What or who should a barrier protect?

Some barriers a fussy as to they think they should protect.  The mode of thinking is aimed solely at protecting motorists, and to Hell with pedestrians (the most vulnerable in our society). 

One can see that the barrier below might prevent a vehicle from going down a bank, but its very presence increases danger for pedestrians, and it need not have done.

Pedestrians would a barrier such as this to be really intimidating.

The barrier on the right  here (handrailing) is designed to protect pedestrians at a roundabout. BUT, it is not necessarily popular with cyclists, on or off the road.  Handrailing prevents cyclists from accessing the kerb, and it can snag handlebars.

It is not clear, at this location, whether or not cyclists should stick to the road or carry on, on the pavement  using it as assumed "Shared use"; it is signed as a route into the town centre.  Ideally what is needed is a separate bridge over the River Stour for cyclists. 

They just don't think!

Barrier to make cyclists feel safe

This photo was taken in Germany where they go out of their way to make cyclists feel safe. Where, despite there being a lot more cyclists, there are a lot less casualties..

Note that the barriers are on both sides of this road.

Ema;l exchanges with Kent Highways etc.

I have just re-examined this email from June which had buried and got lost in my in tray.

Obviously some people are able to 'mitigate' a lot more than others. Then
there are those who are able to assess the risks more readily than others,
and act accordingly. It should not be the case to make a situation worse
than it already is, especially as by doing so it would adversely affects the
most vulnerable in our society. If, by a simple application, the risk can
be reduced to both motor-vehicles and pedestrians (and cyclists) at no extra
cost, then why not do it? People should come first wherever possible, not
motor-vehicles.

It is quite obvious to see (on the ground, and from photographs) that some
people (whilst not 100% perfect) can do it, so why not Kent Highwaysor /our
Highways Agency?

Ted Prangnell.  Dec 2013.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jim.Wedgbury@kent.gov.uk>
To: <tedeprangnell@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Dangerous Barriers


Ted
You can only ever mitigate risk never eliminate it
Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jun 2013, at 16:51, "Ted Prangnell" <tedeprangnell@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> But there is no need for an added risk to pedestrians to be created if the
> barriers were designed properly. Are they saying that an additional risk
> to pedestrians is acceptable (when it could be avoided)?
>
> [cid:C956ADA8EB2044A198738343A781677A@TedPC]
> On our A251.
> [cid:B9F3FA1A57A343C4AEB22D57AAD9EB2A@TedPC]
> On the Continent.
>
> There are other correct examples, but I haven't got photos of them to
> hand.
>
> Properly designed barriers would protect both motor-vehicles and
> pedestrians, at no extra cost. People should come first!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----

> To: 'Ted Prangnell'<mailto:tedeprangnell@btinternet.com> ; Alan
> Moultrie<mailto:alan@moultrie.co.uk> ; Brian
JIM WEDGBURY<mailto:jim.wedgbury@kent.gov.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:52 AM
 Subject: FW: Dangerous Barriers

 From our County Councillor

 xxxx

 From: Jim.Wedgbury@kent.gov.uk<mailto:Jim.Wedgbury@kent.gov.uk>
 [mailto:Jim.Wedgbury@kent.gov.uk]
 Sent: 24 June 2013 11:26

 Subject: Dangerous Barriers

 Dear XXXXy
 I have had this investigated it is more complicated than it first seems
 Kent highways carried out a safety audit on various sites throughout the
 county and discovered an anomaly in Canterbury road.
 Due to a number of high profile incidents and the need to protect
 motorists from 1 hitting the Bridge parapet direct and killing themselves
 and as well as a need to stop vehicles careering onto the motorway
 following an accident combined with the accident record at this site . all
 these meant an urgent need to put barriers in on this site. The slight
 increase in risk to pedestrians is I am advised is far out weighed by
 reduced risks in the other areas .
 I hope we can promulgate this explanation.
Safety barriers over the M2 Faversham. tn.jpg>
Safety barriers D tn.jpg

Nor does this explain the situation in Simone Weil Avenue, which is blatantly wrong.

Examples of: How crash barriers should protect cyclists and pedestrians.

On this bridge, a cycle-way and pedestrian path are each nice and wide, they are well protected by a safety barrier, AND they are on both sides of the road.
Over the River Weser in Minden, Germany.

A pedestrians at a bus-stop protected by a barrier, near Minden.

A stretch of pavement protected by a barrier positioned at the road edge.

Here again the safety barrier protects pedestrians and cyclists [near Petershagen, Germany]; if they can treat their people with more respect then why can't we?

There were so many examples. 

Shared space, with cyclists and pedestrians, well protected.

There were so many good examples, that one doesn't have to look for them, whilst here (in Kent) one really has to look for them. 

The daft part about it is that, in the above examples, both motor-vehicles, and pedestrians are protected, not juts vehicles, as they mostly are in the UK.

Will our Highways engineers ever learn?

Who cares about pedestrians?

Here, in Germany, cycle-ways on both sides of this road, are protected by safety barriers.

Church Road, Sevington.

This is the most absurd situation imaginable; a bridge of which one half is built to a different specification to the other; not only are pedestrians supposed to walk into a brick wall, but if they continue on ahead, in the road hemmed in by a high brick wall, then they become extremely vulnerable.    Who cares about the plight of pedestrians (and cyclists)?  They obviously don't.

Interests of pedestrians, and cyclists are often ignored.

Sometimes they get it right!

Even though, as in this case (A251 approaching a bridge over the M2), it is not a well used route, and the hedge needs cutting back.

It would appear that with highway design , Their minds are so fixated with catering for motor vehicles, that the interests of pedestrians and cyclists, are often ignored.

This is a street (Silver Hill) which is a one-way street, running into a mini-roundabout .  In their wisdom, Highways incorporated a road-narrowing (Pinch-Point) at the mouth of the roundabout    Kent Highways refused to accept any criticism of their design in this case, but it is clearly not the least bit cycle-friendly, yet it could easily be made so.   This feature remains as it is today.   

Charing Hill.

Traffic frequently travels rather fast down Charing Hill (A252).  The crash-barrier is intended to prevent motor-vehicles, that might just happen to loose control and mount the pavement, from going down an embankment;  BUT woe-betide any pedestrian who might happen to be on the pavement at that spot, at that moment in time.

A barrier should protect pedestrians as a first priority.

Motor vehicles come first.

The A2070 Bad Münstereifel Road (A2070),

  Ashford's southern orbital road .

 Traffic along this road is busy, and often travelling fast.  At this point the barrier does offer a degree of protection for the pedestrian, however it isn't always like that, as the next picture illustrates. 

Why the switch? 

The situation for pedestrians, and cyclists (yes, believe it of not, this is signed as a cycle route!) is much worse all the way to Junction 10 of the M20. 

It is understood that this road was originally the responsibility of Kent Highways as an "A" road, but in recent years it has been taken over by the highways Agency as an Arterial Road.

In the previous picture the path is a follow- on from this next picture, with the A2070 on the right .    

Blue cycle direction signs, and the share-use  (cyclists/pedestrians) sign can be seen on the left of the picture.  The route is not fit for purpose, and some years ago I reported  this to Highways, and I had a meeting with one of their reps on site, who agreed with me, but nothing has been done about it (i.e.: remove the signs or improve the situation).  It seems wrong to me, to direct cyclists down a route that is not safe.   

It is plain to see that the safety of Pedestrians and cyclists has not been given priority.

Principle of Road-Safety barriers

Unsafe, Safety Crash Barriers

Who, or what, are Crash-Barriers designed  to protect?    We are not talking about crash-barriers on Motorways here, but crash barriers on normal "A" roads, or lesser roads.

This barrier (adjacent to an "A" road) offers a degree of protection for pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles that might have got out of control, though I fancy it was installed mainly to protect the lamp-posts. [Romney Marsh Road A2042, Ashford].

Whereas this barrier might well prevent out-of-control vehicles from going down an embankment, it actually places pedestrians and cyclists in greater danger, they could be crushed against the barrier by an errant vehicle.   Why wasn't the barrier placed next to the kerb?  Had it been, then pedestrians and cyclists would have a degree of protection, without adversely affecting the safety of motor-vehicles.   There should not be any significant difference in the cost, if any at all.  [Simone-Weil Avenue Ashford]

This is a typical example of how it should be done (on both sides of this road), as seen in Germany. It is protecting pedestrians, cyclists (shared use), and motorists.