falling off bikes since 1975

In an attempt to enlighten them to their ignorance of anything to do with road safety outside of their blinkered speed kills viewpoint I recently asked the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety about their standpoint on the use of Stone Mastic Asphalt. As a motorcyclist and horserider the increasing use of this ‘hidden menace’ ^[1] concerns me.

And not only me. And not only from a horse or motorbike point of view. Concerns about the levels of grip provided by SMA have been raised in Germany, Holland, Australia, and perhaps most tellingly Eire. In Eire the National Roads Authorities has limited its use to roads with a 30 mph speed limit, and has taken remedial action on other roads where they have put it down.^[2]

I wanted to know if a) the LPRS were aware of the dangers it posed, b) what their standpoint was on it’s use and c) if their view conflicted with the Highways Department whether they would fight for road users safety or capitulate to claims of ‘best practice’ use and budgets. I didn’t bother asking them about fighting for remedial action where it’s already been inappropriately laid, I might as well fart in a gale.

The answers were respectively a) no, b) they don’t have one, and c) delegate responding to the Highways Department. Yes they capitulated straight away and forwarded the question straight to the Highways Department to answer.

Why did they not have a policy? Their response:

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

So, does that mean they have no interest, even though it affects safety? Cue backtracking and “I didn’t mean that”. Still haven’t had a satisfactory explanation of what they did mean.

I asked if they were ignorant of the safety issues caused by SMA. They objected to being called ignorant but eventually admitted that they were not aware of safety concerns. If you’re unaware of something you are ignorant of it. Ergo they are ignorant.

What I wanted to know was if their ignorance was wilful.

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

Hmm. Not looking good.

I was also worried that they were unable to grasp the idea that the Highways department designers face this choice:

With this in mind shouldn’t they be trying to influence Highways designs and decisions in favour of safety instead of just being told what is being done, which inevitably will be based on cost and timescales?

No, they think that Highways balance the triangle. I think they are being naive.

Consequently LPRS isn’t questioning the Highways Department about the use of SMA in areas of roads used by horses.^[3] The British Horse Society Safety Conference discussed this with the County Surveyors Society Chairman^[4] - on which Lancashire County Council are represented, so someone in the council is aware - I hope - of this issue.

So why aren’t LPRS making sure that the Highways department give this consideration instead of capitulating to their supposed knowledge and best practice?

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

Highways didn’t defend the safety record of SMA. They did though state that SMA is used only in accordance with best practice horses make a mockery of this. Best practice, is flawed. It turns out that the model used by local authorities when measuring skid and slip resistance, the Tyre to Road Contact model (1958), covers only that, tyres. It uses only rubber materials, not metals. Unlike horsehoes. Shouldn’t the LPRS be the ones questioning the Highways Department whether best practice really is best practice?

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

And the Highways Department certainly need questioning. It was recently forced to resurface a local section of road after a crash caused by a skidding vehicle. It replaced the surface with, you guessed it, SMA. Then had to erect ‘Slippery Surface’ warning signs. That doesn’t say much for the Highways Department intelligence, their best practice - more on that farther down - or appropriate interference by the LPRS.

It’s not only horseshoes. Motorcycle Action Group are also less than enamoured of the use of SMA.^[5]

It’s not pleasant riding on these surfaces on a motorcyle. Speed may kill, but if your front wheel washes out at lower speeds, or you have no braking traction in the event of an emergency situation the emergency quickly becomes an accident. Poor road surfaces are a definite contributory factor, not just absolute speed.

Turns out if you start digging that you don’t have to look far to find out about folks concerns. Unless you’ve got some blinkers on.

“It falls outside our speed, seat-belts, drink-driving remit”.

Fortunately it’s not all bad news. Provided you don’t come from Lancashire that is.

Derbyshire County Council, an area popular with bikers and one of the first counties to realise that SMA was contributing to safety problems, has taken steps to make roads safer for bikers, including installing anti-skid surfacing and advance warning signs.

Closer to home Yorkshire is popular with bikers because of it’s challenging roads. Unfortunately they are also lined by unforgiving stone walls. So Yorkshire puts up warning signs to stop us getting complacent. Then you ride home into Lancashire, and the border is marked by more than a sign claiming that it’s a county “Where Everyone Matters”. It’s marked by a noticeable deterioration in the quality of the road surface and the handling of your bike gets all upset. I should point out that’s bicycle. On a motorbike it’s even worse.

[more…]