A27 Brighton bypass is a 'safety risk' says MP after latest Southwick Tunnel crash

The Southwick Tunnel yesterday. Submitted picture

The Southwick Tunnel yesterday.

The Southwick Tunnel yesterday. Submitted picture.

First published in News
Last updated
by

An MP dubbed the A27 Brighton bypass ‘a safety risk’ last night after another crash caused three miles of tailbacks during rush-hour.

The Southwick Tunnel was closed westbound for more than three hours yesterday morning after two cars collided, with one of the vehicles ending up on its roof.

Tim Loughton, the MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, and Neil Parkin, leader of Adur Council, have requested a meeting with local Highways Agency manager Peter Phillips, saying eight crashes happened next to the tunnel last year.


MORE:


Mr Loughton said: “There is clearly something wrong with this section of the A27- which poses a safety risk to motorists.

“I have discussed this with Neil Parkin, who is also concerned about the frequency with which serious accidents have been happening lately.

“There has been a extraordinary amount of incidents near the tunnel over the last few years so I want to meet Peter Phillips and discuss whether any research has been carried out to ascertain if there are common causes such as speed, poor visibility coming round the bend on the approach to the tunnel etc, and what measures could be introduced to reduce the chance of them occur ring in the future.

“Clearly the most important consideration is that this has caused injuries and in some cases fatalities but also significant traffic disruption every time it happens.

Yesterday’s crash happened just after 7am. A 44-year old Brighton woman driving the Vauxhall Astra which turned over, and a 51-year old Bexhill man driving an Audi A4 were taken to Worthing Hospital for treatment.

The Vauxhall Astra overturned in the crash and the road closure caused major delays as commuters desperately tried to find alternative routes.

The crashed happened just after 7am and the road closure remained in place until 9.30am.

Both people involved in the crash left the hospital later in the morning. The man suffered a broken wrist and cuts and bruises and the woman was also found to have suffered cuts and bruises.

Last July a 79-year-old suffered serious injuries when a lorry collided with a car and crashed through the central reservation.

Drivers were stuck for hours in massive traffic jams with the Southwick tunnel shut and shoppers were trapped in Tesco at the Holmbush Centre, Shoreham unable to leave the car park.

A Highways Agency spokesman said: "Safety is a top priority for the Highways Agency. Our roads are amongst the safest in the world and we regularly review the safety on the A27.

“We continue to work with partners, including the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, to further improve safety on the A27.”

She said among improvements last year was work on the approach to the A27 near Holmbush.

Anyone who saw what happened yesterday morning is asked to contact Sussex Police via 101 or email 101@sussex.pnn.police.uk quoting serial 0112 of 15/1.

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:19am Thu 16 Jan 14

platelet says...

Make your mind up.
Safety or Security ?
Make your mind up. Safety or Security ? platelet
  • Score: 8

4:23am Thu 16 Jan 14

rogerthefish says...

I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple!
I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple! rogerthefish
  • Score: 26

7:11am Thu 16 Jan 14

gazzamagoo says...

So is it safety or security? I use that tunnel every week and I find it perfectly safe if I drive at a safe speed. Blame the drivers not the road.
So is it safety or security? I use that tunnel every week and I find it perfectly safe if I drive at a safe speed. Blame the drivers not the road. gazzamagoo
  • Score: 72

7:14am Thu 16 Jan 14

jays says...

Maybe it needs a bus lane and a cycle lane built along the whole stretch
Maybe it needs a bus lane and a cycle lane built along the whole stretch jays
  • Score: 38

7:21am Thu 16 Jan 14

tiny55 says...

This road has been open for about 20 years. Its the way people drive and not the design of the road. Perhaps the Argus can explain why is it a security risk?
This road has been open for about 20 years. Its the way people drive and not the design of the road. Perhaps the Argus can explain why is it a security risk? tiny55
  • Score: 75

8:10am Thu 16 Jan 14

whatone says...

rogerthefish wrote:
I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple!
Probably not done because of the 'simple' reason that the opposite carriageway is sometimes closed to allow access for the emergency services and/or create a landing area for the air ambulance.

Plus it also may lessen the risk of another crash happening due to that in-built human habit - gawking!
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple![/p][/quote]Probably not done because of the 'simple' reason that the opposite carriageway is sometimes closed to allow access for the emergency services and/or create a landing area for the air ambulance. Plus it also may lessen the risk of another crash happening due to that in-built human habit - gawking! whatone
  • Score: 10

8:24am Thu 16 Jan 14

mileoaker1 says...

gazzamagoo wrote:
So is it safety or security? I use that tunnel every week and I find it perfectly safe if I drive at a safe speed. Blame the drivers not the road.
Agree with you there I use the road every day and its safe if you drive at the speed limit.i also get over taken by people going way over the limit.blame the drivers not the road.
[quote][p][bold]gazzamagoo[/bold] wrote: So is it safety or security? I use that tunnel every week and I find it perfectly safe if I drive at a safe speed. Blame the drivers not the road.[/p][/quote]Agree with you there I use the road every day and its safe if you drive at the speed limit.i also get over taken by people going way over the limit.blame the drivers not the road. mileoaker1
  • Score: 43

8:28am Thu 16 Jan 14

mileoaker1 says...

I use this road every day and if you keep to the speed limit there is no problem.its the drivers that speed that make the road the problem.simple keep to the speed limit.
I use this road every day and if you keep to the speed limit there is no problem.its the drivers that speed that make the road the problem.simple keep to the speed limit. mileoaker1
  • Score: 40

8:47am Thu 16 Jan 14

Made In Sussex says...

mileoaker1 wrote:
gazzamagoo wrote:
So is it safety or security? I use that tunnel every week and I find it perfectly safe if I drive at a safe speed. Blame the drivers not the road.
Agree with you there I use the road every day and its safe if you drive at the speed limit.i also get over taken by people going way over the limit.blame the drivers not the road.
Have to agree. This is always about 2 factors, the road and the driver and its true that some roads have the more potential for accidents however its the drivers that are using them that are key to preventing this!!

In other words drive for the road and conditions, dont treat every road the same and most importantly pay attention and leave space.
Seems some drivers like Mrs idiot blue vauxhall Brightonian and Mr Bexhil Audi **** from yesterday cant be trusted to do this for themselves

End result is we have to make up for peoples stupidity by having to invest time, money and effort into "improving" the roads. Is this the answer? I'm not really sure it is...
[quote][p][bold]mileoaker1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazzamagoo[/bold] wrote: So is it safety or security? I use that tunnel every week and I find it perfectly safe if I drive at a safe speed. Blame the drivers not the road.[/p][/quote]Agree with you there I use the road every day and its safe if you drive at the speed limit.i also get over taken by people going way over the limit.blame the drivers not the road.[/p][/quote]Have to agree. This is always about 2 factors, the road and the driver and its true that some roads have the more potential for accidents however its the drivers that are using them that are key to preventing this!! In other words drive for the road and conditions, dont treat every road the same and most importantly pay attention and leave space. Seems some drivers like Mrs idiot blue vauxhall Brightonian and Mr Bexhil Audi **** from yesterday cant be trusted to do this for themselves End result is we have to make up for peoples stupidity by having to invest time, money and effort into "improving" the roads. Is this the answer? I'm not really sure it is... Made In Sussex
  • Score: 24

9:04am Thu 16 Jan 14

michael505 says...

A simple solution is to put Average Speed Cameras on the by pass. It is not the road but the drivers. Reduce speed and reduce accidents, easy. The Sussex Pad has a 70mph speed limit where there are traffic lights. Just watch the number of vehicles that jump the red light because they are going too fast. It should be no more than 40 mph.
A simple solution is to put Average Speed Cameras on the by pass. It is not the road but the drivers. Reduce speed and reduce accidents, easy. The Sussex Pad has a 70mph speed limit where there are traffic lights. Just watch the number of vehicles that jump the red light because they are going too fast. It should be no more than 40 mph. michael505
  • Score: 6

9:17am Thu 16 Jan 14

gheese77 says...

Its the drivers not the road, these accidents must caused by people driving too fast for the conditions. Many drivers seem to treat the speed limit as an optional minimum, where it is in fact the maximum speed in good conditions
Its the drivers not the road, these accidents must caused by people driving too fast for the conditions. Many drivers seem to treat the speed limit as an optional minimum, where it is in fact the maximum speed in good conditions gheese77
  • Score: 18

9:18am Thu 16 Jan 14

The Prophet of Doom says...

The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle.

Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it.

As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.
The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle. Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it. As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft. The Prophet of Doom
  • Score: 28

9:30am Thu 16 Jan 14

All 9 of me says...

whatone wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple!
Probably not done because of the 'simple' reason that the opposite carriageway is sometimes closed to allow access for the emergency services and/or create a landing area for the air ambulance.

Plus it also may lessen the risk of another crash happening due to that in-built human habit - gawking!
there are 2 bores in the tunnel, how can you gawk through a concrete wall . Please engage your brain before using your keyboard.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple![/p][/quote]Probably not done because of the 'simple' reason that the opposite carriageway is sometimes closed to allow access for the emergency services and/or create a landing area for the air ambulance. Plus it also may lessen the risk of another crash happening due to that in-built human habit - gawking![/p][/quote]there are 2 bores in the tunnel, how can you gawk through a concrete wall . Please engage your brain before using your keyboard. All 9 of me
  • Score: -1

9:38am Thu 16 Jan 14

Indigatio says...

The Prophet of Doom wrote:
The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle.

Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it.

As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.
What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.
[quote][p][bold]The Prophet of Doom[/bold] wrote: The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle. Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it. As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.[/p][/quote]What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds. Indigatio
  • Score: -32

9:41am Thu 16 Jan 14

Indigatio says...

Its not just the Southwick Tunnel! There are just as many accidents on other parts of the A27. Falmer has many as does the area around the Lewes by-pass and the section between Beddingham and Polegate. Its not the road its just the general poor standard of driving these days..
Its not just the Southwick Tunnel! There are just as many accidents on other parts of the A27. Falmer has many as does the area around the Lewes by-pass and the section between Beddingham and Polegate. Its not the road its just the general poor standard of driving these days.. Indigatio
  • Score: 27

9:44am Thu 16 Jan 14

Vox populi 2 says...

To really understand the dangers the West bound carriageway poses (on the "approach" to the tunnel where most accidents occur) one needs to view the by-pass from on the hill overlooking the carriageway. You will very soon learn
the very long bend does not lend itself to overtaking or a 'maximum' speed of 50mph. And of course with drivers on this section, as apposed to any other section, regularly losing control, it speaks for itself it is six of one ( speed) - half a dozen of the other ( road structure) that is responsible.
To really understand the dangers the West bound carriageway poses (on the "approach" to the tunnel where most accidents occur) one needs to view the by-pass from on the hill overlooking the carriageway. You will very soon learn the very long bend does not lend itself to overtaking or a 'maximum' speed of 50mph. And of course with drivers on this section, as apposed to any other section, regularly losing control, it speaks for itself it is six of one ( speed) - half a dozen of the other ( road structure) that is responsible. Vox populi 2
  • Score: -11

9:50am Thu 16 Jan 14

Metro Reader says...

When the road is dark with little traffic you cannot see the curve as you approach travelling east or as you leave traveling west.

The cats eyes are almost none existent, there are no chevrons as you leave the east bound tunnel which is very dark immediately as you leave, improved cats eyes and chevrons would help, perhaps also an old fashioned warning triangle – bend in the road would help. And matrix signs please all along the A27 starting at the Sussex Pad lights so at least we have a chance to exit.
Whatever the answer there are far too many incidents for it to be driver error all the time.
When the road is dark with little traffic you cannot see the curve as you approach travelling east or as you leave traveling west. The cats eyes are almost none existent, there are no chevrons as you leave the east bound tunnel which is very dark immediately as you leave, improved cats eyes and chevrons would help, perhaps also an old fashioned warning triangle – bend in the road would help. And matrix signs please all along the A27 starting at the Sussex Pad lights so at least we have a chance to exit. Whatever the answer there are far too many incidents for it to be driver error all the time. Metro Reader
  • Score: -16

10:02am Thu 16 Jan 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Cut the speed limit to 55mph and enforce it, there isn't any reasoning to saying the tunnel is unsafe as thousands of vehicles use it every day without there being daily incidents, it's just that some drivers use it like a race track and that's why accidents happen (usually.in the morning rush).
The fact that 8 incidents have happened NEAR to the tunnel does not make the tunnel unsafe, if you looked at the incident rate as a percentage of the user rate, it probably would be too small to register, so really there's no need for the politicians to panic (to get publicity).
Cut the speed limit to 55mph and enforce it, there isn't any reasoning to saying the tunnel is unsafe as thousands of vehicles use it every day without there being daily incidents, it's just that some drivers use it like a race track and that's why accidents happen (usually.in the morning rush). The fact that 8 incidents have happened NEAR to the tunnel does not make the tunnel unsafe, if you looked at the incident rate as a percentage of the user rate, it probably would be too small to register, so really there's no need for the politicians to panic (to get publicity). ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 3

10:03am Thu 16 Jan 14

Crystal Ball says...

Indigatio wrote:
The Prophet of Doom wrote:
The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle.

Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it.

As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.
What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.
If a vehicle is travelling at 30mph there is far less chance of it ending up on its roof than one travelling at 70mph or more on an unrestricted carriageway.

Look to yourself for the source of rot.
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Prophet of Doom[/bold] wrote: The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle. Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it. As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.[/p][/quote]What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.[/p][/quote]If a vehicle is travelling at 30mph there is far less chance of it ending up on its roof than one travelling at 70mph or more on an unrestricted carriageway. Look to yourself for the source of rot. Crystal Ball
  • Score: 12

10:12am Thu 16 Jan 14

minnie&teddy says...

speed is the enemy I am afraid drivers are constantly driving too fast overtaking at speed its just careless and selfish drivers who care only for themselves the bigger the car the worse the drivers are simple really.
speed is the enemy I am afraid drivers are constantly driving too fast overtaking at speed its just careless and selfish drivers who care only for themselves the bigger the car the worse the drivers are simple really. minnie&teddy
  • Score: 6

10:24am Thu 16 Jan 14

Gary1973 says...

Accidents have only started tio happen recently because of the increasing number of bad drivers. These two are a prime example.
Accidents have only started tio happen recently because of the increasing number of bad drivers. These two are a prime example. Gary1973
  • Score: 12

10:32am Thu 16 Jan 14

whatone says...

All 9 of me wrote:
whatone wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple!
Probably not done because of the 'simple' reason that the opposite carriageway is sometimes closed to allow access for the emergency services and/or create a landing area for the air ambulance.

Plus it also may lessen the risk of another crash happening due to that in-built human habit - gawking!
there are 2 bores in the tunnel, how can you gawk through a concrete wall . Please engage your brain before using your keyboard.
Some of the accidents in that area are on the approaches to the tunnel, and even if it is in the tunnel the resultant collection of emergency vehicles and even the accident signage/lack of traffic coming the other way causes people to gawk regardless.

Therefore I suggest you actually acquire a brain before showing yourself up again!
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: I can see the speed being reduced to 20mph, no seriously why do they not have the ability to use over head gantries to slow people down and a cross over operated so there is single lane use in the unaffected tunnel...because that's too simple![/p][/quote]Probably not done because of the 'simple' reason that the opposite carriageway is sometimes closed to allow access for the emergency services and/or create a landing area for the air ambulance. Plus it also may lessen the risk of another crash happening due to that in-built human habit - gawking![/p][/quote]there are 2 bores in the tunnel, how can you gawk through a concrete wall . Please engage your brain before using your keyboard.[/p][/quote]Some of the accidents in that area are on the approaches to the tunnel, and even if it is in the tunnel the resultant collection of emergency vehicles and even the accident signage/lack of traffic coming the other way causes people to gawk regardless. Therefore I suggest you actually acquire a brain before showing yourself up again! whatone
  • Score: 9

10:49am Thu 16 Jan 14

Made In Sussex says...

Indigatio wrote:
The Prophet of Doom wrote:
The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle.

Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it.

As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.
What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.
Really??, (1) Mechanical failure or (2) a medical episode perhaps but I doubt they are the causes of the majority of these so called accidents.
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Prophet of Doom[/bold] wrote: The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle. Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it. As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.[/p][/quote]What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.[/p][/quote]Really??, (1) Mechanical failure or (2) a medical episode perhaps but I doubt they are the causes of the majority of these so called accidents. Made In Sussex
  • Score: 5

11:39am Thu 16 Jan 14

straightasadye says...

mileoaker1 wrote:
I use this road every day and if you keep to the speed limit there is no problem.its the drivers that speed that make the road the problem.simple keep to the speed limit.
Considering the West bound section under discussion is not safe for vehicles to travel at 70mph - driving at 70mph is speeding and will cause some less experienced drivers to have accidents: as has been the case on numerous occasions, particularly in wet weather. And like it or not, speed limits on this stretch of the by-pass need to be geared to the abysmal driving of the ever increasing numbers of inexperienced, aggressive and in general bad drivers.
[quote][p][bold]mileoaker1[/bold] wrote: I use this road every day and if you keep to the speed limit there is no problem.its the drivers that speed that make the road the problem.simple keep to the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Considering the West bound section under discussion is not safe for vehicles to travel at 70mph - driving at 70mph is speeding and will cause some less experienced drivers to have accidents: as has been the case on numerous occasions, particularly in wet weather. And like it or not, speed limits on this stretch of the by-pass need to be geared to the abysmal driving of the ever increasing numbers of inexperienced, aggressive and in general bad drivers. straightasadye
  • Score: -3

12:15pm Thu 16 Jan 14

whatone says...

Vox populi 2 wrote:
To really understand the dangers the West bound carriageway poses (on the "approach" to the tunnel where most accidents occur) one needs to view the by-pass from on the hill overlooking the carriageway. You will very soon learn
the very long bend does not lend itself to overtaking or a 'maximum' speed of 50mph. And of course with drivers on this section, as apposed to any other section, regularly losing control, it speaks for itself it is six of one ( speed) - half a dozen of the other ( road structure) that is responsible.
Well said. Although those who mindlessly blame the drivers regardless wouldn't understand that reasoning!

In addition, the reason that cars tend to flip in the tunnel itself may well have something to do with the sudden introduction of a curb (part of the footways) that makes it very easy for an accident to happen if you have to move to the side suddenly or become unsighted for whatever reason.

How about painting those curbs in a bright fluorescent colour?
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi 2[/bold] wrote: To really understand the dangers the West bound carriageway poses (on the "approach" to the tunnel where most accidents occur) one needs to view the by-pass from on the hill overlooking the carriageway. You will very soon learn the very long bend does not lend itself to overtaking or a 'maximum' speed of 50mph. And of course with drivers on this section, as apposed to any other section, regularly losing control, it speaks for itself it is six of one ( speed) - half a dozen of the other ( road structure) that is responsible.[/p][/quote]Well said. Although those who mindlessly blame the drivers regardless wouldn't understand that reasoning! In addition, the reason that cars tend to flip in the tunnel itself may well have something to do with the sudden introduction of a curb (part of the footways) that makes it very easy for an accident to happen if you have to move to the side suddenly or become unsighted for whatever reason. How about painting those curbs in a bright fluorescent colour? whatone
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Thu 16 Jan 14

PaulOckenden says...

The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view.

Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both.

I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side.

If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.
The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view. Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both. I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side. If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that. PaulOckenden
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Haga41cat says...

I've always used the tunnel and find it not a problem, the only issue I've ever come across are other drivers brain dead mentality at the why they drive through there. You'd think it was the tunnel section at the Monaco F1 Grand prix, I'm sure Button, Hamilton and Vettel passed me through there once.
I've always used the tunnel and find it not a problem, the only issue I've ever come across are other drivers brain dead mentality at the why they drive through there. You'd think it was the tunnel section at the Monaco F1 Grand prix, I'm sure Button, Hamilton and Vettel passed me through there once. Haga41cat
  • Score: 9

12:32pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Quiterie says...

Visibility is absolutely fine going through this tunnel.

In my experience some drivers seem to suddenly change their driving behaviour when they enter this tunnel and either drive more tentatively, or don't move into the inside lane after overtaking or both.

If people just drove 'normally' as if the tunnel wasn't there, there would be no problem.
Visibility is absolutely fine going through this tunnel. In my experience some drivers seem to suddenly change their driving behaviour when they enter this tunnel and either drive more tentatively, or don't move into the inside lane after overtaking or both. If people just drove 'normally' as if the tunnel wasn't there, there would be no problem. Quiterie
  • Score: 8

12:32pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Metro Reader says...

Indigatio wrote:
Its not just the Southwick Tunnel! There are just as many accidents on other parts of the A27. Falmer has many as does the area around the Lewes by-pass and the section between Beddingham and Polegate. Its not the road its just the general poor standard of driving these days..
Agree with most of you. but it must be more than just poor driving.

The Argus never reports on the Police findings following the incidents so all we can do is assume.

I use the road everyday so I want to know why their are so many accidents. if it was on the railway their would be a public inquiry - not saying that we is needed here but something is clearly wrong and needed to addressed, urgnetly

Safe journey
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: Its not just the Southwick Tunnel! There are just as many accidents on other parts of the A27. Falmer has many as does the area around the Lewes by-pass and the section between Beddingham and Polegate. Its not the road its just the general poor standard of driving these days..[/p][/quote]Agree with most of you. but it must be more than just poor driving. The Argus never reports on the Police findings following the incidents so all we can do is assume. I use the road everyday so I want to know why their are so many accidents. if it was on the railway their would be a public inquiry - not saying that we is needed here but something is clearly wrong and needed to addressed, urgnetly Safe journey Metro Reader
  • Score: 3

12:43pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Stu says...

The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23.

That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case!
The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case! Stu
  • Score: 1

12:54pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Wiggsy says...

"Mr Loughton said: “There is clearly something wrong with this section of the A27- which poses a safety risk to motorists. "

I would venture to suggest that its certain motorists that are the safety risk given that thousands of vehicles pass safely through the A27 each day.
"Mr Loughton said: “There is clearly something wrong with this section of the A27- which poses a safety risk to motorists. " I would venture to suggest that its certain motorists that are the safety risk given that thousands of vehicles pass safely through the A27 each day. Wiggsy
  • Score: 9

1:00pm Thu 16 Jan 14

PaulOckenden says...

Quiterie wrote:
Visibility is absolutely fine going through this tunnel.

In my experience some drivers seem to suddenly change their driving behaviour when they enter this tunnel and either drive more tentatively, or don't move into the inside lane after overtaking or both.

If people just drove 'normally' as if the tunnel wasn't there, there would be no problem.
The problem isn't going through the tunnel. The accidents nearly all happen on the bend as you approach it.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: Visibility is absolutely fine going through this tunnel. In my experience some drivers seem to suddenly change their driving behaviour when they enter this tunnel and either drive more tentatively, or don't move into the inside lane after overtaking or both. If people just drove 'normally' as if the tunnel wasn't there, there would be no problem.[/p][/quote]The problem isn't going through the tunnel. The accidents nearly all happen on the bend as you approach it. PaulOckenden
  • Score: 9

1:20pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Number Six says...

It two vehicles are travelling in separate lanes in the same direction then how did they collide? From my experience of driving through the tunnel daily one of the big problems is a slow moving vehicle pulling out to overtake and causing all the faster moving traffic to brake sharply. I'm trying to think of the last day I didn't see this happen
It two vehicles are travelling in separate lanes in the same direction then how did they collide? From my experience of driving through the tunnel daily one of the big problems is a slow moving vehicle pulling out to overtake and causing all the faster moving traffic to brake sharply. I'm trying to think of the last day I didn't see this happen Number Six
  • Score: 8

2:16pm Thu 16 Jan 14

ouzo2005 says...

Why not install a series of speed bumps in the tunnel?
Why not install a series of speed bumps in the tunnel? ouzo2005
  • Score: -7

2:37pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Made In Sussex says...

PaulOckenden wrote:
The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view.

Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both.

I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side.

If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.
"is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that."

Sorry i've heard this explanation before and its absolute bonkers. You would have to be very very stupid to mistake the eastbound bore for the westbound, in fact you would have to be almost entirely ignoring the flow of the road in front of your car which = poor driving .
[quote][p][bold]PaulOckenden[/bold] wrote: The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view. Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both. I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side. If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.[/p][/quote]"is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that." Sorry i've heard this explanation before and its absolute bonkers. You would have to be very very stupid to mistake the eastbound bore for the westbound, in fact you would have to be almost entirely ignoring the flow of the road in front of your car which = poor driving . Made In Sussex
  • Score: 5

3:07pm Thu 16 Jan 14

PaulOckenden says...

See http://goo.gl/maps/p
Sp5s - it should be fairly obvious what I mean.

Here's a comment from when this was discussed on the Shoreham forums a while back, from a lady driver:

"I think you might be right about the draw effect of the right hand tunnel when it is lit up. Saturday night, west bound @ ~70+mph, having this thread in my mind, I did look at the right hand entrance, and found that I did twitch the wheel when switching focus as the left hand tunnel came into view. A minor twitch, a fraction of an inch, but then I am familiar with the twin tunnels and, as I said, was trying to figure out if there was an effect."

Still think it's "absolute bonkers" ?
See http://goo.gl/maps/p Sp5s - it should be fairly obvious what I mean. Here's a comment from when this was discussed on the Shoreham forums a while back, from a lady driver: "I think you might be right about the draw effect of the right hand tunnel when it is lit up. Saturday night, west bound @ ~70+mph, having this thread in my mind, I did look at the right hand entrance, and found that I did twitch the wheel when switching focus as the left hand tunnel came into view. A minor twitch, a fraction of an inch, but then I am familiar with the twin tunnels and, as I said, was trying to figure out if there was an effect." Still think it's "absolute bonkers" ? PaulOckenden
  • Score: -1

3:18pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Indigatio says...

Crystal Ball wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Prophet of Doom wrote:
The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle.

Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it.

As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.
What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.
If a vehicle is travelling at 30mph there is far less chance of it ending up on its roof than one travelling at 70mph or more on an unrestricted carriageway.

Look to yourself for the source of rot.
Do you have experience of such things? I spent 20 years in the vehicle recovery industry and attended more Road Traffic Accidents that you would ever read about in your lifetime. You learn a lot from seeing the results and speaking to the investigators.
Also in my youth, and I am slightly ashamed to say so, I managed to roll a Bedford HA Van (for those you us old enough to remember them) travelling at 15 mph!
I would agree with you in that the vehicles in this particular accident would have been travelling at speed, after all its a 70mph limit but the sheer fact that one of the vehicles rolled is not related to its speed. For a vehicle to roll it needs a catalyst. In this case I would guess, and it is just a guess, that it could have mounted the tunnel wall. Ultimately one has to leave it to the Police Investigators to find the cause and report it, something we rarely read about in the papers.
[quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Prophet of Doom[/bold] wrote: The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle. Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it. As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.[/p][/quote]What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.[/p][/quote]If a vehicle is travelling at 30mph there is far less chance of it ending up on its roof than one travelling at 70mph or more on an unrestricted carriageway. Look to yourself for the source of rot.[/p][/quote]Do you have experience of such things? I spent 20 years in the vehicle recovery industry and attended more Road Traffic Accidents that you would ever read about in your lifetime. You learn a lot from seeing the results and speaking to the investigators. Also in my youth, and I am slightly ashamed to say so, I managed to roll a Bedford HA Van (for those you us old enough to remember them) travelling at 15 mph! I would agree with you in that the vehicles in this particular accident would have been travelling at speed, after all its a 70mph limit but the sheer fact that one of the vehicles rolled is not related to its speed. For a vehicle to roll it needs a catalyst. In this case I would guess, and it is just a guess, that it could have mounted the tunnel wall. Ultimately one has to leave it to the Police Investigators to find the cause and report it, something we rarely read about in the papers. Indigatio
  • Score: 6

3:24pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Indigatio says...

PaulOckenden wrote:
The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view.

Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both.

I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side.

If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.
Paul, although this is something I wouldn't agree with you from personal experience, I can actually see what you mean, especially if a driver isn't concentrating on the road itself. It might also explain why there always seems to be so many drivers sitting in the outside lane towards the entrance to the tunnel when there is no traffic on the inside lane.
[quote][p][bold]PaulOckenden[/bold] wrote: The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view. Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both. I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side. If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.[/p][/quote]Paul, although this is something I wouldn't agree with you from personal experience, I can actually see what you mean, especially if a driver isn't concentrating on the road itself. It might also explain why there always seems to be so many drivers sitting in the outside lane towards the entrance to the tunnel when there is no traffic on the inside lane. Indigatio
  • Score: 3

3:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Quiterie says...

Number Six wrote:
It two vehicles are travelling in separate lanes in the same direction then how did they collide? From my experience of driving through the tunnel daily one of the big problems is a slow moving vehicle pulling out to overtake and causing all the faster moving traffic to brake sharply. I'm trying to think of the last day I didn't see this happen
Exactly. That's what I mean about drivers being too tentative in the tunnel.

If people just drove normally and overtook at a reasonable speed (which is what you're supposed to do), everyone would be a lot safer.
[quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: It two vehicles are travelling in separate lanes in the same direction then how did they collide? From my experience of driving through the tunnel daily one of the big problems is a slow moving vehicle pulling out to overtake and causing all the faster moving traffic to brake sharply. I'm trying to think of the last day I didn't see this happen[/p][/quote]Exactly. That's what I mean about drivers being too tentative in the tunnel. If people just drove normally and overtook at a reasonable speed (which is what you're supposed to do), everyone would be a lot safer. Quiterie
  • Score: 4

3:53pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Crystal Ball says...

Indigatio wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Prophet of Doom wrote:
The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle.

Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it.

As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.
What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.
If a vehicle is travelling at 30mph there is far less chance of it ending up on its roof than one travelling at 70mph or more on an unrestricted carriageway.

Look to yourself for the source of rot.
Do you have experience of such things? I spent 20 years in the vehicle recovery industry and attended more Road Traffic Accidents that you would ever read about in your lifetime. You learn a lot from seeing the results and speaking to the investigators.
Also in my youth, and I am slightly ashamed to say so, I managed to roll a Bedford HA Van (for those you us old enough to remember them) travelling at 15 mph!
I would agree with you in that the vehicles in this particular accident would have been travelling at speed, after all its a 70mph limit but the sheer fact that one of the vehicles rolled is not related to its speed. For a vehicle to roll it needs a catalyst. In this case I would guess, and it is just a guess, that it could have mounted the tunnel wall. Ultimately one has to leave it to the Police Investigators to find the cause and report it, something we rarely read about in the papers.
Lots of assumptions there based on...absolutely nothing.

Not a good practice really.
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Prophet of Doom[/bold] wrote: The mere fact a car ended up on its roof is indicative of a driver not being in control of their vehicle. Actual abilities are below the performance of the vehicles whilst perceived expectations of those abilities are far above it. As already mentioned, the road itself is not at fault and many drivers might wish to take a read of Roadcraft.[/p][/quote]What a load of rot. There are many reasons a car can end up on its roof and even at very low speeds.[/p][/quote]If a vehicle is travelling at 30mph there is far less chance of it ending up on its roof than one travelling at 70mph or more on an unrestricted carriageway. Look to yourself for the source of rot.[/p][/quote]Do you have experience of such things? I spent 20 years in the vehicle recovery industry and attended more Road Traffic Accidents that you would ever read about in your lifetime. You learn a lot from seeing the results and speaking to the investigators. Also in my youth, and I am slightly ashamed to say so, I managed to roll a Bedford HA Van (for those you us old enough to remember them) travelling at 15 mph! I would agree with you in that the vehicles in this particular accident would have been travelling at speed, after all its a 70mph limit but the sheer fact that one of the vehicles rolled is not related to its speed. For a vehicle to roll it needs a catalyst. In this case I would guess, and it is just a guess, that it could have mounted the tunnel wall. Ultimately one has to leave it to the Police Investigators to find the cause and report it, something we rarely read about in the papers.[/p][/quote]Lots of assumptions there based on...absolutely nothing. Not a good practice really. Crystal Ball
  • Score: -5

4:10pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Grumpy0ldman says...

I blame the cyclists
I blame the cyclists Grumpy0ldman
  • Score: 1

4:25pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Joshiman says...

Nothing wrong with the tunnel providing you drive sensibly.I have seen too many speeding motorists in the tunnel.No point in spending more money.Maybe a slow down entering tunnel sign but nothing major needed.
Nothing wrong with the tunnel providing you drive sensibly.I have seen too many speeding motorists in the tunnel.No point in spending more money.Maybe a slow down entering tunnel sign but nothing major needed. Joshiman
  • Score: 4

4:48pm Thu 16 Jan 14

worthingite says...

Its not rocket science,they cars always lose it on the westbound lane just before the tunnel,its only down to excess speed into that camber thats all!
Its not rocket science,they cars always lose it on the westbound lane just before the tunnel,its only down to excess speed into that camber thats all! worthingite
  • Score: 4

4:52pm Thu 16 Jan 14

pJking says...

Stu wrote:
The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case!
I agree the whole A27 bypass is badly designed with too many twists and turns, particularly the west bound stretch between the West Hove link and the tunnel. I would suggest for a trial period 3 things; Firstly, no changing lanes in the tunnel, secondly, mandatory use of dipped headlights day and night in the tunnel itself and lastly a 60 mph limit between the west hove link and the shoreham flyover.
One other reason for west bound accidents may be a result of the pent up frustration motorists feel with the delays at Broadwater, Lyons farm and the 40 MPH stretch through Lancing. When they finally get to the Sussex Pad lights and the 70 limit they feel they have to make uo for lost time by speeding with the inevitable result, more accidents. Just a thought.!
[quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case![/p][/quote]I agree the whole A27 bypass is badly designed with too many twists and turns, particularly the west bound stretch between the West Hove link and the tunnel. I would suggest for a trial period 3 things; Firstly, no changing lanes in the tunnel, secondly, mandatory use of dipped headlights day and night in the tunnel itself and lastly a 60 mph limit between the west hove link and the shoreham flyover. One other reason for west bound accidents may be a result of the pent up frustration motorists feel with the delays at Broadwater, Lyons farm and the 40 MPH stretch through Lancing. When they finally get to the Sussex Pad lights and the 70 limit they feel they have to make uo for lost time by speeding with the inevitable result, more accidents. Just a thought.! pJking
  • Score: -2

5:15pm Thu 16 Jan 14

pistachionut says...

Has anyone carried out a survey to see how many more motorist's use the tunnel and this stretch of road since the Greens have got in?.
Probably more congested due to getting away from the cycle lanes, bus lanes and extortionate parking charges and heading to Worthing.
Has anyone carried out a survey to see how many more motorist's use the tunnel and this stretch of road since the Greens have got in?. Probably more congested due to getting away from the cycle lanes, bus lanes and extortionate parking charges and heading to Worthing. pistachionut
  • Score: 3

5:29pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Marbo says...

Reduce speed on this stretch to 50mph and don't allow lane changing in the tunnel.
Sorted, it's not rocket science.
Reduce speed on this stretch to 50mph and don't allow lane changing in the tunnel. Sorted, it's not rocket science. Marbo
  • Score: 1

5:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

At last, some GOOD news for all to read!!! Merry January to you all :)

http://www.brightona


ndhovenews.org/2014/


01/16/labour-tables-


formal-vote-of-no-co


nfidence-in-brighton


-and-hoves-ruling-gr


eens/26722?utm_sourc


e=twitterfeed&ut

m_me
dium=twitter
At last, some GOOD news for all to read!!! Merry January to you all :) http://www.brightona ndhovenews.org/2014/ 01/16/labour-tables- formal-vote-of-no-co nfidence-in-brighton -and-hoves-ruling-gr eens/26722?utm_sourc e=twitterfeed&ut m_me dium=twitter Brighton1000
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel.

I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.
There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel. I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic. mimseycal
  • Score: -4

7:05pm Thu 16 Jan 14

ejoiner says...

Why do drivers persist with the nonsense that the speed limit is the posted national limit for a given stretch of road? The national limit for the lane near my house is 60mph - only a suicidal maniac would do it. The safe speed limit is the speed at which the driver can still safely bring the car to a halt within the distance from the front of the car to the furthest point of visible, unobstructed road, given the road and environmental conditions. If all drivers used this rule a very large percentage of accidents would never happen.
Why do drivers persist with the nonsense that the speed limit is the posted national limit for a given stretch of road? The national limit for the lane near my house is 60mph - only a suicidal maniac would do it. The safe speed limit is the speed at which the driver can still safely bring the car to a halt within the distance from the front of the car to the furthest point of visible, unobstructed road, given the road and environmental conditions. If all drivers used this rule a very large percentage of accidents would never happen. ejoiner
  • Score: 6

7:15pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Chevrons would be a good idea, to keep a 2 car distance. probably too simple i imagine
Chevrons would be a good idea, to keep a 2 car distance. probably too simple i imagine Brighton1000
  • Score: 3

7:20pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Marbo says...

mimseycal wrote:
There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel.

I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.
You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel. I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.[/p][/quote]You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes. Marbo
  • Score: 4

8:03pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Quiterie says...

mimseycal wrote:
There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel.

I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.
If the tunnel itself is not problematic why on earth does it make sense to reduce speed?

And there is certainly no prohibition on changing lanes. Where did you get that idea from?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel. I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.[/p][/quote]If the tunnel itself is not problematic why on earth does it make sense to reduce speed? And there is certainly no prohibition on changing lanes. Where did you get that idea from? Quiterie
  • Score: 6

8:05pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

Marbo wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel.

I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.
You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.
I'll grant you it has been a while since I drove down that stretch, since my car was stolen in 2012, however i seem to recall an info board on the approach to the tunnel informing drivers to stay in the lane they are currently in. I also recall a board on the exit side informing drivers that the lane restriction is now lifted. But hey hop ...
[quote][p][bold]Marbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel. I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.[/p][/quote]You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.[/p][/quote]I'll grant you it has been a while since I drove down that stretch, since my car was stolen in 2012, however i seem to recall an info board on the approach to the tunnel informing drivers to stay in the lane they are currently in. I also recall a board on the exit side informing drivers that the lane restriction is now lifted. But hey hop ... mimseycal
  • Score: 1

8:49pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Justin says...

Some of the comments here about reducing the speed limit on that stretch are ridiculous. The westbound bend just before the tunnel is safe at 100 mph in the wet so how anyone doing 70 can lose it there is beyond me. The main problem is the way the emergency services seem to want to close roads rather than just the affected lane and don't prioritise moving the crashed vehicles out the way.
Some of the comments here about reducing the speed limit on that stretch are ridiculous. The westbound bend just before the tunnel is safe at 100 mph in the wet so how anyone doing 70 can lose it there is beyond me. The main problem is the way the emergency services seem to want to close roads rather than just the affected lane and don't prioritise moving the crashed vehicles out the way. Justin
  • Score: -2

10:11pm Thu 16 Jan 14

FatherTed11 says...

mimseycal wrote:
Marbo wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel.

I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.
You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.
I'll grant you it has been a while since I drove down that stretch, since my car was stolen in 2012, however i seem to recall an info board on the approach to the tunnel informing drivers to stay in the lane they are currently in. I also recall a board on the exit side informing drivers that the lane restriction is now lifted. But hey hop ...
I've been driving on that stretch of road for 10 years and have never seen a lane restriction in effect. There are some signs there but I assume they are only for exceptional circumstances as they are always turned off.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel. I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.[/p][/quote]You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.[/p][/quote]I'll grant you it has been a while since I drove down that stretch, since my car was stolen in 2012, however i seem to recall an info board on the approach to the tunnel informing drivers to stay in the lane they are currently in. I also recall a board on the exit side informing drivers that the lane restriction is now lifted. But hey hop ...[/p][/quote]I've been driving on that stretch of road for 10 years and have never seen a lane restriction in effect. There are some signs there but I assume they are only for exceptional circumstances as they are always turned off. FatherTed11
  • Score: 2

10:24pm Thu 16 Jan 14

fredaj says...

mimseycal wrote:
Marbo wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel.

I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.
You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.
I'll grant you it has been a while since I drove down that stretch, since my car was stolen in 2012, however i seem to recall an info board on the approach to the tunnel informing drivers to stay in the lane they are currently in. I also recall a board on the exit side informing drivers that the lane restriction is now lifted. But hey hop ...
There are lane control signs for use when there is an accident or an emergency - when they are switched on to come into effect.

Otherwise, there is no lane control.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: There is already a prohibition on changing lanes starting just before you get to the tunnel, on both sides. And it makes sense to reduce speed in a tunnel. I have driven that tunnel quite a number of times and often seen drivers speeding in the tunnel and leaving the lane. I have never felt the tunnel itself as problematic.[/p][/quote]You are wrong, there are no restrictions on changing lanes.[/p][/quote]I'll grant you it has been a while since I drove down that stretch, since my car was stolen in 2012, however i seem to recall an info board on the approach to the tunnel informing drivers to stay in the lane they are currently in. I also recall a board on the exit side informing drivers that the lane restriction is now lifted. But hey hop ...[/p][/quote]There are lane control signs for use when there is an accident or an emergency - when they are switched on to come into effect. Otherwise, there is no lane control. fredaj
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

fredaj says...

pJking wrote:
Stu wrote:
The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case!
I agree the whole A27 bypass is badly designed with too many twists and turns, particularly the west bound stretch between the West Hove link and the tunnel. I would suggest for a trial period 3 things; Firstly, no changing lanes in the tunnel, secondly, mandatory use of dipped headlights day and night in the tunnel itself and lastly a 60 mph limit between the west hove link and the shoreham flyover.
One other reason for west bound accidents may be a result of the pent up frustration motorists feel with the delays at Broadwater, Lyons farm and the 40 MPH stretch through Lancing. When they finally get to the Sussex Pad lights and the 70 limit they feel they have to make uo for lost time by speeding with the inevitable result, more accidents. Just a thought.!
Why do would anyone need to put their head lights on in the tunnel?

It is brightly lit and the same cars are in front and behind for those few yards of travel as were there before you entered.

As for your comment about people speeding from the Sussex Pad - I agree completely.
[quote][p][bold]pJking[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case![/p][/quote]I agree the whole A27 bypass is badly designed with too many twists and turns, particularly the west bound stretch between the West Hove link and the tunnel. I would suggest for a trial period 3 things; Firstly, no changing lanes in the tunnel, secondly, mandatory use of dipped headlights day and night in the tunnel itself and lastly a 60 mph limit between the west hove link and the shoreham flyover. One other reason for west bound accidents may be a result of the pent up frustration motorists feel with the delays at Broadwater, Lyons farm and the 40 MPH stretch through Lancing. When they finally get to the Sussex Pad lights and the 70 limit they feel they have to make uo for lost time by speeding with the inevitable result, more accidents. Just a thought.![/p][/quote]Why do would anyone need to put their head lights on in the tunnel? It is brightly lit and the same cars are in front and behind for those few yards of travel as were there before you entered. As for your comment about people speeding from the Sussex Pad - I agree completely. fredaj
  • Score: -1

10:32pm Thu 16 Jan 14

fredaj says...

Indigatio wrote:
PaulOckenden wrote:
The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view.

Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both.

I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side.

If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.
Paul, although this is something I wouldn't agree with you from personal experience, I can actually see what you mean, especially if a driver isn't concentrating on the road itself. It might also explain why there always seems to be so many drivers sitting in the outside lane towards the entrance to the tunnel when there is no traffic on the inside lane.
People always hog the outside lane. Day or night, busy or quiet, in both directions.
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulOckenden[/bold] wrote: The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view. Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both. I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side. If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.[/p][/quote]Paul, although this is something I wouldn't agree with you from personal experience, I can actually see what you mean, especially if a driver isn't concentrating on the road itself. It might also explain why there always seems to be so many drivers sitting in the outside lane towards the entrance to the tunnel when there is no traffic on the inside lane.[/p][/quote]People always hog the outside lane. Day or night, busy or quiet, in both directions. fredaj
  • Score: 1

10:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Withdean-er says...

Loads of weird comments about people mistaking one bore's entrance for the others, and some clever folk spotting that the tunnel route is curved.

The gentle curve is obvious, and there can be no mistaken bore entrance. The accident seem to be mainly by regular Sussex based users during commuting hours, who must be perfecttly use to the tunnel and A27. Perhaps too familiar.

The comment that people treat 70mph as a minimum is very valid. Half of drivers, and many of us do it, bomb along roads like the A27 at 80mph, hell bent on overtaking as many people as possible to get to the destination earlier. Only slowing there are speed cameras or Police about. Trouble is those speeds and overtalking obsession don't suit the gently curved trunnel, and the walls give a brutal end to any misjudgement or sudden panic.
Loads of weird comments about people mistaking one bore's entrance for the others, and some clever folk spotting that the tunnel route is curved. The gentle curve is obvious, and there can be no mistaken bore entrance. The accident seem to be mainly by regular Sussex based users during commuting hours, who must be perfecttly use to the tunnel and A27. Perhaps too familiar. The comment that people treat 70mph as a minimum is very valid. Half of drivers, and many of us do it, bomb along roads like the A27 at 80mph, hell bent on overtaking as many people as possible to get to the destination earlier. Only slowing there are speed cameras or Police about. Trouble is those speeds and overtalking obsession don't suit the gently curved trunnel, and the walls give a brutal end to any misjudgement or sudden panic. Withdean-er
  • Score: 2

10:52pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Withdean-er says...

fredaj wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
PaulOckenden wrote:
The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view.

Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both.

I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side.

If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.
Paul, although this is something I wouldn't agree with you from personal experience, I can actually see what you mean, especially if a driver isn't concentrating on the road itself. It might also explain why there always seems to be so many drivers sitting in the outside lane towards the entrance to the tunnel when there is no traffic on the inside lane.
People always hog the outside lane. Day or night, busy or quiet, in both directions.
Is true. Failure to recognise it's there for overtaking only, not cruising, and now a mandatory driving offence.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulOckenden[/bold] wrote: The spate of accidents on this bend is because the eastbound bore becomes visible LONG before the westbound, and so drivers start to head towards that. Then make a sudden course correction when the westbound comes into view. Not sure whether it's because they think it's a single bore tunnel (it's what the signs indicate, and they might have just driven through the Cuilfail at Lewes), or whether it's just the normal psychological thing of people driving towards lights. Maybe a bit of both. I think it IS the road, and not the drivers. I don't think a speed reduction is the answer. Better to install bend chevron boards in the central reservation (not only showing that the road still curves round further, but also screening the 'wrong' tunnel entrance) and perhaps cutting back the scrub on the left hand side. If anyone doesn't believe me, go and have a play on Google Street View - it's really very obvious what the problem is when you do that.[/p][/quote]Paul, although this is something I wouldn't agree with you from personal experience, I can actually see what you mean, especially if a driver isn't concentrating on the road itself. It might also explain why there always seems to be so many drivers sitting in the outside lane towards the entrance to the tunnel when there is no traffic on the inside lane.[/p][/quote]People always hog the outside lane. Day or night, busy or quiet, in both directions.[/p][/quote]Is true. Failure to recognise it's there for overtaking only, not cruising, and now a mandatory driving offence. Withdean-er
  • Score: 2

11:18pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Get rid of the greens
Get rid of the greens Brighton1000
  • Score: -1

11:48pm Thu 16 Jan 14

pJking says...

fredaj wrote:
pJking wrote:
Stu wrote:
The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case!
I agree the whole A27 bypass is badly designed with too many twists and turns, particularly the west bound stretch between the West Hove link and the tunnel. I would suggest for a trial period 3 things; Firstly, no changing lanes in the tunnel, secondly, mandatory use of dipped headlights day and night in the tunnel itself and lastly a 60 mph limit between the west hove link and the shoreham flyover.
One other reason for west bound accidents may be a result of the pent up frustration motorists feel with the delays at Broadwater, Lyons farm and the 40 MPH stretch through Lancing. When they finally get to the Sussex Pad lights and the 70 limit they feel they have to make uo for lost time by speeding with the inevitable result, more accidents. Just a thought.!
Why do would anyone need to put their head lights on in the tunnel?

It is brightly lit and the same cars are in front and behind for those few yards of travel as were there before you entered.

As for your comment about people speeding from the Sussex Pad - I agree completely.
Even though the tunnel is fairly well lit it inevitably takes a driver a few seconds to adjust his vision from the natural light outside. Personally, if i am in the outside lane I use dipped headlights simply to let any driver who suddenly decides to change lanes to know that I am there. In fact within the last year or two there was a sign up for a while requesting the use of dipped headlights so the idea must have been tried out by the authorities. Every time there is an accident it causes considerable problems so it must be worth considering ideas to improve safety.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pJking[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: The entire A27 is a poorly designed bodged road built on the cheap? and inadequate for the amount of traffic using it. Of course there are going to be accidents on it, especially on the roller coaster bit between the tunnel and the A23. That said, i - and no doubt thousands of others- manage to safely negotiate ot every weekday without crashing, and for the last 15 years in my case![/p][/quote]I agree the whole A27 bypass is badly designed with too many twists and turns, particularly the west bound stretch between the West Hove link and the tunnel. I would suggest for a trial period 3 things; Firstly, no changing lanes in the tunnel, secondly, mandatory use of dipped headlights day and night in the tunnel itself and lastly a 60 mph limit between the west hove link and the shoreham flyover. One other reason for west bound accidents may be a result of the pent up frustration motorists feel with the delays at Broadwater, Lyons farm and the 40 MPH stretch through Lancing. When they finally get to the Sussex Pad lights and the 70 limit they feel they have to make uo for lost time by speeding with the inevitable result, more accidents. Just a thought.![/p][/quote]Why do would anyone need to put their head lights on in the tunnel? It is brightly lit and the same cars are in front and behind for those few yards of travel as were there before you entered. As for your comment about people speeding from the Sussex Pad - I agree completely.[/p][/quote]Even though the tunnel is fairly well lit it inevitably takes a driver a few seconds to adjust his vision from the natural light outside. Personally, if i am in the outside lane I use dipped headlights simply to let any driver who suddenly decides to change lanes to know that I am there. In fact within the last year or two there was a sign up for a while requesting the use of dipped headlights so the idea must have been tried out by the authorities. Every time there is an accident it causes considerable problems so it must be worth considering ideas to improve safety. pJking
  • Score: -2

8:25am Fri 17 Jan 14

Made In Sussex says...

PaulOckenden wrote:
See http://goo.gl/maps/p

Sp5s - it should be fairly obvious what I mean.

Here's a comment from when this was discussed on the Shoreham forums a while back, from a lady driver:

"I think you might be right about the draw effect of the right hand tunnel when it is lit up. Saturday night, west bound @ ~70+mph, having this thread in my mind, I did look at the right hand entrance, and found that I did twitch the wheel when switching focus as the left hand tunnel came into view. A minor twitch, a fraction of an inch, but then I am familiar with the twin tunnels and, as I said, was trying to figure out if there was an effect."

Still think it's "absolute bonkers" ?
Yes..
[quote][p][bold]PaulOckenden[/bold] wrote: See http://goo.gl/maps/p Sp5s - it should be fairly obvious what I mean. Here's a comment from when this was discussed on the Shoreham forums a while back, from a lady driver: "I think you might be right about the draw effect of the right hand tunnel when it is lit up. Saturday night, west bound @ ~70+mph, having this thread in my mind, I did look at the right hand entrance, and found that I did twitch the wheel when switching focus as the left hand tunnel came into view. A minor twitch, a fraction of an inch, but then I am familiar with the twin tunnels and, as I said, was trying to figure out if there was an effect." Still think it's "absolute bonkers" ?[/p][/quote]Yes.. Made In Sussex
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Man With No Name says...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stretch of road apart from its users. It baffles me how so many crashes happen here.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stretch of road apart from its users. It baffles me how so many crashes happen here. Man With No Name
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Withdean-er says...

Man With No Name wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stretch of road apart from its users. It baffles me how so many crashes happen here.
Just naff drivers driving too fast who can't handle it, and/or so dopey they steer into tunnel curbs.
[quote][p][bold]Man With No Name[/bold] wrote: There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stretch of road apart from its users. It baffles me how so many crashes happen here.[/p][/quote]Just naff drivers driving too fast who can't handle it, and/or so dopey they steer into tunnel curbs. Withdean-er
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree