Road Accidents

[Oswyntail]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8412891.stm) is a fascinating bit of information presentation. 7 people a day died on British roads in 2008, and a surprisingly large proportion of the population were injured. So, is the way forward:-
a) Making road vehicles safer
b) Reducing the number of road vehicles
c) Reducing speeds
d) Stricter tuition and penalties?
e) Any suggestions?

 

[graham125hst]

The best way to cut road accidents for me is to make penalties for dangerous driving harsher.

Drink driving should result in a two year ban and if repeated a lifetime ban and your car taken off you to be sold with the profits going into road safety schemes.

Also instead of police obsession with people doing a couple of mph over the limit maybe they should look at bad driving more. Things like idiots who think the indicators are an optional extra.

All I know is I can't stand driving anymore and if I can do the journey on the train I will.

 

[Failed Unit]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8412891.stm) is a fascinating bit of information presentation. 7 people a day died on British roads in 2008, and a surprisingly large proportion of the population were injured. So, is the way forward:-
a) Making road vehicles safer

The get safer every single year but the death rate remains the same. Compare the Ford escort of the 1970's to the modern equivalent and they are light years apart. We have things like ABS, traction control and better safety feature for energy disappation. Maybe people fee they are indestructable as a result. Likewise the roads themselves are getting better with bypasses, straightening out of bad bends etc.

b) Reducing the number of road vehicles

More vehicles means slow average speed and less chances to overtake so in some ways the more the better.

c) Reducing speeds

Again this is happening, many roads now have 50mph instead of 60mph. Fine if people don't ignore them.

d) Stricter tuition and penalties?

That may help
e) Any suggestions?[/QUOTE]

To me retesting, why do they assume that someone who took their test at 17 is still as fit to drive at 45? Some people drive very infrequently, maybe once or twice per year again as long as the pass thier test they are OK. An airline pilot must do so many hours on thier equipment per year to keep thier leicence. (not sure if train drivers need to retest or do so many hours per year). I know someone that failed their extended test (they were naughty and got caught) because they were too confident at a set of traffic lights.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Fewer road deaths means fewer organs are available for transplant

 

[eos]

A lot of road deaths are caused by those who have no licence, no insurance, and usually a car worth £50 at a scrap yard, hence no responsibilty for any harm or damage caused. Remove those , and or increase those penalties such that they in some way make a substantial payment out of any future income, even benefits for the rest of their lives. After all the victims pay forever with the consequences.

 

[Aussie_Rail]

In Australia most road accidents are caused by drunk, drugged or drowsy drivers. So we have booze buses and drug buses that the Police use, unfortunately there is not a lot you can do about a drowsy driver.

 

[EM2]

The obsession with speed. It's not the fact that people break the speed limit, although this does contribute to some deaths, it's people who drive at the wrong speed for the environment and the conditions. People who think that because they're on a 40mph road, they can drive all the way at 38mph, even if it has tight bends or the surface is wet and slippery.
We have to educate people that it's a speed limit, not a speed target.

 

[Waddon]

The obsession with speed is not just about people who drive at 40 in a thirty. Personally, I think the more dangerous ones are the ones who stick to below the speed limit until they see a traffic light ahead of them, whereupon they accelerate madly to beat the change (or a level crossing for that matter).

Vehicles travelling at a constant speed, even though it may be in excess of the legal limit are, in my opinion, much less dangerous than those that ping-pong between slow and fast. In some respects speed cameras encourage this kind of accelerate/decelerate driving, which is why I think fixed cameras cause as many problems as they solve.

 

[royaloak]

Some people might say that if some pedestrians and cyclists looked around there would be less accidents, ALL users of the road network should take more care not just the drivers.

 

[starrymarkb]

The obsession with speed. It's not the fact that people break the speed limit, although this does contribute to some deaths, it's people who drive at the wrong speed for the environment and the conditions. People who think that because they're on a 40mph road, they can drive all the way at 38mph, even if it has tight bends or the surface is wet and slippery.
We have to educate people that it's a speed limit, not a speed target.

I'm not a fan of the 40mph club, its not so bad when you are following one in a 60 zone but when the limit drops to 30 I do too, and watch the 40mph club member continue at 40mph

Oh and Middle Lane hoggers are a big peeve, I have to cross 2 lanes to pass them, then cross back to the left hand lane. much greater potential for conflick

 

[90019]

The obsession with speed is not just about people who drive at 40 in a thirty. Personally, I think the more dangerous ones are the ones who stick to below the speed limit until they see a traffic light ahead of them, whereupon they accelerate madly to beat the change (or a level crossing for that matter).

Indeed, speed alone isn't the main issue, it's when it's combined with other things that it can become very dangerous.

So called "traffic calming measures" do the exact same thing. As an example, I've lived in this house for the past 12 years, in the first 10 there was one major crash within about 100yds from here (a drunk guy crashed into a skip), but since they put in speed bumps 2 years ago, there have been at least two which were caused by the speed bumps, the most recent which happened a few weeks back, the car almost hit a couple walking along the road.
Another issue with them is the one of emissions, because people slow down for them and speed up between them, the emissions are much higher than they would be if they were doing a constant speed along the road.

Oh and Middle Lane hoggers are a big peeve, I have to cross 2 lanes to pass them, then cross back to the left hand lane. much greater potential for conflick

This is something that I find irritating, driving on the city bypass this afternoon, it's a 70, but there was someone ahead of me sitting in the outside lane doing 50 the whole time, not passing someone, just doing 50, and refusing to let anyone pass.

 

[Zamracene749]

A lot of road deaths are caused by those who have no licence, no insurance, and usually a car worth £50 at a scrap yard, hence no responsibilty for any harm or damage caused..

Good point- that means that the rest (ie the majority) of road deaths involve those with insurance, cars worth thousands and licences?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Being serious, seems to me that the best way to address this is down to planners.

Most people now feel that they NEED a car- there are lots of people for whom driving is an unaviodable chore (and in some cases a horror) to be endured just to get to work, shops, hospital, pension etc.

Towns and cities have for too long been planned with the car as king (eg out of town shopping centres, no local social centres, multiplex cinemas, massive trust hospitals etc)

In the not too distant past, people didn't need to travel for essentials.

Also, in this day and age, how many jobs could realistically be done from home, removing the need for travel? Information/communication technology is developing at an unbelievable speed, yet people still have to drive for hours each way to work- then spend the day at a PC or on the phone, or liasing with others who are doing the same!

The cost (both time any money) of using public transport in this country, nevermind the lack of co-ordination between services/modes and how much this pushes folk into cars is another matter for discussion....

 

[ChrisTheRef]

I disagree.

When you take your driving test, you're told that you should "drive at an appropriate speed for the road and traffic conditions"

So would you lot tell me off for doing 110mph down the M58? Bearing in mind, I'm coming back from Wigan at 1:30am and there's nothing else on the motorway - which is bone dry

 

[EM2]

I disagree.

When you take your driving test, you're told that you should "drive at an appropriate speed for the road and traffic conditions"

So would you lot tell me off for doing 110mph down the M58? Bearing in mind, I'm coming back from Wigan at 1:30am and there's nothing else on the motorway - which is bone dry

In my opinion, that *could* be argued as appropriate for the conditions.
But if you insisted on doing 65 on the same road in thick fog, I would certainly take issue, even though it's legal.

 

[Donny Dave]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8412891.stm) is a fascinating bit of information presentation. 7 people a day died on British roads in 2008, and a surprisingly large proportion of the population were injured. So, is the way forward:-
a) Making road vehicles safer
b) Reducing the number of road vehicles
c) Reducing speeds
d) Stricter tuition and penalties?
e) Any suggestions?

Remove everything that could be a distraction for a start. By that I mean traffic lights, speed bumps, road signs and road markings. Obviously It won't work everywhere, but where it can work, it should be implemented ASAP.

For speeding, if a road is notorious for people speeding and causing accidents or near misses, then the road should be covered by speed cameras. When I say covered, I mean every 200 yards in both directions. Just having Mr Plod out for a few hours every other day (if that) isn't enough.

Vehicles travelling at a constant speed, even though it may be in excess of the legal limit are, in my opinion, much less dangerous than those that ping-pong between slow and fast. In some respects speed cameras encourage this kind of accelerate/decelerate driving, which is why I think fixed cameras cause as many problems as they solve.

Driving at a constant speed is the best way of driving. Traffic is moving all the while, and everyone is happy (appart from the nutter in the middle of the queue who can't overtake). Ping-pong driving creates more problems than it solves, as you get an accordian effect. As other cars (which are driving at a constant speed) catch up, the queue gradually gets bigger and the result is bigger queues and longer delays.

 

[starrymarkb]

For speeding, if a road is notorious for people speeding and causing accidents or near misses, then the road should be covered by speed cameras. When I say covered, I mean every 200 yards in both directions. Just having Mr Plod out for a few hours every other day (if that) isn't enough.

I'd say less Speed Cameras and more traffic cops (their numbers have been cut since speed cameras became popular with the police). The traffic cop can spot hazardous driving that is below the limit that cameras miss

 

[Oswyntail]

I disagree.

When you take your driving test, you're told that you should "drive at an appropriate speed for the road and traffic conditions"

So would you lot tell me off for doing 110mph down the M58? Bearing in mind, I'm coming back from Wigan at 1:30am and there's nothing else on the motorway - which is bone dry

Actually, yes. As breaking the legal limit is not appropriate for the road. The "conditions" argument is often put forward but is irrelevant. Because we have little experience of driving, and reacting, at relatively high speeds, it is more difficult to be truly aware of the surroundings. For instance, it becomes more difficult to judge speed accurately without looking at the speedo. This is worse at night anyway. IMHO (and this is not aimed at Chris, who may well be a very safe driver) the biggest problem is with any road user who thinks they are better than they are, whether it's a driver who thinks his reactions allow him to stop quicker than others, the cyclist who never loses balance, or the pedestrian who can assess the speed of approaching traffic accurately.

 

[ChrisTheRef]

Actually, yes. As breaking the legal limit is not appropriate for the road. The "conditions" argument is often put forward but is irrelevant. Because we have little experience of driving, and reacting, at relatively high speeds, it is more difficult to be truly aware of the surroundings. For instance, it becomes more difficult to judge speed accurately without looking at the speedo. This is worse at night anyway. IMHO (and this is not aimed at Chris, who may well be a very safe driver) the biggest problem is with any road user who thinks they are better than they are, whether it's a driver who thinks his reactions allow him to stop quicker than others, the cyclist who never loses balance, or the pedestrian who can assess the speed of approaching traffic accurately.

I totally agree, but you don't get cyclists or pedestrians on motorways

 

[317666]

e) Just take the train instead!

 

[Vulcan]

My suggestion is a large inflatable rubber ring around the edge of cars and other vehicles, then not only would they bounce off each other, but they would also float!

 

[royaloak]

On a similar note-
I propose a 6 inch long steel spike that replaces the airbag on the steering wheel, that would make people drive more sensibly.

 

[Vulcan]

So when some chav in a stolen car ploughs headfirst into another car because he is only 16 and can't keep control of the car, you think the innocent party in the other car should get their face stabbed? No, inflatable rings is the future!

 

[Geezertronic]

I don't know about you guys but there seems to be more knobs driving and using their mobile phones than ever before. Even driving the 8 miles from my house into Birmingham, I can see at least 1/2 dozen during that small journey.

So the new laws have really had no effect because this is again another crime that cannot be picked up by the speed camera that has replaced traffic officers.

 

[vitesse]

If the highways agency actually bothered looking at gritting in sensible places and not just major roads only it would cut a huge number of minor accidents...and inconvenience to me.

I live opposite a T-junction at the bottom of a fairly steep hill, yesterday 3 cars hit the lamppost outside my house, someone hit the mother-in-laws car and drove off (luckily witnesses got the reg number) and then about 8 last night I ended up with a car plowing diagonally through my front garden smashing all the fence down and narrowly missing my car on the driveway. To top it off we pushed him back on the road, another car came down the hill and then smacked into him...just as the police were arriving.

Now, i know this sounds trivial but all the earlier accidents happened at/around midday and I tried phoning the highways agency to get something done...but no suprise it was like tring to get blood from a stone, only after I ended up with a car in the garden and the police involved did anything get done. Now what if someone had been walking past at the time? or the 3 occurances earlier in the day....all would have most likely ended fatally. The excuse given by the highways agency bloke "it costs about £200K for a gritter"..apparently...so what better things do they spend the money on then? certainly isnt improving our roads.

 

[Mojo]

I don't know about you guys but there seems to be more knobs driving and using their mobile phones than ever before. Even driving the 8 miles from my house into Birmingham, I can see at least 1/2 dozen during that small journey.

So the new laws have really had no effect because this is again another crime that cannot be picked up by the speed camera that has replaced traffic officers.

Think it was in the news this week that the number of people driving with mobiles has actually increased since the law against it came in.

 

[EM2]

Vitesse, I may be wrong but isn't gritting of minor roads down to the local Council?

 

[Mojo]

Vitesse, I may be wrong but isn't gritting of minor roads down to the local Council?

Yes, HA are only responsible for most motorways and major A roads.

 

[chris89]

Would have to say tougher penities.

E.g. A young Women was killed two years ago on the main road from were i live due to a driver not making sure his load was secured. In the end he only got a year ban and a £1000 fine i think. As he was able to get away from Causing death by dangerous driving and got Careless driving.

And HI all this is my first post.

Chris

 

[vitesse]

Vitesse, I may be wrong but isn't gritting of minor roads down to the local Council?

No you are right, but it was a case of having to ring someone and our local council dont have any out-of-hours numbers except for council housing emergency maintenance. I was under the impression that the gritting is funded by a government grant to the local council for it.

 

[djw1981]

No you are right, but it was a case of having to ring someone and our local council dont have any out-of-hours numbers except for council housing emergency maintenance. I was under the impression that the gritting is funded by a government grant to the local council for it.

No, hence why you get differing standards in different councils. Handily up here the general road condition is so bad that crumbling road surfaces introduce grit to the snow.