Oh yes an inexperienced kid out of University who has all the right qualifications. Who'd do the interviews - the Councillors you have no faith in?


Or do we just take a cross section of correspondents on this page to make the perfect appointment?


You are becoming like football fans wanting to sack the manager all the time .... to replace them with another bod at twice the cost who will produce similar results.

I don't know Mr Blake or Mr Hobbs or Mr Fraser but do you think they deliberately are making a mess of the project just to annoy you .... or maybe they are simply people doing their best, following the guidelines set by the department of transport. They aren't digging their heals in and leaving things as they are but seem to have a plan B .... unlike so many football managers! It sounds to me like the right people are in the job and the customers/fans are the ones who haven't a clue

UptonX – To answer your comments, please note I am not trying to defend the junction (As you allude to). You should realise that it would have been designed following a set process, as for all new junctions, requiring numerous design checks, at various stages. I would ask the following points:

1) Is the Ketch roundabout not a slip road in which there is a short approach lane, that is not a dedicated lane, i.e. it has a dotted line in which you have to cross at both ends? The angles are not vastly different, I drove the Ketch one today deliberately to compare this to the Whittington one, there is even less forward visibility of the signage at this junction than the one at Whittington. However, this junction is clearly ok as no one has complained about it, or is it just the fact that the junction has been like this for a number of years, and people have learnt how to drive this new junction? I’ll leave that one for your thoughts. In terms of the traffic volumes, I do not know what the respective flows are, but there are design standards based upon traffic flows, I would guess that this junction has been designed to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, given its not a Trunk Road (i.e. one owned and maintained by the Highways Agency) then this standard is a more onerous standard on things such as visibility and geometry, in particular corner radii, and junction visibility requirements.

2) Are you able to explain why you think kerbed island means a free flow lane heading towards the norton roundabout. If you use the junction by the racecourse (Croft Road/Grandstand Road), or the junction of Henwick Road with Hylton Road. Do you also assume that these are free flow lanes, as there is a kerbed island, although on these there is also a give way line and warning sign, as per the left turn lane.

3) In terms of the three lanes on the approach, this would not solve the problem of gap acceptance at the roundabout, by relocating the left turning traffic away from the circulatory carriageway, you minimise the number of potential conflicts at the junction for left turning traffic, thus increasing the capacity for this particular movement.

4) In terms of the collisions, it is highly unlikely on the balance that the type of collisions occuring would result in a fatality (given that those reported are of the shunt nature, these tend to be minor collsions generally, and very rarely these are serious collisions) I base this on 10 years of experience in reviewing collision data, and analysing causation factors.

Brooksider, thank you for your comments. I will ignore the emotional comment about the wet behind the ears highways engineer, as I did find this comment amusing and typical of the childish behaviour of some of the posters on this website. I trust it that you have a number of years of “Real” driving experience that you call upon, and maybe you would like to allude to your credentials on your next post.

To answer your comments. Signage requirements in England and Wales, are governed by the Traffic Sign Regulations & General Directions 2002 (this is current, and due to be updated in 2015), and supporting Traffic Signs Manual guidance. Before you comment I would suggest you read Chapters 3 and 5 of this supporting document, which advises on the required level of signage, and that is what I base the comment upon, in so far that sufficient signage has been required to meet the requirements and adequate visibility of signage has been provided.

I don’t fully understand why people require a warning sign to advise of traffic approaching along the slip road, given there is full visibility of the slip road for vehicles exiting the slip road. There was a standard Give Way sign on the slip road, until it was removed after the junction was coned off. Please correct me if I am wrong on that, but I certainly saw the sign when I drove this junction, maybe a trip to Specsavers (Other opticians are available) would be beneficial if you didn’t see the sign.

Please see my comments above re the Ketch/Whittington slip roads.

Actually to correct you on the road safety argument for new junctions, yes this is one of 5 Government appraisal factors for the funding of new highway infrastructure. I won’t bore you with the details, but I refer you to the NATA guidance if you want to understand the elements.

Regarding the “Buck Passing”, I would advise you understand the principle set out in various UK Roads Board documentation outlining risk and liability on the public highway. May i suggest that you appreciate the context of these documents, and rather than quote a full paragraph, i summise that the following is probably sufficient to answer your query, and supported by various examples of case law.

It basically says that the Driver has responsibility for driving to the conditions of the road, and that the main liability risk for Highway Authorities is related to maintenance issues only.

Ushmush, Unfortunately the comment on “you don’t start learning to drive until you’ve actually passed a test” implies that not everybody is driving correctly, i.e. you have to adapt to the “experienced” drivers bad habits which they have picked up, such as ignoring road signs for example.

Personally I would prefer to get in with a driver who drives safely with a controlled driving style, which is based upon a risk assessment of the current conditions. It is irrelevant as to the number of years of experience, it is more to do with the capability of the driver, and their assesment of the risk associated with prevailing conditions, clearly this is higher with "Natural" drivers, i.e. those who have a skill for it, not everybody does (I remember watching a TV programme in which somebody passed after 13 attempts, you really wonder if the number of retests should be capped at say 5, if you can't pass the test after 5 attempts then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to take control of a lethal object, which has the potential to kill people in the wrong hands).

Road layouts and signage is designed on the assumption that drivers on the public highway drive to the conditions in front of them and not to over-regulate things that are quite obvious, unfortunately some Local Authorities have over-provided signage thus reducing its importance, such as an over-provision of warning signs under the false pretense that this removes the risk of being sued for a drivers poor driving. (Call it the compensation culture if you like).

Yes there are bad drivers, I’m sure everyone sees these “bad drivers” on a daily basis, e.g. those that fail to utilise the inside lane on the motorway even though there is nothing to overtake, because they do not have the confidence/ability to merge into an overtaking lane (Lanes 2/3/4 etc) at a later date.

DEMRICS, You are correct, local context is considered in the application of design standards. To clarify, a new highway scheme has to follow a safety assessment process, which offers two road safety audits prior to construction commencing, and a third prior to the road opening after construction. This report appears to have flagged up zero engineering issues, so claims of a badly engineered junction is emotional comment based upon a lack of the facts.

Perception of danger and the hard evidence of collision statistics are two different things, unfortunately, government spending criteria does not allow for perception to be considered, but must be evidence based before expenditure can occur.

By the public I assume you mean the circa 150 people who have commented on this website over the past few days (Of which there must be several repeat posters, so probably say 75-100 people at most). Any ideas on how many people driving the junction. I’d estimate something in the region of 15-20 thousand, so in that context it is an extremely small minority, and I’m sure there are a few more people who have concerns but haven’t commented on this site, but even so I wouldn’t expect more than 1-2 thousand, so not even 10% of drivers.

I don’t understand the call for heads to roll either, why would this make the perceived safety issue disappear? I’d be interested to know what you are trying to achieve with this.

VoxPopuli, for information there is a current consensus in the highways industry to start thinking about the ageing population, and one of the considerations is to make signs slighlty larger than at present.

Personally, I think this is a terrifying prospect that drivers need bigger signs to see them, nothing like a regular eye check to make sure you can see things when your driving.

I’m not familiar with Sweden in detail, but I understand driving tests in a number of European countries teach skid pan and cadence braking techniques, plus motorway driving.

Hillbilly, I suspect it has been coned off, to make amendments to react to the perceived level of danger that the Worcester News has been heavily publicising in lieu of any real news in Worcester.

Regarding your other comments, please refer to earlier in my post.