General report from A6 Safety Ride Event

224 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
224
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

General report from A6 Safety Ride Event

  1. 1. Route Assessment - A6 between A421 South of Bedford to Luton Borough boundary. 11th August 2007 motorcyclists were asked to ride a section of the A6 between the A421 junction, south of Bedford and the Luton Borough boundary (approximate length 30 kms) specifically to provide feedback for the purpose of a safety study. The route was assessed during 11.00am - 2.00pm, the weather was sunny and the carriageway surface was dry. Background Information In the 3 year period from 1st July 2004 to 31st June 2007, 14 accidents were recorded on the A6 between the A421 junction, south of Bedford and the Luton Borough boundary (approximate length 30 kms). 3 were classified as Serious and the remaining 11 involved Slight injury. The accident details are summarised in the Table 1: No. of Accident Severity Raining/wet Year Dark Accidents Fatal Serious Slight road surface 2004 4 - - 4 - 1 2005 6 - 1 5 - 1 2006 4 - 2 2 2 1 Total 14 - 3 11 2 3 % of total - 0% 21% 79% 14% 21% accidents Table 1 – Accident Totals for the A6 between the A421 junction, south of Bedford and the Luton Borough boundary. 14 causalities resulted from the accidents, 9 of the drivers involved in the recorded accidents were aged 30 years or below. Two of the accidents occurred during the hours of darkness and 3 took place when the carriageway surface was wet.
  2. 2. Feedback / Assessment A6 between A421 South of Bedford to Luton Borough boundary on 11/08/07. 17 riders and 3 pillion passengers took part in the Safety ride along the A6 between the A421 junction, south of Bedford and the Luton Borough boundary. Figure 1 shows that 1 rider was aged 30 – 39, with 6 riders aged 40 – 49, 7 were 50 – 59 and 3 were 60 +. Age Group 60 + 50 - 59 40 - 49 30 - 39 20 - 29 16 - 19 0 2 4 6 8 Figure 1 – Age of Riders. Of the 17 riders 11 had been riding motorcycles for over 10 years, 3 between 5 -10 years and the remaining 3 between 3 -5 years. All 17 riders hold a full licence, 8 riders have completed an advanced training course.
  3. 3. For the purpose of this assessment, riders were asked to indicate their reason for riding this route and the frequency of travelling this route. Figure 2 & 3 illustrates the results taken from the feedback forms. Work Commuting Leisure Route Assessment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 2 – Route Assessment.
  4. 4. Frequently Often Rarely Never 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 3 – Frequency of travelling the route Riders were asked to indicate the type of motorcycle that they rode. Figure 4 below shows the type of motorcycles used on the day. Make Model Year Engine Size Yamaha XJ900S Diversion 1998 900cc Moto Guzzi Norge 2007 1200cc Honda CBR600RR 2007 599cc Honda Blackbird 2001 1100cc Honda CBF600 2004 600cc Honda CBR600FY 2002 600cc Honda ST1300 2003 1300cc Triumph Daytona 2006 675cc BMW R1200CS 2005 1200cc Yamaha TDM 2004 900cc Yamaha Majesty 2004 400cc Yamaha XJ900S Diversion 1998 900cc Honda Blackbird 2005 1137cc Honda CBR1100 2002 1137cc BMW K1200RS 2003 1198cc Honda Deauville 2000 650cc Triumph Sprint 1999 955cc Figure 4 – Type of Motorcycle
  5. 5. RIDERS FEEDBACK On completion of the route, riders were asked for their feedback. Three questions were put to the riders; 1. Overall, what was the main problem or hazard on this route, for motorcyclists? Comment (See appendix 1 for full details) Number of responses Poor carriageway surface 11 Overgrown vegetation and signs restrict vision for 9 riders(especially near to junctions and bends) Poor repairs to carriageway and raised covers (ironworks) 3 Too many signs 3 White lines missing or faded 2 Lack of entry slip roads and bad junction design 2 2. Overall, what is the main improvement that you would like addressed to improve this route for motorcyclists? Comment (See appendix 2 for full details) Number of responses Cut back vegetation 11 Resurface carriageway 6 Reduce the number of road signs 3 Improve white lines 3 Inspect / repair defects 2 Install ‘Think Bike’ signs 2 Replace / repair cats eyes 1 Improve junction design 1 Enhance signing on bends and blind summits 1 3. What hazards did you observe on this route? Please indicate below the location, describe the hazard and say how risky you think this hazard is to motorcyclists. Comment (See appendix 3 for full details) Number of responses Poor carriageway surface and central join of carriageway 18 breaking up
  6. 6. Overhanging vegetation 10 Roundabout / turn right / junction – poor design 8 Raised and sunken manhole covers 7 Debris / oil / diesel on carriageway surface 7 No or little white lines 5 Too many road signs 3 A need to slow down traffic 3 Metal studs and rumble strips reduce grip for riders 3 Road dips 2 Too many camera’s and wrong locations for camera’s 2 No cats eyes 2 Obscured vision due to road signs 1 Count down markers required 1 ADS to small 1 Poor barrier type 1 A need for improved street lighting 1 Poor exit line 1 SUMMARY From the feed back received, the main observations showed that the carriageway surface was poor at various locations along the route and due to the rural nature of the surrounding area, vegetation and foliage was overgrown in some areas. These conditions could affect visibility splays particularly for riders emerging from side road junctions and where overhanging foliage obscured several road signs. Road studs were noted as either missing or partly sunken into the carriageway surface at a number of locations and that the carriageway markings where worn / partly worn or missing. A hazard which riders felt was a problem was the number of raised covers in the carriageway and a number of poor road repairs along the route.

×