Not really what any parent would want to see their tinies around. A road traffic accident (RTA) at Tarbet yesterday afternoon (23rd August 2010) showed the additional hazard at the right angle corner 30 yards or so into the A83 after the Tarbet Hotel.
It happened around 3.30pm, the time when the young Arrochar children would be expected to be coming up the nearby brae and out on to the corner.
North bound traffic at this point tends to be centrifugally thrown towards the middle of the road and can meet southbound traffic there, keeping to the centre of the corner to avoid being thrown left.
A local resident took these photographs over a short period as he watched the scene developed.
Among other things these photographs provide evidence of the volume and frequency of truck movements on this route declared by Argyll and Bute Council to be ‘safe’ for primary school children to walk to school. This classification has been used to validate the decision to withdraw the free school bus service from Arrochar children.
Although they live only just inside the new two mile limit – chosen by the Council and not imposed by the Scottish Government – these children must now walk this genuinely dangerous route. Part of it is on a narrow road with very poor sightlines and no footpaths at all. Part – here – is on a section of the main trunk road through Argyll, the A83, with a 60 mph speed limit section between the towns, including the passage under the rail bridge.
While the resident took the photographs yesterday, five large trucks came through – one an empty timber lorry. All five were headed west for the narrow rail bridge, beyond the 30mph limit at Tarbet.
The Arrochar tinies ‘safe’ footpath to school takes them below that bridge in alarmingly close company with the traffic, on a narrow footpath which lorries regularly mount to avoid touching each other at that point. At 64cns-70cms wide, this footpath – at the most dangerous point of the route, is well below the statutorily required 100cms.
Yesterday’s incident is further proof of the constant dangers of this road.
In our investigation of this matter, we have not come across one individual who has been prepared to say, personally, that he or she considers the road to be safe. Those who feel themselves trapped in what is clearly a mistaken classification can only say, feebly that it has been classified as ‘safe’ – so therefore it is ‘safe’.
Council officials and councillors should reassert their common sense and, if self-preservation is the most effective galvanic, ask themselves how this defence would play if the worst should happen and a child is injured on this route. The words ‘hung out to dry’ are right up there in such an eventuality. Thanks to the parents determined campaign, officials could not say that they had neither been told of nor shown the dangers.
Once again, the wise thing is to admit the mistake everyone can make and use the ‘local flexibility’ the Scottish Government Guidelines allow in the provision of the free School Bus service from Arrochar to Tarbet. Arrochar is only marginally within the new 2 mile limit anyway – so get the Arrochar tinies back on that now withdrawn school bus service and safely to school.
On the evidence of these pictures making school children walk down this particular stretch of road is indefensible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At last a reporter that not only has common sense but is also a news link that isnt scared of putting the factual points across for everyone to see. I am shocked that the council do not understand the magnitude of the dangers presented to our children. Whilst they all sit in their cosy offices and make such shocking rulings, our tinies are having to risk their lives everyday just to receive an education!! Surely thay must see how dangerous this road is??
Why is it that after so many emails and phonecalls, I am still awaiting a copy of the 4 safe risk assessments done by Argyll & Bute Council?? Are they actually real?? Im beginning to wonder??
Thank you Forargyll
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really wish these images were on every National and UK wide newspaper and television station to show the people of this country just how pathetically unfair the councilors of Argyll & Bute are being…..
And I go on record as saying here for them all to see, as I know from their latest tête à tête on Forargyll that they do read this blog…..
If anything happens to either of my children as a result of their pig-headedness…. hung-out-to-dry will be the very least of their worries!
It really saddens me to see that these un-democratic fascists have total control of our area and we can do nothing to impose common sense decisions or at least get that little bit of flexibility back once THEY decide, without our input, what is to be done.
I only pray more people sit up and pay attention to what is being done in A&B and across Scotland as a whole to the way in which they fritter our hard earned taxes away on projects like Faslane and Coulport whilst sacrificing the safety of our children and the needs of our communities which continue to fund them in either blind faith or fear of breaking the laws they put in place to ensure the dissenting voice cannot be heard!
Rant over! back to work…. to pay their wages!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You could have at least photoshopped the police officer out of the photos, it would give a sense that the situation poses the slightest danger to anyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Jim: We know the photoshop suggestion is tongue in cheek, Jim but for the record, we don’t use Photoshop on our own images because we’re news photographers – which is a specific genre with its own ethos.
On the danger front, the point of the images is twofold:
the sheer intimidation of these massive vehicles in close proximity. They are even closer to pedestrians in normal circumstances on the footpath under the rail bridge than they are here, under the supervision of Strathclyde Police in mounting this wider foptpath;
the frequency with which they are coming through on this everyday afternoon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also for Jim….. I really do have the strongest feeling that Karma will be paying you a visit soon and I only hope that the person in the other vehicle walks away unharmed!
If you are not too busy next week you could attend the 2 funerals of both those unfortunate individuals who lost their lives on this road at the weekend.
Or even better… feel free to attend the meeting of Arrochar parents in our village hall tomorrow night and 7pm and make yourself known instead of hiding behind the anonymity guaranteed by this blog like the coward you are with your snide comments???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
newsroom: what you have depicted in this piece is a scene which unfolds in every town, city and village country wide. Lorries driving next to pavements is not unique to Arrochar, neither is vehicles mounting pavements. It would be very interesting to follow the walking route of a kid going to school in the city….
Colin Graham: your invocation of the two fatalities over the weekend to take a cheap shot at me is shameless. Also to wish injury (or death…) to me because I do not share your opinion is vile.
Tragic as the circumstances were, kids walking to school will not be taking the same risk as man walking along a trunk road at night without a pavement does (assuming there was no pavement as FA’s article makes no mention of one). And I don’t need to spell out the difference between motorcyclists and kids walking to school.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Jim: One interesting comparison between the Arrochar case and a city – Scotland’s largest – where the same scene does not unfold daily is that Glasgow City Council employs a one rather than the two mile limit adopted now in Argyll and Bute as the start point for a free school bus service.
City and rural conditions are very different, as you will know. City roads generally have far greater traffic volumes but these generally move, perforce, at lower speeds. Also, generally,the mass of heavy vehicles passing through is diverted to bypass roads. And then there are formal, traffic-light controlled road crossings.
In rural areas, the overall traffic volumes are lower but the proportion of heavy vehicles is inevitably higher; the speeds are higher and regularly above the legal limits; and there are no formal and controlled crossings.
There are risks everywhere and we would agree with the general tenour of your position that in life today we have removed much of the level of risk that is part of the choices people- including children -make and contributes to intelligent independence and self-confidence.
There is a part of the risk spectrum which is healthy and in which children are no longer free to live and learn.
However, discrimination is necessary in all things. Small children do not make informed decisions across the risk spectrum. Juxtaposing small, unstable and impetuous bodies with heavy vehicles in close proximity, passing each other in very confined circumstances at or on a pavement already well below the legal width, seems a risk too far.
Local authorities are, by nature and custom, cautious and conservative – which makes rather extraordinary the bullish classification of this road as ‘safe’ for small children to walk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shameless is something you do seem to know a great deal about Jim…..
And Vile or not, my truck with you has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion. I may not agree with yours or you with mine, but believe it or not I would fight tooth and nail for you to have the right to express yours.
That being said however, my feelings towards you have nothing to do with you agreeing or opposing my personal opinions Jim, you make light of issues directly endangering the safety and lives of my children and others like them, and for that, and that alone, I have been angered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim: Firstly, I would like to put to you that whilst I admit that children walking on a road next to lorries is not unique to Arrochar, them travelling above the safety guidelines for a school walking route is.
Secondly, I cannot believe that you find it hard understand Colin Grahams worries about his children having to walk this route. The fatality rate on this road is confirmed on a regular basis.
Thirdly, in the winter months leading up our children will have to walk on a dark road with no pavements and extremely poor lighting just like the poor man that was killed.
I find it very hard to comprehend that as a human being you cannot see the dangers that this poses to the future generations. We are forever teaching our children about road safety yet here we are faced with having to cross a 60mph road and placing our children in grave danger everyday of their lives. How can this be right????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do understand Colin Graham’s worries but I find them exaggerated and not representative of the real risk faced. Argyll’s roads are without a doubt dangerous but I’ve yet to be presented with any evidence that children accompanied by adults walking on pavements are a particularly high risk group. How many people have died on Argyll’s pavements in recent memory? Same goes for people crossing road.
My hunch is that road injury and fatality statistics would demonstrate that you are at far greater risk as a passenger in a vehicle on Argyll’s roads than you are as a pedestrian. That being the case then parents putting their kids on a bus or driving themselves are willingly increasing the chance their child will be injured or killed on the way to school. Now that’s not very responsible parenting….
I think the debate raises greater questions about the extent to which the government (both local and national) should be responsible for the health and safety of the nation. Why should the responsibility for getting kids safely to school fall on the Council? Surely those who choose to have children should accept that responsibility and not bemoan the inconvenience. I don’t want to see the vulnerable put at unnecessary risk but I would like to see those ultimately responsible step up to the plate and not expect the ‘nanny state’ to do their job for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Jim,
Having just responded to your comments on the ‘Arrochar community council tested by council decision to leave primary school children to walk to school on a83′ story, I happenened upon this new addition of yours to the debate for which you obviously have such a passion. I am pleased to see that there is at least some substance to your argument with this latest comment, although let’s not misconstrue substance for good judgement. I agree with your comment regarding the statistics of accidents involving pedestrians compared to vehicles, however are statistics and figures really relevant in a case such as this? I presume you will argue the contrary, but surely the risk of even one child being hurt or even killed on this notorious stretch of road is reasonable justification for us fighting our case. I myself have no problem whatsoever with having the responsibility of getting my child to and from school, if that is I felt the route was safe to walk twice a day, five days a week. If you are local to the area you will know of Arrochar’s inclement weather, can the council really call for children as young as four to walk two miles to school in the height of winter; in the cold, wet and dark and then expect them to be alert and ready for a full day of schooling.
Statistics are a well used commodity when evaluating ways of cutting back on expenditure, but an accident by the very nature of its name is an undesireable and unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and one that can result in harm. Over the last three years alone there have been numerous accidents on this stretch of road and during several of these RTC’S the vehicle or vehicles involved have left the carriageway crossing over onto the footpath, some doing so with enough velocity to not only severly injure small children but also the saviour of the council that is the ‘responsible adult’ accompanying them.
We do not expect the ‘nanny state’, as you put it to do our parenting for us, however we all pay our taxes and do have the right for our children to attend school without danger to their health. You will, I expect in your follow up remark (we all know how you love to air your views on this matter) regard this statement to be melodramatic and that the danger to the children is indeed minimal. I however do not.
Despite your assumptions regarding us we are not lazy, nor are we irresponsible parents we simply expect that our children be able to attend school in a manner that does not have a detrimental effect on their safety or health. Perhaps if you had children in a similar situation your views would be different, however going on your flippant comments regarding this matter I doubt even this would alter the solicitude you show for the council which you so clearly love to defend. Goodnight Jim, happy blogging.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just for debate purposes (which is healthy and helps win any camapaign)
Why does the coverage of this story continually say the children are being forced to walk when reality is that children are now having to pay for a bus service that every other community in Argyll has to? As before what makes the case in Arrochar different from other similar cases in Argyll?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Hughie: The Arrochar case differs in clarity rather than in kind.
The route the children there are supposed to walk is manifestly dangerous in the highest profile way, yet it has been ‘assessed’ as ‘safe’. This stands therefore as evidence which calls into question the credibility of the safety criteria used in the assessment procedure. And this undermines the security of all ‘assessments’ made.
Arrochar is also only marginally within the two mile limit. Given the dangers of the walking route, this calls into question the Council’s judgment in not considering the local flexibility it is at liberty to apply without changing their new overall policy.
In the Arrochar case, it is also unclear whether a proper detailed report was ever prepared on the ‘assessment’ procedure. No one – even the Provost – has yet seen other than a ‘summary’ report, although repeated requests have been made by parents to see the full report. If it exists, it is hard to understand why this should be.
In the Arrochar case, because of local contractual arrangements, the large bus supplying the service is paid for by the Council for a further year and will be running that route largely empty. This is a daft waste of resources in a situation where, only two weeks before the start of the new term, the Arrochar parents were given notice of the withdrawal of the former service and the classification of the walking route as ‘safe’.
You are absolutely right, Hughie, as we previously said, that other schools in Argyll are in a similar position. We have highlighted the case of the young children at Sandbank school in Cowal where:
sightlines at the point of crossing to the school are unsafe;
traffic volumes on the route described by the Council’s ‘assessment’ are hotly disputed by the parents, apparently evidenced by an independent count at the same time of day the Council did their’s;
traffic regularly exceeds the local speed limit on the route.
We know also of a school in Kintyre and one in Lorn where there are real concerns on safety issues on prescribed walking routes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
david and Jaclyn Sparks:
Well I wouldn’t quite go as far as to say the subject is something I am passionate about but it is of interest. I think it provides a good gauge of public opinion with respect to public services cuts and will be watching intently when the Council services currently under review report their plans to meet budget cuts later this year.
Whilst you dismiss the relevance of historical data on accidents I would indeed argue to the contrary. Risk is determined by considering the product of probability and severity of an incident. The severity of a kid getting hit by a car is obvious but the probability is not. Our best tool to determine the probability of the event occurring is an understanding of what is happened in the past. The body of historical evidence would show that these events happen very rarely hence have a very low probability. The result is a high severity incident with very low probability, this does not constitute a high risk. Take the same principles and apply that to passengers in a vehicle and you end up with a higher risk event.
I can’t take credit for the term ‘nanny state’ and the reference was used to highlight our readiness to criticise the state’s overbearing involvement in our lives and in the next breath accuse it of neglect.
I agree that attendance at school should not involve a child’s health being put at risk. This is why schools (and just about every public building) must obey stringent standards for electrical safety, fire safety, slips, trips, falls, food hygiene etc etc atc. In my opinion however the Council’s responsibility for the child’s safety should stop at the gate and the parents should be the ones with the duty to ensure they arrive and leave safely.
As a tax payer, I also have the right express my views on how the state should spend its money (not that anyone has to listen though). I object to taxes being spent to placate parents and their knee-jerk reactions to decisions like this one. If there was evidence to support what is currently a purely an emotive argument I would be the first criticise the folly of the decision.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Arrochar tinies still trucking – around an RTA – For Argyll
For Hughie,
Just for the record the paid privelage seats that you say the council is offering are not guaranteed, we were also told that it could take up until the end of September before an application may be processed. This would mean the children having to walk the route in the meantime. Also to parents who are financially restricted the £60 per term fee is a large sum to pay out on a regular basis, especially given that the majority of parents have multiple children at the school.
Arrochar’s case is different to many others in Argyll because in this case the children are expected to walk along and cross a major 60mph trunk road without any sort of crossing aids. Also the fact that the majority of kids are only 0.05 miles inside the 2 mile zone, the council according to the guidelines they have followed could use the local flexibility available to them. We are all realists and fully understand the council’s need for cutbacks, but in a case such as this surely common sense must prevail, is there really a price to be put on our children’s safety.
For Jim
Judging by your comments you clearly deal with risk assesments regularly and understand the reasoning behind the formulae involved. For the record I do not dismiss historical data and this is precisely why I know this route is dangerous for young children to walk regularly. Surely if the council expect the 28 children affected by this decision to walk this route, taking into account the adults accompanying them and the younger siblings who would in many cases also have to embark on the journey, then surely this increases the probability of one of these persons being involved in an accident. In the past this was not the case so how can we use historical data in this case to determine the probability and therefore the risk?
With respect to evidence, there is a lengthy list of accidents that have occured on this stretch of road as I have previously stated, this is not an exageration of the truth this is fact. I have witnessed first hand the damage some of these accidents have caused, including might I add the complete demolition of a wall and garden shed situated on the footpath to the school. The pictures you see above are a regular occurence that the local emergency services have to attend to frequently, and in many of these cases the vehicles involved have strayed onto the path that the children will be walking or have even ignited into flames on impact. If you look at the wall behind the Tarbet hotel you will see the damage to the wall where a large number of vehicles have struck over the last few years. I agree that the probability of a child being at the exact spot of impact at an accident site is low, however is this a risk worth taking? I personally don’t believe it is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having read through the many comments on this forum I would like to say a word or two if I may.
Jim, I understand your views, and have, on occasion, used the term ‘Nanny state’, however I feel in this case we are not looking at either a ‘nanny state’ nor ‘cotton wool culture’ situations here. Professional incompetence and Argyll and Bute ‘cherrypicking’ from the WoSRSF Guidelenes seem to be the issues.
I note your tone, and can clearly see, from your comments, that you feel that the parents and communities fighting the latest round of budget cuts are dramatising their situations. I am convinced that you are either highly involved in Argyll and Bute Council or have close links to someone involved in the council. I could be wrong.
However, I would like to clarify some facts for the record. I may be forgiven for repeating several folks above but, no-one, not even Malcolm McFadyen has seen the illusive risk assessments for the Sandbank route, not even the scribbled notes, even may I add, having been formally requested under FOI -Twice.
One would take, from this breech, that the assessments have not been done, or have been done to such a poor standard that there would be embarrassment should these documents be released.
The facts are that: Argyll and Bute councillors took a vote on the safe routes to schools issue before any traffic or risk assessments had been done.
This decision has been made on the advice of Argyll and Bute Council experts –
the very same people that have just been in court over the tragic incident on the coal pier in Dunoon.
In court it was stated by an Argyll and Bute official that it was ‘inexplicable that no risk assessment had been done for the car park’
The simple explanation is that professional incompetence is to blame. Why is it that the person/persons responsible for this are still employed by Argyll and Bute? No one has been held to account.
The council has a team of dedicated H&S officers who have the power to dictate to others. Why then was this tragedy allowed to happen to a family who have now lost a dear relative and who was a member of our community. Do they not have eyes?
These employees of Argyll and Bute receive substantial salaries and benefits. (See Oban Times) We are told this is to attract the highest calibre of candidate for these posts – this has clearly failed in Argyll and Bute. I find it ‘inexplicable’ that these people have neither resigned nor been fired for the incompetence that has cost this family a dear relative.
Health and Safety Executive now have corporate manslaughter on the statute book. Who amongst Argyll and Bute’s employees and councillors are going to shoulder the blame, should a child be killed on one of these routes where no mitigation has been put in place – especially when their own roads dept itself has identified the hazards in their ‘summary’ of the route?
Or will they just use the term ‘inexplicable’ to pardon the next tragic incident?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
newsroom: I think your comparison of the differences between city and rural roads is flawed. From a very brief look at http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2008.pdf I believe there is evidence to support the theory that built-up areas prove more of a risk to pedestrians that pavements along the side of an A road.
david and Jaclyn Sparks: Your points about the change in frequency of pedestrian activity compared are valid. You asked “I agree that the probability of a child being at the exact spot of impact at an accident site is low, however is this a risk worth taking?”. Is driving a worth risk taking when car users account for 50% of fatalities on our roads (pedestrians being 20%)?
Jackie McBurney: I’m not highly involved anything the Council do and neither do I have links to anyone who does.
On the matter of facts; I think the councillors voted on the adoption of the 2 mile walking limit for primary school kids, not on particular walking routes. Once the new walking distance limit was agreed it was for Council officers to asses each route individually.
The ‘substantial salaries and benefits’ you mention is the remuneration paid to executive staff and heads of service not your day-to-day officers who are paid significantly less. But that’s a whole other debate…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
another crash this morning at the same corner!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0