Support Packages For Tramps WK Work, SP C1 – SP C5
This section comprises the following:
SP C1: Building Blocks for Tramps WK Work
SP C2: Governmental and Other Sources of Information
SP C3: Hazard Management Rationale
SP C4: Turning Right onto a Single Lane A-Road
SP C5: Reinforcing the Safety Message - Getting Accidents Down: VAS’s
++
SP C1: Building Blocks for Tramps WK Work
The cornerstone of our work is our application of the Government’s 2006 initiative Setting Local Speed Limits – referred to as
the Guidance. The Guidance was launched in 2006, for completion of roads appraisals by 2011, which would then lead to a
prioritised remedial works programme for execution from 2012 onwards. It is an initiative the general public is not much aware
of. It is a strategic step in support of the government’s accident reduction goals, calling for a basic reassessment of speed
management on our roads. A key focus is on single-lane rural roads: mile-for-mile, these have a disproportionately high
incidence of serious accidents. The proactive identification of hazards and how these contribute to accident black spots
(clusters) is key. This leads to a speed management programme which includes hazard removal or mitigation, and speed limits
which match a roads characteristics and usage – a move away from the arbitrary application of 60 mph outside the 30 mph
zone.
Our work has also been built around the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Concerns expressed by the local community
On the accident history of each road
On established risk management practices, including guidance set out by the Health and Safety Executive
On a simple numerical scale developed to rank the relative severity of hazard areas, and correlate road accidents to
known hazardous features
On the responsibilities, authority and accountabilities of the roads authorities – set out in the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984 and in other Acts
Through email dialogues and a series of meetings with the roads authorities (the Scottish Government and North
Ayrshire Council) and others in positions of authority. Specifically:

Engaging North Ayrshire Council executive officers for West Kilbride’s B-roads and unclassified Kilruskin Road,
and for the junctions of these roads with the A78

Engaging the government’s agency Transport Scotland for the A78 and its junctions with the local roads

And on engaging Katy Clark MP, Kenneth Gibson MSP, and our elected councillors Mrs Elizabeth McLardy, Mrs
Catherine McMillan, Mr Robert Barr, and Mr Willie Gibson. All our elected representatives support thissafetybased movement.
We understand the Tramps WK movement has not had “air time” at the Scottish Parliament, but we have been informed by
Transport Scotland that they keep the Minister Mr Brown aware of the aims and activities of the movement
++
SP C2: Governmental and Other Sources of Information
As well as the Guidance, this Hazard Management work drew on various sources, including:
The Highway Code
Reported Accidents
Consultation with residents
Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020
North Ayrshire Council’s Local Transport Strategy, 2008 – 2013
Scottish Government’s Strategic Road Safety Action Plan (2007), specifically









The high incidence of accidents on certain types of roads, and an associated higher severity of
injury
The importance of proactive risk removal
The importance of proactive risk reduction, particularly at rural junctions, coupled to risk
assessments
The benefits of the Vehicle Activated Sign (a VAS)
Improving driver behaviour and consistent enforcement of realistic speed limits
Local road features and topography regularly dictate that the national speed limit is not always
appropriate
The real benefits coming from the Safety Camera Program
The major benefits being found in theA77 pilot scheme for enforcing average speeds
The preference for hazard removal over hazard mitigation
++
Guidance on structuring a Risk Assessment was taken from the Health and Safety Executive:
Step 1 Identify the hazards
Step 2 Decide who might be harmed and how
Step 3 Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions
Step 4 Record your findings and implement them
Step 5 Review your assessment and update if necessary
And the doctrine of as far as is reasonably practicable.
++
SP C3: Hazard Management Rationale
Structure
This work focuses on the management of the road system – layout, bends, width, signs, speed limit etc; the movement does
not address roads maintenance.
The analytical work is referred to as Hazard Management; it involves 4 basic steps:
A photographic survey
A descriptive survey and hazard identification
A Risk Assessment for the hazard areas
Hazard Management and Mitigation - proposing ways to manage the hazards and risks
Hazard Management
Survey and Hazard Identification
Risk Assessment, by Hazard Area
Inputs
Outputs
Inputs
Outputs
Route Survey
Route Photographs
Accident History
Public Consultations
Detail, OS Map
Identify Hazard Areas
Key Contributing Factors
Margins for Error
Hazard Area Ranking
Contributing Factors
Margin for Error
Hazard Area Ranking
Risk Identification
Likelihood
Event
Consequences
Area Risk Level
Hazard Management & Mitigation
Inputs
Outputs
Hazard Area Ranking
Margin For Error
Area Risk Level
Contributing Factors
Road Management Options
Pros and Cons
Suggested Best-Fit Option(s)
Hazards and Risks: Terminology and Quantification
Interval Characterisation
First the interval of road has to be characterised. In the case of the interval from Seamill to Glenfoot:
The A78 (T) is the north-south route for North Ayrshire. This 1.5km interval runs through an agricultural area with farm
accesses at either end of the S-bend at Glenfoot. It is a single lane carriageway; the national speed limit applies (60mph for
cars down to 40mph for heavy trucks) which compares to a measured mean speed of 48mph. It is a busy road, but seldom
sees significant queuing / congestion. Vehicle usage includes all sizes of commercial vehicles and farm traffic, and cars.
At the north end is the T-junction with Chapelton Road, close to the double access to the Waterside Restaurant and Seaview
Caravan Park; at the south end is an S-bend at Glenfoot. Both these areas have been the scenes of serious accidents and are
the sites of significant accident clusters. The road between is generally straight and level. There are 2 car parks on the
seaward side. There is a wide pavement on the seaward side, used by cyclists and pedestrians; it is separated from the
carriageway by a wide grass verge (there is no pavement on the landward side); cyclists also use the A78 carriageway. The
carriageway width is up to about 9m. Between the Waterside Restaurant and Glenfoot the road is bounded on the landward
side by a stone wall with shorter intervals of post-and-wire fencing; repairs can be seen where vehicles have gone off the road
On the seaward side, the road is open to the grass verge, footway and beach. This interval of the A78 is popular with summer
day visitors, who sometimes use the roadside grass verge for parking; campers also use the grass between the footway and
the beach.
The B7047 approach to the A78 is relatively narrow, opening out to a good bell-mouth. The B7047 is the most convenient
route to Ardrossan and the south for about 25 – 30% of West Kilbride’s residents (generally on the easterly side of the town); it
is well used, but not busy, with a significant increase in use at ‘rush-hour’ times.
++
Hazards
In general, the term hazard is used to describe a physical road feature which would be regarded as not safe; for example an
excavation in the middle of a carriageway. A hazard becomes a risk when people are involved. If the excavation is fenced off
and the carriageway to it is barricaded off, people cannot get to it and it is not a risk.
Each hazard is ranked according to how it compares with hazards to be found in trunk** roads of similar usage, as follows:
Worse than 90% of other roads: Hazard Level 9, Severe
Worse than 80% of other roads: Hazard Level 8, Very Serious
Worse than 70% of other roads: Hazard Level 7, Serious
Worse than 50% of other roads: Hazard Level 5, Significant
Worse than 25% of other roads: Hazard Level 2.5, Moderate
Hazard Level 0 would apply to a hazard-free interval of roads, such as could be designed and constructed today.
A Hazard is also characterised in terms of its manageability: Can it be coped with? Practicably? Cost-effectively? By removal?
By operational controls?
Hazard Area 1, Chapelton Rd (B 7047) T-junction and adjacent intervals of A78, is ranked Hazard Level 8, Very Serious
** in the case of a B-road interval, the comparison is with B roads of similar usage
Risks
Most road accidents are attributed to user behaviours, such as inattention. For this work on Hazard Management the focus is
on the road system. Mitigations proposed are a combination of cost-effective design adjustments (such as advocating a
roundabout, but not a by-pass); adjustments to the speed limit; and improved signage and road markings.
Over recent decades, the direct correlation of accidents to road system hazards has resulted in hazards being designed out of
new roads.
In the practice of Risk Management, risks are generally regarded as 3-faceted:



the relative likelihood of an event
the severity of the outcome
the manageability of avoiding the event happening.
Each of these parameters is usually described on a simple scale, such as higher, medium, lower. Combinations of likelihood
and severity being categorised as higher or medium receive the most attention. If in addition the manageability is low, then a
system re-design is usually considered.
For this work:



the relative likelihood of an event (an accident) is categorised as medium, higher, or lower. The important word is
relative: in laymen terms, when considering a local interval of road, accidents are rare occurrences. The Government
says they are not rare enough, and must be reduced.
Apparently grim looking accidents can result in slight injuries (and vice versa) so the severity of the outcome is
generally stated as the range: Near Miss, Injury, Death
The manageability of all hazard / risk areas is covered, and in general the categorisation is Manageable: cost
effective options are advocated.
An overall risk level is also assigned to each hazard area: if the usage level is normal compared to other similar roads, then the
Hazard Level also becomes the Risk Level. If the presence of people is significantly less or greater than the norm, a Hazard
Level 5 would translate into a Risk Level 5- or 5+.
The Margin for Error is also assessed: e.g. a narrow road has less margin for driver error.
Applying this leads to the following summary for Hazard Area 1, Chapelton Rd (B 7047) T-junction and adjacent intervals of
A78,
Hazard Level 8, Very Serious
Margin for Error, Very Low
Manageable;
Risk Level 8, Very Serious
Generally there is a clear correlation between higher Hazard / Risk levels and accident clusters
++
SP C4: Turning Right onto a Single Lane A-Road
1
Rules from Road Safety Literature
Rule 181 of The Highway Code has this to say on turning right:




Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicles
Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users
Check your mirrors and blind spot to be sure you are not being overtaken
Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a
safe gap
2pass.co.uk says the following on junctions:
Junctions are hazards where there is a greater risk of an accident occurring. Treat them with great care, no matter how easy
they look.
The Road Safety Authority under Rules of the Road says:
If you are at a junction controlled by a STOP or a YIELD sign, wait at the entrance to the junction until the road is clear in both
directions.
These sources focus on turning right in urban situations. They all advocate taking great care, which takes more time.
++
2
Relevance for West Kilbride and A78(T)
Turning right across a dual carriageway has been and remains the scene of many accidents in Scotland; £millions have been
spent eliminating several such junctions by bridging and underpass arrangements (for example on the Perth – Dundee –
Aberdeen dual carriageways). Turning right across a single lane A-road (speed limit 60mph) is similarly hazardous. Several
such T-junctions exist on the interval of the A78 to the immediate north and south of West Kilbride – and these T-junctions have
specific characteristics which introduce additional safety risks.
++
3
Conclusions Reached
The logic set out in Section 4 below explains as follows:
a)
b)
If the lines of sight for the driver are not established until he is on the edge of the junction; and
If the driver is to have enough time to apply the pre-turn Rules prescribed in 1 above, including assessing the speed
of the 2 flows of the approaching traffic, then
Giving Way at the junction is an approach which compromises achieving a safe turn, and Stopping at the junction is a
significantly safer way to execute the turn.
++
4
Logic Applied
A GIVE WAY sign at a T junction sends this message to the driver: you must give way, you must stop if you need to, but if you
don’t need to stop, you don’t need to; instead, you can approach the junction on a slow roll, with the intention of keeping going
without stopping if it is safe to do so.
The GIVE WAY sign also sends a signal to the driver that the roads authority has gauged that a driver has the time to do his
pre-turn checks in a slow rolling (give way) mode, taking full account of the nature of the junction, including at what point in his
approach he will have full lines of sight, to the left and right.
In other words, a GIVE WAY sign conveys this: if the traffic flows and the presence of other road users allow it, it may be safe
not to stop before turning.
If the lines of sight to right and left are not established until the driver is on the edge of the junction, he is in a compromised
mind-set on 2 counts:


The time he has to do his pre-turn checks is squeezed; and
In particular, the time he gives himself to judge approaching traffic speeds and distances, and his decision making
time (to keep going, or to stop and wait) is compressed. Correctly gauging the speed of approaching traffic is not a
split-second decision
Being so compromised is not consistent with taking great care when turning into a main road.
++
5
Making a Positive Right Turn
Which is more likely to result in a positive, well-executed turn?
From the stop position, in the correct gear, having taken the necessary time to assess the traffic flows and to pick when to
move; or
From a slow roll, possibly compressing the time needed to check out the junction and make the decision to go or wait.
6
What is at Stake?
What is the benefit of the slow-roll (GIVE WAY) approach? Table 1 below shows the times associated with both approaches;
there is little if anything to separate them – maybe a second or two.
As such, the benefits versus the risk weigh heavily in favour of stopping at the junction, to give time for a sound assessment, a
sound decision, and a controlled, safer turn. There is nothing to gain and a lot to risk by not stopping. The risks involved apply
to the driver and his passengers, to the occupants of vehicles on the A-road, and to other road users.
++
Table 1: Time Comparison for Giving Way and Stopping at the Junction
approximate comparative times are in seconds
Options
Steps, from starting the slow roll to the
junction
Stopping at Junction
Continue Slow Roll to Junction
but not necessarily stopping
2 seconds
2 – 4 seconds
Say 5 seconds
5 seconds
(reduce to 3 – 4 seconds if local
knowledge is involved)
(reduce to 3 – 4 seconds if local
knowledge is involved)
Wait till clear to proceed
xxx
xxx
Turn right and start accelerating down the
straight
2.5
2.5
Get to junction edge
Look, think, decide
This includes:



Look for pedestrians, obstacles and
traffic
Read road signs correctly
Assess the speed of traffic.
Conclusions
From the above, there is no significant time difference between the 2 approaches (if anything, stopping may shave a second
or two – which is negligible).
SP C5: Reinforcing the Safety Message - Getting Accidents Down: VAS’s