"Cheap" option taken on A140 - campaign
County Council accused of penny-pinching
By Mark Bulstrode
Road bosses have been accused of "penny-pinching" in the management of one of the region's most important routes. The A140 Campaign claims Suffolk County Council has taken the "cheap" option in maintaining the road linking Ipswich and Norwich. The authority recently cut speed limits on the stretch in a bid to improve its accident record. But the campaigners say this demonstrates the council's reluctance to invest in the route, in contrast to the policy in Norfolk.
David Bramhall, one of the activists, claimed the county council had focused on the "sweeping and cheap" system of speed limits, rather than spending money on major improvements.
He said "We believe Suffolk County Council is 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 in very many years. While the authorities in Norfolk have built bypasses and carried out other major improvements to their part of the road, all Suffolk has done is tinker with speed limits. 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."
While recognising the prospects of building a new bypass are remote, the campaigners say other more affordable changes could still be made. These include closing minor junctions, remodelling existing junctions and installing rumble strips on routes leading to the A140. The group also believes spacious laybys should be established to allow slower vehicles to pull over, minimising the need for vehicles to overtake.
But Suffolk County Council spokeswoman said it was committed to making the road safer and highlighted recent changes at the Coddenham junction of the road. She said a bypass or major road engineering works are unlikely at this time, adding "competing interests" have to balanced before investing in the county's roads.
She said "For the A140 we have developed a route management strategy in consultation with local residents, which we are now carrying out. This does involve some physical improvements to the road, as well as the 50mph speed limits the council recently decided to make permanent. These changes have been made while working together with Norfolk County Council to co-ordinate approaches to safety. Both councils are clear that there are important differences to the context of the road along its length". She added the council welcomed feedback and would soon be consulting on different speed zones along the route.
A spokesman for Norfolk County Council said it was currently planning more improvements. He said: "While we haven't carried out any major safety improvement work on the A140 since it was de-trunked in 2001, we do have a major improvement programme which includes the Long Stratton bypass, subject to funding. While the accident rate is below average for an A-class road, we are never complacent and continue to monitor the situation. We are always looking at ways of further reducing the casualty figures."
Since 1987 there have been 57 fatal crashes on the Suffolk stretch of the road, compared to 22 in Norfolk during the same period.
(To see the full text of the document sent by the Campaign to all County Councillors, local MPs and the press, click here).
This is the text of an email sent to all County Councillors on 30th November 2005 ...
Dear Councillor,
As the SCC Cabinet are scheduled to make a decision next Thursday about the future of the temporary speed limits on the A140, I hope you will bear with me if I write once again. I am very concerned on two counts: that the Rights of Way Committee appears to have made its recommendation on the basis of a conveniently cosy and very selective interpretation of accident statistics, and that it sought, and then ignored, the opinions of Suffolk residents and the police.
There has been some coverage in the press recently about the temporary speed limits having reduced the number of accidents on the A140 in Suffolk. However, the recent tragic deaths at Brockford have dented that argument somewhat, particularly as that accident happened within the so-called "40mph buffer-zone".
The document prepared for the Rights of Way Committee, RoW05/42, stated "The above accident totals relate to approximately one accident occurring every 12 days over the entire length of A140 in Suffolk (25 kilometres). The traffic flow is approximately 13,700 vehicles per day. The accident rate for the whole length of the A140 (in Suffolk) is 21.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres. The length of the A140 in Norfolk, at 27.2 kilometres, is similar to that in Suffolk and the accident rate is also similar at 20.9 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres. However, accidents tend to occur at the rate of approximately one every 10 days on the Norfolk length of A140, where the traffic volume is larger (between 13,500 and 20,500 vehicles per day)."
This makes it appear that the Suffolk stretch of the A140 is safer than that in Norfolk, but this is the opposite of the truth by quite a long way. A major two-page article in the Eastern Daily Press on 17th November included the following figures: "... in Norfolk ... between Norwich and Scole there have been 21 deaths since 1987, and 12 during the last 10 years" while "... in Suffolk ... there have been 57 deaths since 1987, 28 in the last 10 years".
Suffolk cannot afford to be complacent about this issue. The A140 is not some unimportant little country road, but the major artery between the two most important commercial and cultural centres in our region. As such it is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the 21st Century, and if the two county councils can't do anything about it, no-one else is likely to! Suffolk is beginning to be seen in an unfavourable light - the Eastern Daily Press article made some very unsavoury comparisons between Norfolk's record and our own, and prominent figures in Norfolk are voicing the fear that Suffolk's policy of tinkering with speed limits while avoiding major expenditure on the road is going to affect the safety and commercial viability of both counties.
It was Suffolk County Council's initiative - and a praiseworthy one - to carry out a public consultation earlier this year. Almost 80% of the respondents, including Suffolk police, were unhappy with the temporary speed limits. It was therefore something of a surprise that the Rights of Way Committee decided to recommend retaining the limits. To ask constituents what they want and then blatantly ignore them is an odd procedure. To tell them that "Councillors need to form their own views on the reluctance of most people to voice support, compared to those prepared to voice an objection" (RoW05/42) is tantamount to telling them "we hear what you say but we think you're just a bunch of cranks - real people couldn't possibly agree with you".
In fact quite a large number of real people have been expressing themselves with uncharacteristic frankness. The "Stonham Tap" website www.stonhamparva.com carried out its own survey of A140 residents, and the results are rather illuminating - many of those who live on the road actually think that 30mph through their village is too slow and that they would be happy to see it raised to 40mph. That's probably very sensible - if nearby Brockford's experience is anything to go by, that would mean a mere 3mph increase in average speed!
It is certainly the general consensus that SCC has a duty 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 call on SCC (a) to restore the A140 to the national speed limit thus bringing it into line with public opinion and with our neighbours in Norfolk, and (b) to take immediate steps to make the road itself safer. If dualling is not an option, there are plenty of improvements that would be relatively cheap, including rationalising the number and layout of junctions, installing catseyes at the sides of the road as well as the middle, simplifying the large number of signs and notices, and introducing generous lay-bys at regular intervals.
Finally, a quotation from the minutes of a meeting in May last year of Norfolk County Council's Transport Group: "NCC attempting to improve A140. Suffolk County Council happy to do minimum on it."
Yours,
David Bramhall
ONE of Suffolk's longest-serving traffic officers this week spoke out against new speed limits on the A140 that look set to become permanent next month. Suffolk County Council introduced a maximum 50mph speed limit on the road in June 2004, together with variable 30 and 40mph zones in a bid to improve safety.
The stretch from Scole to the A14 interchange at Coddenham has claimed 76 lives in the past 25 years. The council's rights of way committee has recommended the experimental limits should remain in force following an overall reduction in the accident rate. But there have been three fatalities this year, and 79 per cent of people who took part in a public consultation want the 60mph limit reinstated.
Former traffic officer Len Bond, who now works for Suffolk police as a civilian, added his voice to the objectors, claiming the current limits are unnecessary and that what is really needed are village bypasses. He said: "I first started policing the A140 in Suffolk in 1967 and the first accident I ever attended was at the old Oakley crossroads, which was a serious injury accident. I retired in 1997 shortly after dealing with a double fatal at Coddenham, but in between these I dealt with many other accidents on the A140, virtually all of which were down to human error.
"The current variable speed limits on the A140 in Suffolk are unnecessary. They frustrate drivers, and are part of what is seen as a policy to reduce vehicle speeds throughout the county regardless of the need for them to be reduced. What the A140 in Suffolk needs is for the villages to be bypassed by a good, up-to-date road, preferably dual carriageway or at least with sections of dual carriageway to enable people to overtake safely, which is something that cannot be done at present."
Norfolk County Council has no plans to introduce a blanket 50mph maximum speed on its section of the A140. Adrian Gunson, the authority's Cabinet member for transport and planning is the scheme's fiercest critic. He believes a lot of accidents are caused by right turning traffic and overtaking, due to frustration with the tailbacks caused by heavy traffic. Mr Gunson claims slowing vehicles on the Suffolk stretch could exacerbate the problem, and he advocates a long-term strategy for major improvements - such as the A140 Long Stratton Bypass planned in Norfolk. He said: "I am disappointed that Suffolk County Council is going ahead with the proposals in their entirety which will inevitably increase congestion on the A140 in the whole of Suffolk. Hopefully, when it comes to review the 50mph speed limit they will take into account the frustration and delays caused to all users of this road. There will be more shunting accidents I am sure."
Mr Gunson's concerns are shared by Eve Phillips of Diss, who lost her 17-year-old son Robin Taylor in an accident on the A140 near Mendlesham. She fears slowing traffic might make matters worse and thinks dualling the road is the way forward.
The following comments came as responses to the A140 Survey carried out by The Stonham Tap .......
"There are too many knee-jerk reactions going on, from the County Council downwards. In particular there is a lot of loose talk about driver behaviour. I use the road frequently and while I see plenty of drivers not keeping to the new speed limits, I do see a lot of very good and patient driving. I have never, ever, seen a driver "slam on his brakes" as he approached a speed camera. All I see is drivers slowing down in a controlled manner. Evidently all the "idiots" we hear so much about are doing their driving when I'm not around! Speed is not the problem on the A140. The statistics show that very few accidents are speed-related. Very few are to do with head-on collision or overtaking either. It's the nature of the road itself that's the problem. It is no longer fit for its purpose, which is to carry heavy traffic between our two most important regional centres. I'm very alarmed that some villagers have swallowed the police/camera partnership/county council "bait" and are proposing to act as vigilantes with radar guns. All this will do is drive a wedge between drivers and residents, which is the authorities' intention in order to weaken the pressure on them to actually spend some serious money. Road users and road dwellers should be making an effort to speak with one voice, not getting at each other's throats. I know you all mean well, but please think again."
"The speed limit in itself is less of an issue than this being yet another layer of over-regulation in our daily lives. Reducing the need for the driver to think and judge the road for himself is a dangerous concept. And anyone who believes that 'speed/safety' cameras are anything less than a money raising tool is being naive - it has now been proven and accepted that they do not actually reduce accidents, but drivers are an easy target when the coffers need some swelling.
"The race that goes on further down the A140 as the dual carrriage way reduces down to single lanes is another area where driver attitude leaves a lot to be desired. The simple fact is that the road wasn't built to handle the volume of traffic it now carries. Addressing that issue rather than littering the road with signs, cameras and 'safety vans' would be a start ... as would actually policing the road and picking up on the real dangerous and inconsiderate drivers - but that won't happen as it costs money rather than raises it!
"Perhaps there is a case to be made for having a traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossing on the A140 through the village, or the flashing 'please slow down /drive carefully/30mph' lighted signs - all of which attract the driver's attention to the fact that they are driving through a residential area and cause less negativity and frustration than speed traps. Again - I don't believe the problem lies with the idea of drivers passing through our village at a considerate and appropriate speed. I believe it's the constant changes in speed that result in the comments left here. 40mph is not an unreasonable speed to use when travelling up the hill from the A1120 crossroads into the village, slowing to 30mph while passing through is also appropriate, but once past the Magpie I don't see a reason why the speed limit needs to be reduced again until approaching the next village. The real question is how this can best be achieved to the benefit of all concerned.
"In my opinion the current idea doesn't work to improve overall safety - that's safety for ALL concerned, residents and motorists alike. The money spent installing cameras and signs as well as running 'safety vans' could have been better spent installing cats' eyes along the sides of the road, thereby improving night time visibility without adding to light pollution. It's all too easy to get into a debate about actual speed, individual opinion, and how to enforce limits when the problem is a larger issue than our small village. The needs and opinions of one are not necessarily the needs of all. Those needing to cross the road now, for example with children, won't always need to do so. Others who don't have a need to cross on foot at this time may find that later this becomes an issue that's important to them. A solution which is acceptable to all involved and addresses future requirements will probably require compromise ... a little give and take on the side of both residents and motorist along with a healthy dose of common sense."
"Constant changes in speed limits are a nightmare and a distraction ... driver attention should be fully on the road - not needing to constantly check which limit is current for the next 100 yards, and whether the car hovering a little too near the centre of the road behind you is about to try to overtake at the first half a chance he gets. I dare say that a bypass is the answer - but then I doubt that residents would be any happier living beside a new A14 - that would only encourage more trafic to use the route. There is no way to please everyone."
"The A140 has been a major route for many, many years - most of the residents living beside it knew that when they bought or built their houses. That said there does need to be a balance between accommodating the needs of both the residents and the motorists .... Careless, impatient, dangerous driving at any speed can cause accidents, and people will always push the limits of any restriction. I'm sure driving through the village at 30mph would cause less frustration if it were not preceded by the 40mph buffer zones at either end of the village, and if the 30 zones did not continue beyond the residential areas. There are certain times of day when 30 seems sensible and safe, however there are other times of day when the road is clear and 40 or even 50 would not be a dangerous speed to travel. The fact is that the incidents of dangerous, inconsiderate and impatient driving appear to have increased rather than decreased with the introduction of the speed limits."
"I believe 30mph is far too slow on such a main road. The constant changing of the speed limits along that road makes it more difficult to concentrate on the actual driving"
"How many speed-limit signs, speed cameras and 'safety' vans does one road need?"
"The constant changes between 30, 40 and 50 mph are confusing and frustrating. Dangerous and inconsiderate driving seems to have increased since the introduction of the new limits. The sound of emergency service sirens appears to be more frequent."
This comment by email from Carl Philpott ...
"Having commuted from Middlewood Green to Norwich & Great Yarmouth for 18 months I know that the A140 is clearly inadequate for the volume and type of traffic that uses it. If all the freight traffic was decanted to a dedicated rail link then the cars would have an easier ride. Failing this, the only solution is a dual carriageway uninterrupted from the A47 to the A14, bypassing all villages. The main arterial link between Ipswich and Norwich will only continue to choke unless this is rectified and more deaths will occur due to frustration. The opening of Chapelfield should be an incentive to improve it! I have lobbied our MP regarding this matter."
From the East Anglian Daily Times on 31st October 2005 ...
A PUB manageress was among two people - both in their 20s - who died in an horrific crash on the notorious A140 road yesterday, it has emerged. Kirsty Cracknell, assistant manageress at the Bucks Head pub at Thwaite, near Eye, was killed in an accident only half-a-mile away from her workplace. A young man who was in the same car also lost his life. His identity is not yet known.
The crash, which led to the closure of the A140 for seven hours, happened at about 3am yesterday and involved two cars, a red Vauxhall and a blue Volkswagen. They collided on the brow of a shallow hill, about 200 yards north of Brockford Garage and within a 40mph speed limit zone. The occupants of the Volkswagen were taken to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital for treatment for injures which were described as “minor”.
Ms Cracknell, who lived in a bungalow in nearby Stoke Ash, had been working at the Bucks Head for the pub's new tenants who took over two months ago. They declined yesterday to talk about the tragedy. A notice at the ... entrance of the pub car park said: “Closed due to bereavement.” Shocked villagers at Stoke Ash said Ms Cracknell had moved in to her bungalow about 15 months ago and was well-liked. “She was a lovely girl, very attractive. What has happened is dreadful,” said one local resident. Another villager said Ms Cracknell had previously worked for a hairdresser in Mendlesham. “She was very nice - very good looking,” she added.
It is the first fatal accident on the Suffolk stretch of the A140 between Coddenham and Scole since February. While police are still investigating the circumstances of the latest crash, it promoted renewed calls last night for the present system of variable speed limits on the Suffolk stretch of A140 to be abandoned.
Following public consultations, Suffolk County Council are set to make permanent the “experimental” 50 mph general limit with individual 30mph and 40mph stretches through villages. Since the experiment was introduced about 18 months ago the number of casualties on the Suffolk stretch of the A140 has been almost halved - from 19 to 10. Between June 2004 and June 2005 there were just nine minor accidents on the stretch of road, compared with an average of two serious accidents and ten minor incidents in the period from 1999.
But Peter Gammage, chairman of Thwaite Parish Meeting, said: The whole thing is a shambles. It makes you throw your hands up in despair.” Mr Gammage said he would prefer a consistent 50mph limit along the entire stretch. He had not seen any evidence that the recent reduction in accidents on the A140 was a result of the new system. “Making the limits go up and down like a yo-yo is ridiculous,” he added.
Mike Langan, former chairman of Stoke Ash Parish Council, said he had suggested an overall 50mph limit for the A140 - instead of the previous 60 mph - at a meeting three years ago in Yaxley Village Hall which had been attended by highways officials. “It is, in some ways, a pain in the butt. However, it does give you a little more time to react if something goes wrong,” he added.
Police are appealing for witnesses to the accident to come forward. They should contact Pc Dave Taylor at force headquarters on 01473 613500.
This letter from a local resident was emailed recently to every Suffolk County Councillor, and featured in an article in the Ipswich "Evening Star".
25th October 2005
To all Suffolk County Councillors
Dear Councillor,
It has been reported in the press and on TV that the County Council Rights of Way Committee has recommended the temporary speed limits on the A140 road be made permanent, and that a final decision will be made by the Cabinet Committee in early December.
Before making this decision Suffolk County Council carried out a consultation exercise through its website and glossy leaflets. Of the 348 people who responded, four out of five were against the speed limits. This included two of the local parish councils.
Suffolk Police also made a formal response advising that they, too, were unhappy about the limits. They have already admitted at two public meetings that the limits cannot be enforced. As they are the people who have practical, tyres-on-the-tarmac experience and are the ones who have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, their views should carry the greatest weight.
And the Rights of Way Committee response? To blindly ignore the results of their own consultation, and flout the wishes of Suffolk people. They asked us what we thought, we told them, and they said we were wrong! To speak in their report of the "reluctance of most people to voice support, compared to those prepared to voice an objection" makes the unwarranted assumption that there is a silent minority on their side, and is both patronising to local people and insulting to those of us who took the trouble to respond.
Much has been made of the fact that the last year saw the lowest number of A140 accidents for a long time. However, as the number of casualties on the A140 has been falling steadily ever since its all-time high in 1996, to credit the speed limits with this latest improvement is, to say the least, highly imaginative! Effects of the new limits that are, however, quantifiable are that journey times have increased, speeds have been reduced by paltry amounts (and in one place have actually risen), and non-compliance has shot up to record figures.
Make no mistake, inappropriate speed limits can be dangerous. They confuse and distract drivers (statistics show that driver inattention, not speed, is the most common cause of accidents) and bring the whole speed limit system into disrepute. The police evidently know this, but Suffolk County Council don't. And they should - it was they who, in 1995, introduced 450 new speed limits and then sat calmly back and watched fatalities rise by almost 70% the following year. It was a tragic error for which they never admitted responsibility. This one could be equally unforgivable.
Yours faithfully,
David Bramhall
Stonham Aspal, Suffolk
These paragraphs were found on a website called Grumpy Old Sod.
"It was reported on BBC TV this week that the number of speed cameras in Hertfordshire rose by 24% last year; road deaths in the county rose by 34%. In Wiltshire cameras increased by 14% and deaths went up by 22%. There was a similar story in North Wales and in Avon & Somerset.
On the other hand County Durham, which has no speed cameras, saw road deaths fall by 24%, and North Yorkshire, also with no cameras, reported a drop of 9%.
Back in April the East Anglian Daily Times exposed as a lie claims that new speed cameras on the A12 were justified by accidents. Using the Freedom of Information Act, they obtained information that proved none of the accidents cited as justification for the cameras involved excessive speed. Police statistics over the last few years show that excessive speed is a contributory factor in only 7.3% of all accidents. The most common cause of accidents is shown to be "driver inattention". Probably drivers were so busy looking at their speedometers, they forgot to watch the road ahead!
If your doctor prescribed some medicine that plainly didn't work, but insisted on continuing to prescribe it time after time and telling you it was your own fault you're ill, you'd go to another doctor, wouldn't you?"
This letter appeared in the Ipswich "Evening Star" on August 13th 2005.
We hope Stuart McDonald won't mind us reprinting it!
I was reading the Evening Star article about the action group for the A140 and they have my whole-hearted support for this.
I commute up and down the A140 daily and it's a terrible road.
Too many HGVs are using the road - not their fault as it is the only direct link from Norwich to the A14 - and the introduction of the 50mph speed limit is just ridiculous. All that has been achieved with that is a traffic jam up the A140 from the A14 to Scole. It has extended my journey time by half an hour, and I ride a bike!
I did also see that some the village councils have noticed the procession of vehicles through their villages in the rush hour and have been dismayed by Suffolk County Council's "bully boy" tactics to force people into accepting that the 50mph trial is here to stay. In fact all they are doing is pushing the problem into Norfolk.
I cannot wait for the new dual carriagway to be approved and built because I think 75 to 90 minutes to travel 46 miles is just plain ridiculous!
Stuart McDonald, Ipswich
Sir Michael Lord MP
This text is taken from Sir Michael's own page at The CS & NI Conservative Association.
Having fought hard for the dualling of A140 Michael is disappointed that this has not yet happened despite being in the pipeline for many years.
Michael has been campaigning on safety issues for many years and has obtained a number of improvements along the Suffolk stretch, particularly around Little Stonham. Suffolk County Council has now introduced reduced speed limits, which Norfolk County Council have refused to do on their stretch of the A140. The present greatly reduced speed limits are still at an experimental stage which is not helped by alleged malfunctioning of some speed cameras. Michael will continue to monitor the situation closely to see how the new speed limits work.Copyright © 2005 The A140 Campaign
This site created and maintained by PlainSite