As part of the Regulation 22 request, the County Highways Authority asked to see "more comprehensive up-to-date accident data for the whole of the proposed haulage route included within the application". AI has now supplied road accident data for the B3180 "obtained from DCC to cover the most recent time period available, from 1st January 2014 to 31st December 2014" 2.31. Why had AI not supplied this data before? Perhaps this is why:
In those 12 months, 13 accidents were recorded between Daisymount and Blackhill. AI assessed that "two of the accidents involved HGVs" 2.47. But even simple numbers confuse AI and SLR; because HGVs clearly played a part in three, NOT two, of those accidents:
Prickly Pear to Tipton CrossAn accident that resulted in slight injury occurred when a bus/coach reversed into a car when allowing an articulated lorry to proceed in a narrow section of road 2.39
Lynch Head Road to Halfway House Junction
The other occurred when a driver lost control of the car and collided with the verges when trying to avoid an oncoming HGV 2.41
Sanctuary Lane to Castle Lane
The other accident occurred when an HGV collided with the rear of a car in front 2.44
It’s easy to see how the first one happened; watch this truck being forced to reverse by an AI truck:
AI makes the astonishing claim that "the majority of accidents that involved HGVs did not include causes/factors exclusively linked to the characteristics of HGVs; these types of accidents could have occurred with any vehicle type on the road at that time" 2.49. But, with wide HGVs on a narrow road with discontinuous central road markings, that was plainly NOT the case in at least two of the above.
AI says "drivers should be aware of the approaching conditions and proceed with caution, particularly given the rural nature and narrow width of the road" 2.48.
But given the narrow width of the road, it's obvious that the B3180 cannot satisfactorily accommodate AI’s 44-tonne HGVs, as the above video patently demonstrates. This application should be judged against the current Minerals Plan, the one that says:
 |  |
