Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Speed Limit on the B1230 between Howden and Gilberdyke

Since the autumn of last year I have had many people asking me questions regarding the mysterious 30mph speed limit on the B1230 between Balkholme and the Eastrington turn off, on the Howden to Gilberdyke section.

The temporary speed restriction was requested by the Highways Agency, after carrying out a risk assessment for the temporary diversion of the Bridal path onto the B1230 road, to allow the reconstruction of the bridge over the M62, whilst still allowing the path to be used for horses and others.

I did raise my concerns with the Highways Agency during the first week of the speed limit period regarding the lack of signage warning of the approaching speed limit when coming from Howden, and to their credit the agency did respond by placing additional warning signs near the top of Balkholme flyover

When the reasoning behind the limit is explained as it being mainly for horses, the question often turns to a complaint or criticism.

The East Riding of Yorkshire Highways Engineer explained to me that, “The low level of bridal way use does not in its self remove the need for placing the restriction. Where figures are not available, assumptions can be made that will air on the side of caution. The restriction will be lifted at the completion of the works at the end of March/early April”.

I have also spoken to my friend and fellow East Riding of Yorkshire Councillor Matthew Grove, the Portfolio Holder for Highway Safety at the Council who says:

"Unfortunately some people welcome speed restrictions that protect their family in their village, but oppose similar restrictions that protect other users of the highway in adjacent areas. As an authority we are highly committed to reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured which stood at 276 last year. The temporary reduction in speed on the B1230 is in line with this priority and I believe justified".

He continues,


"I have received similar complaints to this, concerning school safety zones that reduce speed limits to 20 mph, 24 hours a day, which irritates some residents. My response is that speed limits have to be permanent due to the legislation, but that the police enforce speed restrictions sensibly using risk assessment and will not enforce 20mph school zones at night etc".

Finally I would like to add, I have not seen a single horse using this section of the B1230 as a bridle way during the time the limit has been in place, nor have any of the people who have contacted me. In fact it appears to me this section of road would be very dangerous at this time of year for horses and riders, even with the traffic travelling at 30mph, but I can see the logic in catering for them providing we don’t see accidents as some drivers slow down - only for others not to... there is also the serious issue of a 60mph limit coming down instantly to a 30 mph, as many have commented.

9 comments:

Chris Newsome said...

Hello Paul

Happy New Year to you and Nicci.

Initially, I assumed the speed limit had been put in place to slow traffic down as the plant and equipment was brought on and off the road at the new temporary works compound where a new bridge is being put over the M.62.

When I looked again I had second thoughts, because the traffic has been slowed for a section to the east of that point, right up to the start of the Newfield's triangle outside Eastrington - and unless there have been some changes in legislation in the past year I feel sure they limit does not conform.

In short it's a pigs ear. A 60 limit is never dropped to a 30 without a 40 first or a system of Street lights, and the section where the 30 limit is set is a straight section of road.

I shall of course continue to abide by this dodgy looking limit, but these past weeks I have not only been flashed and hooted by drivers behind, but overtaken by impatient drivers with the potential of a 'head on' as Half seem to abide by the newly placed signs and Half of the drivers choose to ignore them.

I think it's only a matter of time before we have a serious accident resulting from this strange situation.


Regards

Chris

John Jessop said...

I agree with Chris - it is a total pigs ear. The temporary limit does not encompass the entry to the lane which serves the M62 roadworks site and used to give access to a bridleway over the motorway, nor does it reach the 30 limit at the entrance to the side road at Newlands. The bridge over the motorway which connected to the bridleways on the Eastrington side has been removed for the duration of the works. Another old bridleway which used to run from about mid-way along the temporary limit section was stopped up by the M62 when it was built so no-one could access the B1230 from it and in any case even though I am an equestrian rider myself I do not see any difference between the risk level of riding this section to anywhere else along the rest of the length of the B1230 where, if I so chose, I could ride my horse without the "benefit" of a ridiculous temporary 30 limit. If I were cynical I would think the limit was put in place simply to encourage drivers to break the speed limit and be used as a revenue stream if caught.
I am also at a loss as to why East Riding are feeding false information to Radio Humberside traffic report service claiming the road there has narrow lanes and is closed to high sided vehicles when it has not and is not.
Stupidity reigns unfettered in some departments it seems!

Bluetracker said...

As a resident of Goole who must travel on a daily basis to North Ferriby via road I am dismayed that ERYC has seen fit to reduce this section of road to a 30mph zone. It is dangerously sited and ill thought out.

Can you advise me of the Traffic Regulation Order number that was applied for and granted for this abomination to take place?

Was a TRO actually applied for and granted?
It is so hard to find information on such things on the ERYC website.

I would doubt there was a TRO in existence at all and the limit non-enforceable, but am prepared and happy to be proven wrong.

With the track record ERYC has on road/speed/parking matters lately and their penchant for getting things wrong, I can well imagine this limit to be as legal as the CPZ in Howden where the road markings fail to comply with DFT regulations thus rendering the whole system unenforcible....(but that is another story)
Other contributors here have labelled the limit as a 'pigs ear', in my view, it is just par for the course under the current ERYC regime.

Bluetracker said...

Mr Robinson, Thank you for not answering my question as to the existence of a TRO in respect of the temporary limit. I note with dismay that the date of completion has been adjusted from April to 19/06/2009.
I ask you again to lobby your council colleagues to ascertain if a TRO does indeed exist as if there isn't one the limit is illegal and unenforcible and the Council acting beyond it's powers.

Paul Robinson said...

Blue Tracker

I've spent an age trying to follow this issue. The problem appears to be with the Highways Agency who requested the speed limit after consulting the British Equestrian Society. For some reason the Highways Agency don't want to return calls or answer emails - on this issue. I will again persue this.... I'm also looking at how much the bridge replacement is costing - which if the rumours are true will shock us all.

Bluetracker said...

Apologies if my previous comment seemed as though I was 'having a pop'...Frustration was setting in after trolling the ERYC website again looking for a blessed TRO that should exist to cover this speed restriction...Yes, you guessed it I had no luck...such a user friendly site...NOT.
You mentioned the Highways Agency as being the sticking point in your enquiries?
I'm not surprised...any department with 'Highways' in their title seem to think they are a law unto themselves...Take the ERYC 'branch' for instance and their using illegal road markings throughout the CPZ in Howden and in other sites throughout their area. Yet although the road markings are illegal, the CPZ is still being policed as a legal entity and people are still being fined for parking.
And yes I can prove what I say is so...the problem is...the council just aren't interested in hearing how they got it wrong and are sweeping any such suggestions as to the legality of the CPZ under the carpet hoping it will go away.
'Malfeasance in public office' is I think the offence being committed here...and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this speed restriction is yet another act of ERYC that is not legally supported.

John Jessop said...

I am not sure who the claimed consultees British Equestrian Society are. I am a local member of the British Horse Society (BHS)but Google has no reference to any organisation as BES.
Either someone is telling porkies or they just do not give reliable response to your enquiry.
If the BHS had been consulted I am sure the local access and rights of way officer would have been involved and without doubt the present arrangement where the speed restriction ends prior to the entrance to the stopped up bridleway would simply not have happened. Whoever decided the location of the start and end of the limit was just careless or incompetent.
I simply cannot see there was any point whatsoever in inconveniencing the travelling public for months to provide access to a bridleway which is stopped up by removal of the bridge during the works anyway.

Bluetracker said...

John Jessop...Thanks for that, However I'm thinking that it may have been the British Equestrian FEDERATION to whom the consultation took place with. Even so without a Traffic Regulation Order (of which I can find no trace of for this restriction) the limit is illegal and unenforcible in law.
Paul it would seem, has hit a brick wall when trying to find if a TRO does exist, so I think we can safely assume there isn't one and ERYC have once again overstepped their authority!
I feel a letter to the Local Government Ombudsman (Anne Seex) may be required before these numpties get their acts together.

Kev Owen (aka Bluetracker) said...

I see 'they'(ERYC) have moved the goalposts yet again.
The speed restriction was due to expire today (19/06/09)
I notice they have extended it now to 10/08/09...(the second time they have extended this restriction)and STILL there is no illumination on those darned 30mph signs nor any mention of a TRO applicable to this restriction shown on the ERYC website...