Bad accidents have already happened on the Portbury Hundred; a motorcyclist was killed by a car, not so long ago. What surprises me is that no cyclists have been killed as there is no provision for them, especially approaching the J19 roundabout. Rather than squeeze three vehicle lanes into the long straight to/from the roundabout approach, now the queues have gone the road surface include cycle lanes for those brave enough to take to two wheels.
In response to the poster, surely you should always be driving extra careful? I think romeohotel sums it up by saying that driving appropriately to the type and condition of road sums it up. The only thing I can see by lighting that stretch of road at night is that it will encourage drivers to go faster and hence increase the liklihood of an accident. Apart from this, as far as I am aware most accidents on that stretch of road have occurred in the daytime. Bad driving causes accidents.
Of course people should drive carefully and adapt to road conditions but accidents still happen.on the basis of your comments no roads should be lit then? They are lit to aid safe driving. Portbury 100 is narrow in places and cars pass very close to each other and when it is dark you cannot see puddles or any debris on the road until you virtually on it. Lighting can only help surely
CityClarky, those sort of comments warrant a wager, because I for one don't believe that the 'old bad habits' will change in the next 4 years.
I agree - some street lighting along the Portbury 100 would help, despite the smug and pompous sounding drivers on here that never have/had any road accidents !
mlcbiker, maybe the 'smug and pompous' sounding drivers on here never have/had accidents simply because they are drivers who drive within their limits and in a manner befitting the driving conditions at any given time? I can only assume that those who want more lights on a stretch of road wish to arrive at their destination faster, perhaps leaving earlier would acheive the same aim?
Hillcran - I want lights on the road to ensure I arrive at my destination safely - not quicker. The side of the road into Portishead tonight is agreat example as to why. The rain is heavy and collecting along the gutter in places and creating puddles which you simply cannot see until you are virtually driving through them. Would be good to see the actual conditions of the road before you are in them. Why would lighting mean people drive quicker ? As I said earlier why not turn lights off on every road on that basis - lighting is there for a reason - to aid SAFE driving. It is simply not acceptable to have a main road such as this with 3 tight driving lanes unlit at night. Just remember not all drivers are boy racers or as skilled as you. Some are new and inexperienced drivers , some are nervous in bad weather and some like me are very experienced drivers but are not as niaive as you in assuming just cos we are driving safely that we will not be involved in an accident - cos believe it or not it can happen through not fault of your own! Lighting will not increase accidents and can only help ALL drivers
As I have already said, and something you find so hard to comprehend, if drivers drive to suit the driving conditions, whether that be dark wet windy, bright sunshine or whatever then that will reduce the risk of accidents. If you don't spot a large puddle at the side of the road until you are 'right on it' then that answers itself and would indicate that speed is your problem. Cars do not cause the vast majority of road accidents, people do. Sadly you sound like one waiting to happen and one who will blame everyone but yourself should you be involved in an accident. If you really believe that drivers will not drive faster on a lit road than a dark one then you are only kidding yourself. Speaking with a retired local policeman who has lived in the town for over thirty years he said he can only recall three, possibly four night time accidents on that road in those thirty years but dozens have occurred in the daytime. I think that speaks for itself.
I would imagine the majority of these accidents occurred as a result of overtaking. The width of this road and variation of vehicular speed between the old and young almost encourages the impatient among us to attempt an overtake in the most inappropriate of places.
Having been stuck in a vehicle trail or actually behind a 50cc Scooter as I have been several times of a morning or evening (travelling in or out on the Hundred) through the single carriageway sections that you could agree the road is not quite wide enough and warrant it being increased in size (in parts)
From the M5 to have two lanes along the Hundred will then allow cars wanting to turn left to Clevedon for example to filter earlier thus allowing traffic to move quicker than stacking back as it does now. The same rule applies for when heading out of a morning. Lately the traffic at 07:10 heading all along the Hundred till you reach the two lane section is very slow and heavy in traffic.
Additionally, the kerbs are often full of water, debris, drains blocked (I've given up asking the Council to clear) that Cyclists are then difficult to over-take and more so as they have no cycle path per say to ride on does make this very dangerous at times (especially in the dark)
I agree, lights are needed in sections of the Hundred and something done to provide a lane or something for motor cyclists and cycles or increase it to two lanes (both ways) all the way or at least more of it.
With regard to the traffic in the mornings,why is that in the last few weeks we are queuing again to join the Gordano roundabout. Have the sequence of the lights been changed to allow traffic out of the services? If so what a waste of money the additional lanes on the approach to the roundabout have been.
hillcran - and what you dont comprehend is that lighting on roads is there for a reason. Simples. For the record I drive 350000 miles per year,accident free for over 25 years, so not too so not sure sure why I am " an accident waiting to happen" - but that sums you up. Arrogant muppet
Incidentally, if you drive 350000 miles a year I would like to congratulate you on your contribution to the environment. But if you are covering that kind of mileage which equates to over 900 miles per day how do you find the time to comment on here? And more importantly why is the less than five minutes of your journey, that one and a half miles, spent on the Portbury 100 suddenly so dangerous?
A serious road accident involving a fatality occurred on the Portbury Hundred several years ago at a time when cars could overtake on the lanes inward bound (towards Portishead) and outward bound between Junction 19 roundabout and the Sheepway bridge. This resulted in the highway improvements of two white lines preventing any driver from overtaking on the inward bound side and restricting overtaking to the outward bound side only between that stretch.
Hillcran's comments seem to me to be very sensible and logical, as opposed to the rudeness of Gazza5.
Fact: just under 25000 people killed or seriously injured, and 200000 injuries on our road last year. This was a good year whilst reflecting on the past.
The fact is the roads are not dangerous, it's the drivers.
Slow down and drive to the condition of this road and the driving environment. simple.
PS. The bikers of Portishead salute you. Stay left and stay safe.
Who are we saluting ??!! Impressive stats (??) Was the learned(?) forum colleague once upon a time a rose-tinted spectacle wearing desk-bound civil servant who has never had any altercations and/or prangs/accidents with anything or any person in his/her entire life ? We'd better salute you as well then, hadn't we ? ;-)
Brilliant! I drive 35000miles per year - my typo! Still a lot of mileage and agree not good for the enviroment either, however..... Obviously you seem to have an issue about my view on lighting this road - so lets simply agree to disagree. For the record you have made yet another assumption that " i suddenly find this road dangerous" - i dont - i think it is becoming that way however, due to the increased volume of traffic on it , especially at peak times , and even more so in bad weather like we have experienced. Lighting the road at night is the one change we can make and I believe it can only help all drivers as they go about their business. Lets be clear, all drivers have a responsibility in terms of how they drive relevant to the law and road conditions and not all drivers involved in accidents are boy racers either. We are human beings and that means we also have the capacity to make mistakes and whilst you may be driving perfectly safely the person behind may not - you have no control over them! lighting will not address all issues but it can only help - in my opinion. Apologies for calling you a muppet - was out of order
may not .
Accidents will happen whatever, such is their nature but it is up to individual actions and behaviour to help lessen the chances of such. When it comes to road traffic accidents in this country street lighting does not even figure in the statistics and decisions to instal lighting or not on any particular stretch of road is generally based on statistics for that stretch of road not on an individuals perception of what they believe is needed. The majority of causes of road accidents according to goverenment statistics shows that the highest percentages of causes are driver related. This can be confirmed on the website http://tinyurl.com/ab36k6j
and of all the reasons given for road accidents, steet lighting does not figure anywhere or is so miniscule it is irrelevant. The only possible link to street lighting could be the accidents caused by dazzling headlights due to a dark road but even that is down to driver error. So yes we will agree to disagree.
Micbender: the impressive stats ?!? are here
Not sure the intelligence on the civil servent comment, or any intelligence on any post you have ever made. Apologise for any spelling error, the iPad has intuitive spelling and corrects words / names to what it believes is correct.
Stupid comments and underpinning attitudes like yours cost lives, no doubt you will be texting your response as you drive home. Hence your experience of prangs /accidents etc.
Hillcran The stats you so proudly quote do not confirm your view what so ever. Read the section on rural roads and driving at night - towards the bottom of the rural roads page- and issues caused when driving at night un an unlit road. Then go back to your beloved stats and look at driver/ rider error and the range of causes - there is a clear link. Of course they are driver error but lack of lighting can therefore be a contributary factor. By the way for someone who loves quoting stats -even when they dont back your story up - love the fact that you make an assumption that drivers will drive faster on lit roads - incredible.
a quote from ROSPA: "drivers have been found to adapt their behaviour and adopt more risky behaviours at night where there is lighting. Examples of more risky behaviour are increased speed and reduced concentration . This raises the concern about the relationship between the safety that a driver perceives and the actual level of safety, and how drivers behave in both conditions. If a driver perceives a better level of safety due to lighting, and therefore behaves in a more dangerous manner when their vision is not noticeably improved, could this lead to a greater increase in risk than simply reducing the luminance would suggest?
The bottom line, whether on rural or urban roads is that the biggest contributory factor in car accidents is driver error. In your case, you know the road is unlit, you travel along it frequently and are aware of the condition of the road. So why lights, why not ask the Highways Authority to repair the areas that trouble you so much. After all, for the greatest part of any given night the road is completely free of traficc and at it's busiest peak, rush hour, the volume of traffic alone keeps speed down. The facts are, the statistics speak for themselves, however much you wish to distort them, the statistics for that particular road do not make a case for lighting especially if it is only for the reason that the 4-5 minutes of your journey will be covered more quickly. Leave earlier, allowing for road conditions you know to expect, problem solved.
Hillcran is right.
An example is drivers 'feel' roundabouts are unsafe and traffic lights are safe.
Research found drivers adapt at roundabouts and slow down and become more safety conscious; conversely at traffic lights take the chance and run a yellow *** red.
Stats show roundabouts to be more safer than light controlled junctions even though drivers 'feel' they are not.
Hillcran you say " some drivers" - how many ? Thats conclusive then ! On the basis of your argument are you saying we should switch lighting off on e ery road at night then? Would be interested in your view
I do agree with is that maybe the drains need to be sorted and debris cleared more fequently - which is my link to lighting and creating better visibility to help.
Enjoying the debate because I do respect what you are saying but just not convinced yet!
The truth of the matter is that any 'debate' anywhere on this site will not result in the erection of additional street lighting along the Portbury Hundreds.
If anyone really feels that strongly about it then their best option would be to approach the county council instead of wasting time here.
romeohotel, the whole point of debate is that it is a debate, it may not acheive anything but at least is anopportunity for others to gauge depth of feeling on matters.
gazza: My point is not that we switch off lighting already in situ, although a lot of streets are overlit, obviously erected in times of greater prosperity. But why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a short stretch of road when out of the thousands of drivers who use it, very few are asking for lighting, if any, very few accidents occur on that road at night and most of all if the highways authority, councils or Police were truly concerned about lighting that road it would surely have been done a long time ago.
Not sure where you mean about 'some cars' but if a careless driver is going to cause an accident it will happen whether the street is lit or not.
God help us all when the immature amongst us decide that as they have nothing to offer a discussion they use the churlish name calling tactic. If you have nothing to offer then why comment at all? It seeems though that you are right and you felt the urge to have the last word. Hope I didn't spoil it for you, or the fact that no, on the thirty years I drove I never had an accident but chose not to drive when I got to an age when I thought that it was a growing possibility. Strangely some people do practice what they preach and if that is smug or pompous then so be it as I don't believe, however much we disagree, gazz5 has been either.
Perhaps you should consider re-taking your driving test as you do not seem confident driving in such normal conditions? Even as a new driver, this worries me about my own safety on the road if other people aren't safe to be driving around me. The only reason more lights should be fitted is for the safety of drivers like myself from clearly incompetent drivers like yourself. Alternatively, I suggest an eye test and using your headlights appropriately. This will solve all issue raised above.
I agree with the ROSPA report myself. I was once told that the lack of lighting was to benefit wildlife-no idea if there is any truth in that! Some people cannot see in the dark or the rain-myself I can see fine and I have no problem with this stretch of road. I really do wonder if some drivers(not just using the Hundreds)actually need to get their eyes tested and I think that regular eye tests should be compulsory for all drivers every 5 years maybe. The Hundreds is not the only local road with no lights. how about the motorway between Weston and Portishead? I find myself that no lights slows drivers down and on the Hundreds with local wildlife crossing that could be a good thing. Everyone has to get to their destination in superquick time. In saying this I am in no way against seeing lighting on the Hundreds but neither do I see it as important. As far as athe rail link goes I will believe it when I see it! I doubt that it will ever happen as much as I would like to dream that it does! Maybe we need a park and ride instead!