Stafford East Consulation Regarding Proposed Development.

[DoggedWalker]

No completely wrong. Furthermore rising brook is a retained fire station whereas beaconside is full time.

Originally fire stations were built in locations within town centres or near to town centres this is because their original role was to protect buildings and the main areas of population.

However with the introduction of smoke detectors and sprinklers etc the number of fires that the fire service now attend has drastically decreased now there main role is to deal with road traffic accidents.

The most severe road traffic accidents occur on motorways and Stafford town is difficult to get across so the fire stations are located near to m6 junctions. Furthermore historically there were a lot of low level bin fires within highfields and burton meno which is why Stafford has / used to have a small van type fire engine to deal with these.

The new fire station at rising brook were built under a pfi agreement along with others at stone, Cannock, Newcastle etc. and were designed to be more than just fire stations. The fire station at riding brook has a community room that can be hired out and at other fire stations they house police posts and ambulance crews etc.

Please don’t just make stuff up.

Motorways are NOT the most dangerous roads, accounting for only around 10% of fatal collisions. They’re big open roads that are relatively straight with fewer hazards but it’s a complete misconception to say they’re more dangerous.

Most crashes occur in urban environments - there’s many more hazards, there are more vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc).

 

[kyoto49]

Please don’t just make stuff up.

Motorways are NOT the most dangerous roads, accounting for only around 10% of fatal collisions. They’re big open roads that are relatively straight with fewer hazards but it’s a complete misconception to say they’re more dangerous.

Most crashes occur in urban environments - there’s many more hazards, there are more vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc).

But serious fatalities and multi vehicle crashes are worse on motorways? I'm asking, I personally have no idea. Just feels like high speeds would cause greater damage to life and vehicles?

 

[Mudgie]

Please don’t just make stuff up.

Motorways are NOT the most dangerous roads, accounting for only around 10% of fatal collisions. They’re big open roads that are relatively straight with fewer hazards but it’s a complete misconception to say they’re more dangerous.

Most crashes occur in urban environments - there’s many more hazards, there are more vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc).

I'm not just making stuff up.
It wasn't me who posted "The most severe road traffic accidents occur on motorways and Stafford town is difficult to get across so the fire stations are located near to m6 junctions".
But if, as you now suggest, "Most crashes occur in urban environments - there’s many more hazards, there are more vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc)" then a central location such as the Lammascote Road would still be ideal for a Fire Station.
I doubt though if the Fire Brigade is needed as much for accidents at 30mph as accidents at 70mph. .

 

[ben0239]

Please don’t just make stuff up.

Motorways are NOT the most dangerous roads, accounting for only around 10% of fatal collisions. They’re big open roads that are relatively straight with fewer hazards but it’s a complete misconception to say they’re more dangerous.

Most crashes occur in urban environments - there’s many more hazards, there are more vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc).

Read what I wrote and then post.

I didn’t state that more fatalities occur on motorways I stated that more severe accidents on motorways. There is a significant difference.

In urban environments crashes are often at lower speeds and will predominately a vehicle and pedestrian or two vehicles whereas motorway accidents often involve multiple vehicles at much higher speeds. In these instances there is a greater requirement for fire engines and their specialist skills at dealing with fuel spills etc.

The fire station at beaconside was built there to deal with incidents at that side of the town and the m6 motorway.

I know this because I was involved with the company that built the pfi fire stations and I attended the client meetings with the fire service project managers at the hq.

 

[Mudgie]

The fire station at beaconside was built there to deal with incidents at that side of the town and the m6 motorway.

Why then was an additional fire station then thought to be needed at Rising Brook ?
And didn't the fire service project managers insist on a high enough standards as "The current fire station was built in the 1990s and the building fabric is now in a poor condition with existing plant and services approaching the end of their useful life"?
PFI means 'short term gain' but surely not to the extent of buildings only lasting thirty years.

 

[gilesjuk]

PFI means 'short term gain' but surely not to the extent of buildings only lasting thirty years.

PFI shouldn't affect the quality of anything. They will build whatever you ask for. PFI is just a financing and "de-risk" mechanism. Delays to construction and any issues with the building, rework etc.. are all done at the expense of the building firm.

Obviously for something as simple as a fire station, lamp post installation (trust me, they used PFI for that in Burton on Trent) etc. PFI seems like a stupid idea. It would be like taking out a 2nd mortgage to have your driveway redone.

 

[ben0239]

Look at all the new fire stations that were built under the pfi agreement in Staffordshire.

The ones at a Cannock, Hanley,

Why then was an additional fire station then thought to be needed at Rising Brook ?
And didn't the fire service project managers insist on a high enough standards as "The current fire station was built in the 1990s and the building fabric is now in a poor condition with existing plant and services approaching the end of their useful life"?
PFI means 'short term gain' but surely not to the extent of buildings only lasting thirty years.

Was built at rising brook due to a number of factors
1. Close proximity to m6
2. At the time there was a large number of low level fires being started in rising brook, burton manor and highfiekds area
3. Rising brook is a retained fire station and therefore needs to be in close proximity to people. Retained fire fighters are required to be at the station within a Set time.

Beaconside wasn’t build under the pfi schemes that I was involved with.

I was involved in pfi 2 which saw the construction of penkridge, stone etc.

The beaconside fire station is made up of 2 buildings. One side is the appliance building and the second was supposed to be a training building. In the last est plans that I saw they are proposing to close the appliance building and remodel the training building to house an appliance.

This would mean that the former appliance building can be demolished and potentially replaced with housing

 

[ben0239]

Why then was an additional fire station then thought to be needed at Rising Brook ?
And didn't the fire service project managers insist on a high enough standards as "The current fire station was built in the 1990s and the building fabric is now in a poor condition with existing plant and services approaching the end of their useful life"?
PFI means 'short term gain' but surely not to the extent of buildings

I haven’t surveyed the fire station so couldn’t comment on the fabric of the building but I would be amassed if it is as bad as being suggested. My guess is that because they are seeking permission to demolish they are perhaps over egging it.

However with regards to plant and services after 30 years these items would require replacement. Standards have moved on significantly since the 1990s regarding sustainability, BREAM and carbon neutral solutions etc.

Government building are now looking to go carbon neutral it is very difficult to achieve Netcap with older buildings and it is far easier to achieve with new.

 

[DoggedWalker]

Motorways account for about 20% of all road journeys but only 5% of fatalities. The argument that this makes them where more severe accidents happen, frankly, stupid. There is nothing more severe than a fatal accident.

I’m not sure how many accidents there are in total on motorways (I could probably look on the DfT website as I did for fatality stats) but I would be willing to make a sizeable bet that the majority of these occur in slow moving traffic and are ‘fender benders’, so again, not severe.

What helps reduce fatalities on motorways is that despite being ‘fast’ roads - they are designed and built to support moving at speed. Relatively straight/sweeping bends, few solid objects to run off the road and crash into (and so no catastrophic injuries to internal organs from very suddenly stop), no oncoming vehicles (generally) and, except in very rare cases, no pedestrians etc.

There will be plenty of rural accidents that are severe - car vs tree being a classic. Likewise for urban roads where the roads are full of hazards, vulnerable road users etc.

The idea that the location of the fire station being built where it is went beyond a) cheap land on the right side of town or b) land already owned by the body involved in the pfi trade is giving anyone in the council far too much credit.

Since the Police and Crime Commissioner is now also responsible for fire services in the county it would be interesting to see if there’s any desire to rationalise the estate. I’ve always thought the fire hq was in a strange place.

 

[Withnail]

Jesus Christ, dude.

When someone tells you why, you can just go 'oh, right' - you don't have to double down.

Have you seen what happens when things with a lot of mass hit each other at speeds of over 70 miles per hour? If you are lucky, you will need a special tin-opener, and a very special tin-opener operator, to keep your lucky streak going.

If you are unlucky, you will still need them, but to give what's left of you back to your now grieving family.

It's not really that difficult a distinction to grasp.

 

[tek-monkey]

Motorways account for about 20% of all road journeys but only 5% of fatalities. The argument that this makes them where more severe accidents happen, frankly, stupid. There is nothing more severe than a fatal accident.

I’m not sure how many accidents there are in total on motorways (I could probably look on the DfT website as I did for fatality stats) but I would be willing to make a sizeable bet that the majority of these occur in slow moving traffic and are ‘fender benders’, so again, not severe.

What helps reduce fatalities on motorways is that despite being ‘fast’ roads - they are designed and built to support moving at speed. Relatively straight/sweeping bends, few solid objects to run off the road and crash into (and so no catastrophic injuries to internal organs from very suddenly stop), no oncoming vehicles (generally) and, except in very rare cases, no pedestrians etc.

There will be plenty of rural accidents that are severe - car vs tree being a classic. Likewise for urban roads where the roads are full of hazards, vulnerable road users etc.

The idea that the location of the fire station being built where it is went beyond a) cheap land on the right side of town or b) land already owned by the body involved in the pfi trade is giving anyone in the council far too much credit.

Since the Police and Crime Commissioner is now also responsible for fire services in the county it would be interesting to see if there’s any desire to rationalise the estate. I’ve always thought the fire hq was in a strange place.

Is that 5% of vehicle occupation fatalities or does it include pedestrians, cyclists etc. that are not found on motorways and rarely need to be cut from their vehicles?

 

[GNM67]

...Have you seen what happens when things with a lot of mass hit each other at speeds of over 70 miles per hour? If you are lucky, you will need a special tin-opener, and a very special tin-opener operator, to keep your lucky streak going.
...

Yes I have on the M6.
Lorry changed lanes without looking sent the car in front spinning off the carriageway and up the grass bank. Everyone walked away unharmed car a right off. Had this been an urban road or even a standard dual-carriageway it would have been a lot worse even at lower speeds.

 

[Mudgie]

Lorry changed lanes without looking sent the car in front spinning off the carriageway and up the grass bank. Everyone walked away unharmed car a right off. Had this been an urban road or even a standard dual-carriageway it would have been a lot worse even at lower speeds.

A bit like dodgems at a funfair, perfectly safe ?

 

[DoggedWalker]

Jesus Christ, dude.

When someone tells you why, you can just go 'oh, right' - you don't have to double down.

Have you seen what happens when things with a lot of mass hit each other at speeds of over 70 miles per hour? If you are lucky, you will need a special tin-opener, and a very special tin-opener operator, to keep your lucky streak going.

If you are unlucky, you will still need them, but to give what's left of you back to your now grieving family.

It's not really that difficult a distinction to grasp.

Why is it so difficult to grasp that because the motorway is (sometimes) fast, it’s not necessarily the worst. The actual evidence to support this is really clear. Road deaths and serious injury accidents are scrupulously compiled annually. The data clearly shows that motorways account for a small proportion of road deaths (and that’s all road deaths, both just drivers etc @tek-monkey ), despite accounting for a fifth of all journeys.


Do you really think that it’s only motorway collisions (which as a reminder, account for many fewer fatalities than urban roads), are the only ones that require fire fighters with specialist equipment? You think a head on collision on the 30mph road doesn’t need a ‘very special tin opener’, or a car sliding off the road going around a country bend and hitting a nice old oak tree, doesn’t have cabin intrusion that requires turning the car into s convertible to extricate the young boy racer who misjudged the bend again? Based on the statistics, both far more likely and so far more frequently needing servicing .

Honestly, maybe reflect on your own words and think maybe it’s you that needs to reconsider.

 

[EasMid]

I know of several people who have died in car crashes over about 50 years (either direct acquaintances or friends’ acquaintances). All but 1 died on local (within about 20 miles of Stafford ) roads. The friend that died on the motorway was in 1972 when he crossed the central reservation into the path of oncoming vehicles. That probably wouldn’t have happened today as motorways (&vehicles) are far safer now even allowing for the increased, faster traffic.
Although motorways are busier & faster at least they’re all going in the same direction (theoretically) so actual impact speeds are generally lower than urban roads.
One reason the special tin openers are needed more nowadays is that even 20 years ago if someone needed removing from a car the chances were that no more harm would have been caused to them by just pulling them out.

 

[EasMid]

A bit like dodgems at a funfair, perfectly safe ?

Not quite the same. Dodgems don’t usually have crumple zones, side impact bars, protected passenger compartments, pretensioning seatbelts, airbags, collapsible steering columns,
energy absorbing facia & door panels etc etc.
And the other drivers aren’t usually trying to hit you.

 

[Withnail]

Why is it so difficult to grasp that because the motorway is (sometimes) fast, it’s not necessarily the worst...

Do you really think that it’s only motorway collisions (which as a reminder, account for many fewer fatalities than urban roads), are the only ones that require fire fighters with specialist equipment?

There are some out there arguments to be had on the interwebs. To think that this started because you are weirdly angry about the siting of a Fire Station.

I'm not entirely sure why you think i'm adopting either of the two positions you ^attribute to me. The question, surely, is not 'is the motorway the worst', or 'is it the only place bad things happen', but that if something happens on the motorway, 'is it more likely to be pretty bad'? Now tbf i'm just assuming the answer to that is 'yeah, probably', and i'm not about to go hunting for statistics on that because i'm not quite as passionate as you about the siting of Fire Stations.

Quite apart from anything else, i'm also unsure as to why you have 'always thought the fire hq was in a strange place', and why this strange placement makes it somehow less equipped to also deal with the other RTC scenarios you mention.

It's just such a strange hill to die on.

 

[Withnail]

You think a head on collision on the 30mph road doesn’t need a ‘very special tin opener’...

Just to add to the whole 'this is a bit weird' vibe to your argument, much as i don't like to be all Sith-like and deal in absolutes, in this instance i'm going to stick my neck out and say that, well, yes, i do think it unlikely that a Fire Crew will be a necessary call out to a 30 mph head on collision.

I await your devastating riposte with bated breath...

 

[DoggedWalker]

There are some out there arguments to be had on the interwebs. To think that this started because you are weirdly angry about the siting of a Fire Station.

I'm not entirely sure why you think i'm adopting either of the two positions you ^attribute to me. The question, surely, is not 'is the motorway the worst', or 'is it the only place bad things happen', but that if something happens on the motorway, 'is it more likely to be pretty bad'? Now tbf i'm just assuming the answer to that is 'yeah, probably', and i'm not about to go hunting for statistics on that because i'm not quite as passionate as you about the siting of Fire Stations.

Quite apart from anything else, i'm also unsure as to why you have 'always thought the fire hq was in a strange place', and why this strange placement makes it somehow less equipped to also deal with the other RTC scenarios you mention.

It's just such a strange hill to die on.

My first response was less to do with why the fire station is at Hydrant Way, and more the misinformed idea that motorways are inherently more dangerous and where the worst of road collisions occur. The statistics tell a much clearer story about that.

As for the location. I’d imagine that if a decision was being made around a new site, and that was being informed by things like ‘where the worst things happen’, they might perhaps actually look at the statistics and not just base it on the perception that the big road by town has people driving fast and so maybe the bad things happen there. I dunno, I think town planning might be *slightly* more informed than sticking a finger in the air. But maybe I’m giving them too much credit.

Perhaps more people on this forum should go hunting for facts before posting made up nonsense.

 

[gilesjuk]

Just to add to the whole 'this is a bit weird' vibe to your argument, much as i don't like to be all Sith-like and deal in absolutes, in this instance i'm going to stick my neck out and say that, well, yes, i do think it unlikely that a Fire Crew will be a necessary call out to a 30 mph head on collision.

I await your devastating riposte with bated breath...

It depends on the car I guess. There are some dodgy cars on the road, in this video it was a "repaired" car.