As I started this I thought I ought to carry on and give an update.
From the minutes (which I'll be challenging!) -
RN is not convinced these lay-bys are unsuitable and raises the point
that the requirement of 2km maximum distance between lay-bys set by
standards will not be met once those lay-bys near Lydden are closed.
He thinks standards are interpreted in different ways when assessing
the conditions of distinct sections of the HA network.
RN requests confirmation about the 12% increase in accidents rate
along routes where lighting has been switched off.
I actually said I thought the HA were operating double standards in regard to the lighting removal and the layby closures, the layby closures (bringing 1% reduction in accident rates) by their assessment being a duty of care to road users, but the lighting removal (12.5% increase in accident rates) being simply a technical matter. They claimed this wasn't just a matter of finance.
"RN is not convinced these lay-bys are unsuitable" - I pointed out an example from their own presentation showing their incompetence/disingenuity in regard to their justifications for the closures, which was met by blank looks. The laybys nearer Canterbury to which they said traffic is expected to move are definitely not up to standard.
I'm waiting for FOI requests for the independent risk assessments which should have been carried out for the lighting removal and layby closures - I've been told these will be delayed as they have had to be referred to a higher level, I wonder why.
I've also looked on the HA website for details of this project - it's wasn't there last time I looked although the Jubilee Way and Roundhill Tunnel projects are.
btw, since Howard put the link to the reporting form on our village website, hits have increased by 500% so well done and it shows people are interested!
