Picture by kind permission of the Ipswich "Evening Star"
Welcome to The A140 Campaign.
The A140 is probably the most dangerous road in Suffolk and has killed 57 people since 1987 and 28 in the last 10 years. We believe that Suffolk County Council are not doing enough to make it safer. The road passes through several villages, and increasing levels of traffic are blighting the lives of those who live there.
There has been no significant alteration to the road for very many years. While the authorities in Norfolk have built bypasses and carried out other major improvements to their part of the same road (which carries more traffic and has killed fewer people), all Suffolk have done is tinker with speed limits.
This road is a major artery between Norwich and Ipswich, the two main commercial and social centres in the region. The A140 Campaign calls on the County Council to make a serious and responsible effort to provide us with a road which is suitable for its purpose, which does not make our day-to-day lives a misery, and which allows us to go about our daily business in safety.
We are anxious to hear from all local residents and users of the A140. Please use the "contact" button on the left to send us your views. If you have serious opinions on any aspect of the road .... write us an article!
SUFFOLK ROADS GETTING MORE DANGEROUS!
We learn that Suffolk County Council are using the notorious SMA road surface, which was condemned By the Highways Agency in the 1990s, is banned in Europe, and has been highlighted in the press and on the BBC because it is so slippery.
Click here to read of one Suffolk driver's experience of this lethal road surface.
Local democracy - bet you didn't know this!
Under the 1972 Local Government Act, civic Parish Councils can vote to request their local District Council to hold a referendum on any issue of concern to the local parish - and that could, of course, include matters of road safety!
Once the Parish Council has voted in favour, the District Council has to carry out the referendum.
1. Choose the issue.
2. Decide the wording of the question.
3. With at least five other local parish residents, approach the Parish Council and request a Parish Council meeting.
4. Advertise the meeting.
5. At least 10 people must be present at the meeting, where a formal motion must be put forward to support a referendum (the wording of the referendum must be part of the resolution) and a vote taken.
6. The motion can only be carried if a third of those present, or at least 10 (whichever is the least) vote in favour.
7. Take the resolution to the District Council and submit a request for a referendum, invoking your right under Schedule 12, Part III, para.18(4) and (5) at page 2275 of the Local Government Act (1972). In Wales it is Schedule 12, Part V, para.34(4) and (5) at page 2279. The District Council must respond within a week and the referendum has to be held within 14-25 days of the request being submitted.
8. Publicise the referendum and campaign for your cause.
Note, all those entitled to vote at local elections, including the parish councillors, are entitled to vote when the motion is tabled, with the person presiding having a casting vote, as per para18(1) and (3). Para 18(1) states that, "each local government elector may, at a parish meeting or at a poll consequent thereon, give one vote and no more on any question."
Getting the Council to do anything about the issue is, of course, the next step after winning the referendum, but your case will be strengthened with a democratic mandate.
This link describes the whole process in detail.
STOP PRESS! Modified rapture - something sensible has happened at last!
The A140 Campaign have at last heard from Suffolk County Council in response to our "SORT IT NOW!" document in which we called on them to put in hand a programme of achievable, affordable short-term measures to improve the road and cut accidents. Some of the proposals were included in SCC's own strategy document for the road, years ago - but they have done nothing.
We called on Suffolk County Council to ....
• identify minor road junctions that can be closed off
• re-model the remaining junctions following the example of the existing junction at Mickfield/Mendlesham Green which has adequate right-turn lanes and good visibility
• install rumble-strips to warn drivers on unrestricted minor roads that they are about to join the A140
• provide spacious lay-bys at regular intervals to allow slow-moving vehicles to pull over, and give lorry-drivers the chance to stop when required to do so by the regulations on driving hours
The County Council now inform us that some of these alterations are either going ahead or under active consideration. To see the details, click here.
It has been very convenient (for governments) to go along with the community belief that it's all about bad behaviour, because then you don't have to invest so much in infrastructure." - Ian Johnston, Accident Research Centre Director, Monash University, Australia 2004
Those speed limits - changes welcomed by drivers
Suffolk County Council have at last made a decision about the complex and ever-changing speed-limits that caused so much confusion and frustration among motorists. They have ...
• removed the 40mph "buffer zones", but ...
• kept the 50mph limit on the rest of the road, and also the 40mph limit through Brome, controlled by a speed camera
While many road-users will feel this doesn't go far enough and that the bulk of the road should be at the national speed limit, it is certainly a step in the right direction. The limits are easier to remember, and drivers can at least understand the rationale for them which may in time improve the rather poor rates of compliance.
... but another daft decision?
Travelling south and reaching the end of the A140, you approach the large roundabout at the junction with the A14. Presumably in a bid to slow drivers down as they approach the roundabout (why? how many accidents have there been?) Suffolk County Council have planted a hedge in the central reservation so that car drivers no longer have a good view of the roundabout.
What the Council have not realised is that while a motorist may indeed be forced to slow down, the driver of the articulated lorry right behind him will be able to see over the top of the hedge, and won't be expecting that little Ford Fiesta to suddenly slam on its brakes. We await the first fatality at this spot. Congratulations, Suffolk. Yet another piece of not-quite-joined-up thinking.
We wanted to know what you thought ....
And you told us. Our thanks to all those who took the trouble to reply to our recent questionnaire.
Here are some of the results …
• 92% of those replying were car drivers, 59% used the A140 every day, 45% used the full length of the road between Scole and Coddenham, and 14% were lorry drivers which means that some drive both a car and a lorry at times
• 80% believe the A140 is not safe. Only 18% felt it was safe, so 2% offered no opinion
• 67% are unhappy with the current system of speed limits, almost all of them (65%) saying that there are too many limits
• 76% want a Stonham bypass, 16% don't
• 57% believe the eventual solution should be a full length dual carriageway, while 29% disagree
Many respondents offered their own comments, too numerous to list here. Some described the road as "frightening", "a nightmare" and "a disgrace to Suffolk". The junction with the A1120 was a particular worry for many of them. Only three people felt that poor driving was the main problem. Two had lost family members to the road in recent years.
New speed limit shock!
County Council claims to have policy!
From Suffolk County Council's own publication, "Guide to Speed Limit Policy"
"In exceptional situations 50mph speed limits have been introduced. These are only appropriate ....
"... on higher standard roads" (not the A140, then. As a main route between the region's two most important commercial and cultural centres, it sucks)
"... where there are very high traffic speeds" (not the A140, then. You're lucky if you can average much more than 40mph most days)
"... where there is a history of speed related accidents" (not the A140, then. There's a history of accidents all right, but SCC's own figures show that very few indeed are caused by excessive speed. Nationally, only 7.3% of all accidents are caused by excessive speed)
"... and where it is likely there will be effective police enforcement" (not the A140, then. Suffolk police have admitted at two recent public meetings that they can't police the A140 properly and don't intend to try).
So .... not so much a policy, as a load of irrelevant waffle. Incidentally, these policy leaflets cost 34p each to produce. That's 34p of council tax payers' money well spent. Not.
PORKIES FROM SCC
At an A140 Campaign public meeting on Wednesday 14th September 2005 in Stonham Parva, County Council officials told us that the Suffolk section of the A140 is safer than the Norfolk section. They claimed that in Suffolk there is one accident every 12 days, while in Norfolk the figure is one every 10 days.
In fact, an article in the Eastern Daily Press on 17th November '05 showed that in Norfolk there have been 21 deaths since 1987, while in Suffolk there have been 57. In the last ten years, the Norfolk stretch of the road has killed 12 people, and the Suffolk stretch 28.
A bit of a difference, then.
If officials were happy to mislead the meeting by massaging statistics in this way, how much of the other stuff they said can be relied on? They told us there was little or no chance of a Stonham bypass. They said there would never be a dual carriageway from Ipswich to Norwich, at least in the foreseeable future.
But were these just a few more porkies?
To read a report of this meeting, click here.
Copyright © 2006 The A140 Campaign
This site created and maintained by PlainSite