[Closed] Tom Scott on why Ipley Cross is so dangerous to cyclists

Yep, it's interesting, I remember Bez's original.

[i]nearly every car fails to stop[/i]
I reckon it's about 50/50

Oh… nice, much more accessible than my waffle 🙂 Though it all counts for nothing until the bloody thing’s fixed.

Interesting stuff.

Interesting, thanks for sharing! Have seen a few of his but missed that one.

I like his videos. He did a good job of making the point in a clear concise manner.

I did a quick survey on Saturday and can confirm 100% of motorists approaching the junction failed to stop.

£100,000 for a staggered junction seems reasonable to me if it saves a life.

I think the issue is cost and it being a protected/wildlife area which locals don't want ruined.
That and spending £100k when drivers just need to stop, so costing nothing, is a bitter pill for cash strapped council.

I think the issue is cost and it being a protected/wildlife area which locals don’t want ruined.
That and spending £100k when drivers just need to stop, so costing nothing, is a bitter pill for cash strapped council.

TBH, given the general attitude of many New Forest residents, I suspect some might actively block changes that might resulting in saving the lives of cyclists... 🙁

Excellent piece of work

And how about cameras that takes pictures of cars that don't stop and then fine them 100squids a time. Shouldn't take too long to get to 100k and then change the junction 🙂

They'd have to be battery powered cameras.

Just a reminder, if everyone likes the video and adds a comment, it massages the youtube algorithm and helps it go viral.

I've commented and suggests Tom does a video on this related subject which I think everyone (Drivers and Cyclists) should be aware of... https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

I was wondering to myself whether the easiest fix is simply to reverse the priority so north / south traffic is directed to stop? I think there’s better visibility from those directions. Maybe it’s just all down to driver negligence and wouldn’t make a difference.

I was wondering to myself whether the easiest fix is simply to reverse the priority so north / south traffic is directed to stop?

I suspect that in this case, at least in the short term, *everyone* would crash into everyone else!

It's a good use case for one of those "noone has priority" junctions that the US like to use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-way_stop
(in this case, all directions get a stop sign, and there is no obvious priority. As a result, everyone needs to take more care.)

Clearly, they only work in places with very low traffic volumes, but I would suspect that this may apply here. (That said, the New Forest is a funny old place for traffic, as anyone who has visited Lyndhurst in the summer will attest to...)

Yeah maybe. Visibility approaching from the south is excellent. Approaching from the north I guess there’s still the issue of the <90 degree angle to the left.

I’d guess the majority of cyclists going straight across the junction approach from north or south. I’d much rather a stop sign than the trepidation I feel every time I ride through there.

This is only a couple of miles from home for me, and I ride through there regularly. Fortunately I've never had an incident but there have been a number with local cyclists as well as the tragic deaths (I thought 3?).

Most recent was only a few months ago, leaving a local club cyclist with a broken back.

This video explains it well. Its doing the rounds on local Facebook groups, I've just shared it with the local council groups so hopefully will encourage drivers and cyclists to be wary here.

Its particularly pertinent now with lots of novice / infrequent cyclists out exercising, coupled with a marked increase in traffic speeds due to less vehicles.

Tom is very good - I’ve only just found his channel and have watched dozens of his video in the last couple of weeks!

I amazed saddened that the money & will can’t be found to stagger the junction.

few well-placed gorse bushes would sort that right out for next to nothing

There's a junction near me that had visibility intentionally removed from it to discourage people from running straight through it... Not sure it was completely succesful tbh, it seems like we get less crashes but the ones we get are worse. I guess in this particular case it'd actually need quite a lot of fence/hedge to do that because of the distances involved?

Staggering it just seems to be the right option

I think the issue is cost and it being a protected/wildlife area which locals don’t want ruined.
That and spending £100k when drivers just need to stop, so costing nothing, is a bitter pill for cash strapped council.

Set against an average of two preventable deaths a year?
TBH the environmental impact claim is minimal, I mean there are already two bloody roads crossing there, adjusting it by 20ft isn't going to wipe out any habitats or ruin the view, it's spurious excuse making...

As for claiming the cost is too much? What financial value does that level of penny pinching infer on a human life?
If its an average of two deaths a year how many deaths per annum do you have to prevent to make £100k spend qualify as "good value for money"? If you spend that £100k tomorrow and save a projected 20 lives over the following decade, is that not worthwhile expenditure?

Huh, that's really interesting (read the article, not seen the video) - I don't really shoot across junctions, but I'll definitely start bearing CBDR in mind.

As for claiming the cost is too much? What financial value does that level of penny pinching infer on a human life?

Ah they're only cyclists though. They're not worth as much.

This is actually genuine - decades ago, DfT / Government worked to a matrix of costs that placed an economic value on each road user. It's long since been discredited but sadly the bone-headed thinking remains and it's how we ended up with such a car-centric society.

Basically car drivers were assumed to be well to do people heading to / from important (high-paying) jobs while bus passengers were deemed to be lower value (more likely to be low-paid / "low-skilled" workers) and cyclists - well they were obviously so poor they couldn't afford a car so their economic value was way down the list. Classic 70's / 80's Tory policy. The thinking lives on in many ways.

The council needs to approach Barratt or Persimmon Homes and promise them planning permission for 100 homes if the builder will construct a roundabout. It worked on the A56 crossing of the Clitheroe to Pendle road where a notorious accident black spot is now a big wide roundabout.

About 15 years ago my FIL got a 90 euro fine in France for not stopping long enough at a stop sign. The Gendarme told him to come to a complete stop then count to 3 then go. It wont work with the 'rules dont apply to me brigade' but an ad campagign stating this might reach a lot of people and start to chnage driving habits.

The Gendarme told him to come to a complete stop then count to 3 then go. It wont work with the ‘rules dont apply to me brigade’ but an ad campagign stating this might reach a lot of people and start to chnage driving habits.

Given the people (pre covid) still driving round with phones in their hand I suspect you’ll get people stopping for three seconds, check their messages and drive off without looking!

Yes, that thought had occured to me, but constant messages of reinforcment could change the habits of thousands which would potentially save lives/ prevent injuries. It worked for seat belts and drink driving. If more people see why the stop signs should be obeyed properly then not stoping will be come more acceptable and therefore easier to police.

The council needs to approach Barratt or Persimmon Homes and promise them planning permission for 100 homes if the builder will construct a roundabout. It worked on the A56 crossing of the Clitheroe to Pendle road where a notorious accident black spot is now a big wide roundabout.

Roundabouts with good visibility on the entrances are notorious for similar issues. Good design of kerb lines etc do help though.

Surely a solution that everyone could get behind would be to plant a load of screening trees to significantly reduce visibility until at the junction, forcing drivers to slow & stop.
In less sensitive areas they would use plastic screens but trees would work.

Roundabouts with good visibility on the entrances are notorious for similar issues.

Yep, roundabout near my house, have driven across countless times, but one time I was just about to go across without stopping as nothing was coming, woman cyclist appears out of nowhere! Approach speed, timing and pillar blindspot had hidden her from view until the last second. I did stop, plenty of distance from her, but the sudden brake had given her a fright and she gave me evils. I deserved it 😀 Always slow further back from the roundabout now.

Very interesting and thought provoking about the cyclist effectively being in front of the car and so peripheral vision not picking the car up.

Spoilt* only slightly by....and is this just me......a very tiny hint of Alan Partridge like delivery.

* or enhanced - you decide. Aha.

I thought there were plans to do something there last I heard. I may be a bit behind the times.

Problem with screening etc is it's SSSI/ SAC/ RAMSAR/ SPA habitat and as protected as anywhere in Europe. Tree planting isn't likely to be appropriate, in fact screening would be seen to potentially increase the number of animal/ car accidents.

There have been other junctions like this around the forest where other things have been done like staggered chicanes before the intersection etc to slow vehicles down.

Its a shame that the n-s route is such a rat run when the a326 is busy. Its a horror of a junction. There must be a solution, the stop signs don't seem to have had much impact at all whenever I've been through there.

As well as the stop signs (rather than give way) added last year, they also added painted rumble strips on the E-W approaches.

Whilst just noticeable in your average SUV, they're a bugger to cycle over, and no chance one handed to signal 🙄

Just build a flyover. Stick a bat box on it to keep locals happy.

Just watched that, thats horrific.

Definitely a bit Austen Tasseltine, but interesting.

Out of interest, what does satnav show that junction as? I bet it shows it as a continuous road.

There's a junction in Kent which satnav doesn't show a junction for, even though there's stop signs - the outcome is rather more violent...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-kent-42801060/people-could-die-at-horsmonden-accident-black-spot

I find it interesting* that rules about chicanes before junctions having to be lit, that lets be honest, already pander to drivers inability to drive safely for the conditions, are preventing increased safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

Reminds me of recently Chris Boardman and the Manchester mayor, wanted to implement zebra crossings on many more junction, as many drivers are just ignorant (probably deliberately so) of rights of ways for pedestrians at junctions, but they couldn't again because of the cost of lighting requirements.

*and by interesting I mean horrifying but not surprising.

Upgrade schemes like this should be paid for in fines. How long would it take to rack up £100k? £100 a time, plus a bit extra for the speeders, won't take long.

Also agree about the lighting. Surely you could make something safe that doesn't need lights.

Raised square speed-bump straddling the entire intersection, well signposted. People don't like damaging their cars...

I ride that junction often too, it’s not just cyclists. I had to walk round it once whilst the air ambulance took a motorcyclist to hospital after being taken out.

I’d just stick a gate over both the left hand lanes both sides which reduces it to a single lane and would mean drivers have to slow down and have to do a slalom to get over the junction

I’d just stick a gate over both the left hand lanes both sides which reduces it to a single lane and would mean drivers have to slow down and have to do a slalom to get over the junction.

From what I understood, that's one of the things prevented by lack of lighting.

So, why has this crossroads with chicanes been built in East Sussex without lighting? (I've never had problems navigating it using my headlights...the free range cows between the cattle grids are now of a risk!)

Beggar's Wood Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ujB5dU4aVba24orQ7

Edit: no provision for cyclists to pass nearside of the islands either, although not sure that's mandatory you normally see them...

That's defined as a build-out rather than a chicane (which requires two or more build-outs). I'm just looking up the lighting regs for build-outs…

Probably something to do with it being in a 40mph zone and not an NSL zone.

Same as this one near me, in a 40 zone (just before a 20 zone) and one the other side of the village.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.300214,0.5409428,3a,75y,31.73h,82.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szQ0pJ-Bl8LZ_ky5cGLDPbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-GB

Edit: actually they're in 20 zones but still unlit on a country road.

20mph zones are different: no signage or lighting at all is required in those.

Signage is required elsewhere but (and this is speaking only about build-outs and chicanes rather than speed humps etc) the issue of lighting is a little murkier: I can see lots of things saying they "need lighting" or "should" be lit, but the nearby references I'm finding are to research than actual legislation. Still looking…

I'm a Tom Scott subscriber, so I just saw this come up on my feed and immediately recognised Bez's name and his excellent original article.

Just a reminder, if everyone likes the video and adds a comment, it massages the youtube algorithm and helps it go viral.

It's currently at 1,130,082 views and is #28 on Trending - so doing pretty well!

20mph zones are different: no signage or lighting at all is required in those.

Pretty simple then. Make the last 50 metres or so a 20mph limit. You've got to stop so slowing to 20 shouldn't be an issue

If people ignore the Stop sign then they'd ignore a very short "pointless" 20 limit.

But then you put in the chichane/build out.

Ignore the reduction in speed and you get to explain to your insurance co/mr plod why you came to write your car off, not why you came to squash a cyclist/motorcyclist/T-bone another vehicle.