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.