Back in May, at the Broadfield Forum, a letter was read out to general hilarity. The letter was from somebody at the Highways Agency in response to questions about the phasing of the traffic lights outside the K2 leisure centre.
I now have a copy of the text of that letter and it seems a shame not to share it with a slightly larger audience, so here are the best bits:
I refer to your e-mail to our Northern Area Office concerning the pedestrian timings at the above junction. We are investigating this matter at present and I will let you know the outcome once we decide what action we have taken.
Brilliant! What an innovative use of tenses. They are going to take some action then decide what they have done. But it gets better as it goes into more and more detail.
The likelihood is that we will reduce the maximum green time for vehicles on the main road. At present this maximum green time is set at 60 seconds and under certain circumstances pedestrians could wait at least 65 seconds after pressing the button before the green man appears. Normally what happens at any traffic signal junction (and a lot of stand-alone crossings) is that any conflicting demand for a stage other than the running stage will start the maximum green timer for the running stage. If there is no traffic on the running stage the signals will start the change to the next stage in the sequence for which there has been a demand (assuming the minimum green time, normally 7 seconds, has expired). However, if there is traffic on the running stage then this will be extended up to it’s maximum green time as long as there is traffic to keep it going. If the running stage runs out of traffic before it reaches it’s maximum green time then it will change if there is a demand for another pedestrian or vehicle stage, depending on the sequence. If there are demands for all stages then they will run in a set sequence. However, any stage or stages can be omitted if not demanded.
I find this phenomenon a lot in the IT discipline. The better someone is at the specialist technicalities of their job the less able they are to explain it to anyone else. What is, perhaps, more worrying is that it all makes perfect sense to me now that I have seen it written down.
That sound suspiciously like you are claiming to be good at specialist technicalities…
This isn’t funny if it relates to the death of that boy at the K2 lights.
WSCC’s Highways are quoted as saying there was nothing wrong with the timed sequencing at those lights…the car driver was not to blame…it was the boy’s fault.
Ummmmmm…
Are you sure that the driver wasn’t to blame, Richard? Maybe not criminally so, but I thought that the presumption was always that pedestrians have right of way.
Of course, if a pedestrian runs out when the lights are not in their favour, is it really a problem with the lights?
Could it be an accident? Do we have to find someone to ‘blame’ for everything? Sometimes bad things happen, and it’s not the government/council’s fault.
I’m not sure what you are saying, Danivon.
I have no idea who was to blame – but I know who was blaming who – and the one blamed is no longer here.
The whole thing had a ‘Billingsgate aroma’ about it at the time – and for me it still does.
“Do we have to find someone to ‘blame’ for everything?” Of course not, Danivon, but we have to find someone to take responsibility.
Certain things don’t ‘add up’ here :
The dead boy was blamed, making him out to be a careless, reckless lad who stupidly rushed across when the lights were red.
Careless, reckless, stupid lads don’t usually cross at those traffic lights on bikes – they simply take the quickest route – straight across the two carriageways, with the grass verge in the middle.
It was also stated tha the BMW (I think) was driving within the prescribed speed (30mph) when the lights were reached.
I’ve tried that, coming off that roundabout and up the hill at the traffic lights. It was extremely difficult to keep at 30mph. You come off the roundabout and are picking up some speed by the time you reach the lights…
There were other things as well which simply didn’t sound right…
What things? Are you not just seeing conspiracies and coverups everywhere? Who was doing this ‘blaming’ you go on about?
By the way, the speed limit there is 50, not 30. And if you find it ‘hard’ to avoid accelerating beyond the speed limit when you drive, that says more about the driver than the road. You don’t need to put your foot down. The lights are not hard to see either, and you should, as a driver following the Highway Code, be ready to stop if the lights change, and be aware of pedestrians who may want to cross later than they should.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this was an accident, and as sad as it is, perhaps it was the boy’s fault in part for crossing at the wrong time (you don’t have to be habitually reckless to make a single reckless mistake), and perhaps it was the driver’s fault in part for failing to be ready to stop.
And was Princess Diana’s death by accident or design ?
No, Danivon, I don’t ‘buy’ what you’re saying.
I am not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ far from it….more a ‘cock-up-and-cover-up theorist’.
Yes, it could have been simply the boy’s fault.
But it could just as easily been a high-level cover-up.
For you not to even consider the latter I find absolutely astonishing…
Read the old write-ups, Owen. For those with eyes to see, there are some serious anomalies which are difficult to explain.
You are right – I was wrong – it is 50mph there now, not 30mph. Your jibe about my driving was unnecessary..keep to the point…which is that even 50mph is a pretty slow speed on that stretch.
If the sequencing of the lights were dodgy, the child’s judgement was dodgy, and the BMW’s speed was dodgy, then they could have combined to cause the fatality.
But to simply blame the dead boy…and not consider other factors…is also very dodgy.
I was wondering when it would come down to Diana…
For what it is worth, my own opinions are:
1. The letter about the lights is from a bloke at the Highways Agency who has given an honest answer to a question in unfortunately opaque language. Even if there was a conspiracy of people with a vested interest in not having bad publicity for K2 it would not include the HA.
Actually I was a bit surprised to hear they look after that road: I assumed it was West Sussex but apparently not.
2. In the case of the child’s death I do not think blame is appropriate. The driver could well have been driving perfectly legally and no worse than anyone else while the boy was being reckless, but no worse than anyone else.
With hindsight, both parties were probably acting with less caution than they should have been.
There must be thousands of cases every day where drivers and pedestrians act a lot worse and by pure good fortune nothing happens.
3. Diana died 10 years ago and its time to let it go. Dodi showed poor judgement in letting a pissed bodyguard drive, and they all showed poor judgement in deciding that having someone get a photo of them was so bad it was worth risking their lives to avoid.
A few years ago some celebrity footballer got a speeding ticket cancelled when his lawyer argued that he was only speeding to avoid the paparazzi. I still think that was a travesty of justice: if someone is shooting at you with guns then by all means do what you have to, but if they are shooting at you with cameras, is it really worth dying for? Get home in one piece then let the clever lawyer help you sue for invasion of privacy instead.
That was a clear case of someone losing their sense of priorities and perspective and if they had crashed instead of getting stopped there would be conspiracy theories about them too.
4. I am not claiming to be good at specific technicalities as such – but I have made a career out of mediating between techies and end-users and I can spot someone whose technical knowledge outweights their communication skills from a mile off.
Richard, I didn’t see many anomalies, I’m afraid, and even though I like the fact that Al Fayed’s money got Fulham FC into the Premiership, I think that Diana’s death was a tragic accident, with no simple line of blame.
“But it could just as easily been a high-level cover-up.
For you not to even consider the latter I find absolutely astonishing…”
Perhaps that’s the difference between us, Richard. I have considered it, and rejected it based on the facts I have to hand and Occam’s Razor. I don’t keep banging on about it (and to do so may well cause distress to those involved that is unnecessary).
And, by the way, 50mph is not too slow for that stretch of road. Particularly as there is a pedestrian crossing there, a turning a little further up and it’s just after a roundabout.
Let’s face it, Owen, nobody knows the truth about what really happened in either case. We’re both guessing.
To me, the difference between us is that you accept ‘official Establishment’ versions more easily than myself.
If they make more sense than the bonkers conspiracy theory (sorry ‘cu&cu theory’), then I may well do.
If in every situation we ignore the most likely explanation and search for bogeymen and dark motives, we’d go mad.
No, Danivon, many don’t “go mad” – they become crash investigators, criminal lawyers, or simply ask ‘Why?’ or ‘How can we ensure this never happens again?’.
The “mad” ones, to my mind, are those who naively accept the easy explanations from ‘officialdom’ – or become politicians 😉
But when the lawyers and the investigators become part of the official story, you can safely ignore them, right?
I am not naively accepting anything here, I’m just trying to work out whether your claims of a cover up or malfeasance regarding that accident are based on anything more than a hunch, and a prejudice against the parsimonious explanation.
People lie at a very high level, Owen (eg Blair-Campbell-Hutton-MI6-Dr David Kelly-WMD’s & Sexed-Up Dossiers).
Anybody would now be naive to think otherwise.
What happens at an international & national level also can happen at a local & regional level
Yes, but have you ever considered that maybe sometimes people tell the truth too? Just a thought.
Yes, of course people tell the truth – but if they also make a (public) habit of not telling the truth (eg lying), no-one in their right mind is going to believe them – even if they are telling the truth at that time.
It’s a question of confidence – and trust.
People lost confidence in Blair because they couldn’t trust him anymore.
I’m no angel, but I lost confidence and trust in certain people – at county level – because they lied to me.
Those same people are included in the K2/Traffic Lights fatality.
I don’t believe them because I don’t trust them anymore.
But the K2 lights are the responsibility of the Highways Agency – an executive agency of the government, and as such a faceless objective body separate from the influence of the Highways Authority which is WSCC.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my clear understanding that the responsibility for the K2 Traffic Lights rests with Highways and Transport at County Hall – as are all traffic lights in Crawley and West Sussex.
That is exactly what I thought, so when a letter about them was read out to the Broadfield Forum and we were told it was from the Highways Agency I did interupt and ask for confirmation it was ‘Agency’ and not ‘Authority’.
The minutes of that meeting also refer to the Highways Agency.
I think that the exact responsibility for roads in Crawley must be more complicated than we suspected, although it makes some sense as the HA are responsible for the rest of the A23.
Yes, I believe the “faceless” Highways Agency is responsible for the A23 – that is, M23/A23 up/down from/to Brighton – but that does NOT include the old A23 where the K2 lights are….As I understand it, that is the responsibilty of County Hall’s Highways & Transport.
Well, Richard, if that’s the case, why are HA writing to explain how the lights there work?
(it must be some sort of conspiracy!)
Your mocking tone might come back to haunt you, Owen.
If there is something irregular going on here, it is a very, very serious matter indeed.
Remember, I read the reports in the local papers at the time – they were (surprisingly) detailed – and certain ‘official facts’ didn’t ring true at all – resulting, I believe, in the issue being discussed here on this blog at the time.
I challenge you to read the detail.
Typical politician, Richard – when shown to be incorrect you go on the attack…
I read the same press that you did at the time, and I can’t recall anything that was too sinister. I asked you earlier what actual evidence you have, and all you come back with is the implication that I am naive and credulous.
Like I’ve said above, there are all sorts of explanations for the accident, but if you want to be more specific about how it’s all the fault of the evil ‘Master Puppeteers’, go ahead. If all you have is “something doesn’t ring true”, then we are best off leaving the discussion well alone.
West Sussex County Council’s Highways & Transport AUTHORITY were very much involved – as well as the Highways AGENCY.
Obviously you missed that, Owen, when you read the local papers at the time.
As to your first paragraph…methinks ‘the pan’s calling the kettle black’.
It’s the ‘pot’, not the pan…
Correct, Owen, thank you – just checking you were still awake…and could recognise yourself so quickly 😉