What should be done to improve road safety?

[D6130]

1. Most road deaths in the UK are because of the driver being impaired, how many plane crashes are because the pilot is pissed? You're comparing apples with oranges.

2. See my extensive list above.



So it's a chip on your shoulder problem not because the roads are dangerous, got it.

Once again....read the title of the thread - especially the second part ('without a firm foundation in logic'). Lighten-up a wee bit....this is supposed to be a humorous thread!

 

[stuu]

2. See my extensive list above.

Start with new cars only, as is already planned.

What are these emergency circumstances that mean you need to exceed the speed limit?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Start with new cars only, as is already planned.

What are these emergency circumstances that mean you need to exceed the speed limit?

If one has misjudged an overtake it can help, though at some risk of a worse collision. Dropping back is preferable but sometimes idiots close the gap.

Can't think of any other normal cases where there would still be enforcement.

 

[jfowkes]

The technology isn't there yet.

My car has a speed limit detection system with the stated speed limit displayed on the dashboard. A sensor on the windscreen reads speed limit signs and displays the limit on the dashboard, the snag is it often misses signs where there is a change in speed limit (probably 10-20% of the time) and sometime misreads the limit on a parallel road or sliproad as applying to the road I'm driving on. A GPS based system would still carry the very real risk of the vehicle location being incorrectly detected where two roads with different speed limits are running in parallel to each other and would be no use for temporary speed limits.

This is specifically about a 70mph limiter, not a dynamic one that changes with location.

• cost of implementation,
• potential lack of being able to escape an emergency situation,
• it still wouldn't stop people speeding on any road other than a motorway/dual carriageway
• I hate the phrase but it's a bit 'nanny state'
• time/money/effort/ trying to solve a problem which doesn't really exist
• I guarantee there would be a way around the limiter before the week was out, rendering the whole thing pointless
• Do you force people to install a limiter on old cars? Who pays for it? What if they don't intend to buy a new car? It could easily be 30 years before every car has one.

• Cost of implementation - fairly low, if you just mandate that all cars manufactured from <x> year onwards need to have it. We've done that for other technologies (seatbelts, TPMS).
• potential lack of being able to escape an emergency situation - I will concede this, though I think the situations are few (and the limiter can have an "emergency" mode that allowed e.g. 30s of speeding, after which you had to stop before it allowed it again.)
• it still wouldn't stop people speeding on any road other than a motorway/dual carriageway - true, it's limited.
• I hate the phrase but it's a bit 'nanny state' - "stopping people literally breaking the law" is not nanny state. Nanny state is when the state is trying to stop you playing music too loud in your car or something.
• time/money/effort/ trying to solve a problem which doesn't really exist - unless you are claiming that no deaths or injuries occur as a result of >70mph speeding, then the problem does exist. You might think it doesn't matter, but it does exist.
• I guarantee there would be a way around the limiter before the week was out, rendering the whole thing pointless - would you apply that criterion to other law-breaking? If criminals could find a way round a system, just forget it, let them carry on?
• Do you force people to install a limiter on old cars? - no, personally I wouldn't mandate this. New cars only. Yes, it would be a slow introduction, but the average age of a car in the UK is 8.4 years so maybe 10 years to get a lot of saturation.

I would agree that it should not be a legislative priority for the government. I'm mainly arguing that the idea is good in principle - there is a genuine safety case for it that cannot be ignored.

 

[xotGD]

Once again....read the title of the thread - especially the second part ('without a firm foundation in logic'). Lighten-up a wee bit....this is supposed to be a humorous thread!

Hold on - I was being serious in my post!

 

[PacerTrain142]

Ok, this idea is really controversial and I’m sure will get a lot of backlash but why don’t we have transfer some of the safety systems we have on the trains and apply them to road vehicles? I’m talking AWS, TPWS and DVD.

Say you’re 100 metres from a set of traffic lights. The AWS alarm goes off and you have 2.7 seconds to press the big yellow button or the emergency brakes come on. Speed limit reduction from 70 to 30 mph coming up? AWS goes off. Again same rules apply, 2.7 seconds to react or brakes come on. Also it would be even better if the system was synced up to the traffic lights so that if the traffic light was green you’d hear a ‘ping’ but if it was red or amber the alarm would go off.

Also, imagine you’re driving on a motorway late at night and you are struggling to keep awake. The DVD (driver vigilance device) goes off every 2-3 minutes, checking you are awake. But you end up falling asleep at the wheel. The DVD goes off but you fail to respond, the hazard lights come on and the car gradually comes to a stop.

And what about TPWS? You approach a busy junction at 50 mph in a 30 zone? Brakes come on, car comes to a stop. You approach a tight bend at 60 mph? Car slows down to 30 mph.

These safety systems have made the railways a lot safer so why not mandate them for road transport? I know many would find them annoying and maybe a bit overzealous but as a regular train simulator player I have gotten used to cancelling AWS/DVD every 2 minutes and don’t mind it at all.

 

[jon0844]

I can foresee speed limits being droped from 70 to 60 on pollution grounds anyway.

Not so sure. It would be seen as an attack on the motorist, be argued as bringing the country to a halt, perhaps make rail more competitive still, and lose a party votes when they all want to bow to the wants of the motorist.

In an ideal world, you'd have driving standards like that of Germany where you could ditch the limit on the safest roads (I know there are still advisory limits) but our driving standards are terrible and it's usually the variance of speed from one vehicle to the next that causes the most danger. Germans have better lane discipline by miles, which I can't see we ever could.

Driver safety aids can only help so much. Indeed, they're probably making some motorists more dangerous.

 

[dosxuk]

This is specifically about a 70mph limiter, not a dynamic one that changes with location.

So people on a motorway wouldn't be able to get a little boost to get themselves out of trouble or complete a manoeuvre safer; but they would be able to do 70 in a 20 zone surrounded by school children?

 

[jfowkes]

So people on a motorway wouldn't be able to get a little boost to get themselves out of trouble or complete a manoeuvre safer; but they would be able to do 70 in a 20 zone surrounded by school children

In "emergency" situations, one of two things could happen:

• The limiter allows for emergency speeding in some fashion
• Just brake or slow down, which is likely the safer option anyway.

To the point about not protecting schoolchildren, if automatic dynamic speed limiting worked reliably then I'd be all for it, but I don't think it is.

Best way to enforce a 20mph limit is to redesign the street to make it impossible to drive over 20mph.

 

[stuu]

So people on a motorway wouldn't be able to get a little boost to get themselves out of trouble or complete a manoeuvre safer; but they would be able to do 70 in a 20 zone surrounded by school children?

How many times has this ever happened to anyone in the real world, on a motorway?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As this is now a general thread one thing I'd do is change the National Speed Limit thus:

Roads without a continuous marked centreline e.g. country lanes: 40mph (I could be swayed to 30)
Single carriageway roads with a marked centreline: 50mph
Dual carriageway roads and motorways without a hard shoulder: 60mph
Motorways with a hard shoulder: 70mph

These would apply to all vehicles (other than as dictated by mandatory limiters) and would near eliminate overtaking as well as make things safer on country roads.

Obviously as now "signing up" would be possible, e.g. the North Wales A55 with motorway features could be signed up to 70.

Best way to enforce a 20mph limit is to redesign the street to make it impossible to drive over 20mph.

I agree, this is the basis of a 20 Zone. Some are very well designed, using things like managed parking (car and cycle) and attractive features like trees and planters to create natural chicanes.

 

[A0wen]

Nothing remotely false about it.

I want the railway not to be hydebound by the gaping double standard in safety shovels ever more cost on to the railway and its users while doing nothing to address the ongoing carnage on our roads.

Except the roads have been subject to far mor safety constraints than the railways as can be seen from the proliferation of speed humps, narrowing etc etc. If your argument were true, then we'd still be building roads to tge same standards as the 1930s or 1960s - which we aren't. For that reason we shouldn't be building railways to the same standards as the 1920s which is what you are advocating.

 

[156421]

What are the figures in comparable countries to the UK?

See Wikipedia article: List of countries by traffic-related death rate

Appears to list UK as among the lowest for "road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants per year" and "road deaths per 1 billion vehicle-km".

 

[birchesgreen]

Banning SUVs and other assorted w***panzers would help.

Life time driving bans for dangerous driving (especially those which cause serious injury) should also be more common and enforced with harsh prison sentences if broken. People wailing that they need to still drive should be given a bus time table.

 

[PeterC]

How many times has this ever happened to anyone in the real world, on a motorway?

A boost to get out of trouble on the motorway? In over 50 years driving I could probably count instances on the fingers of one hand but they do happen. Last time I was level with the cab of an artic when he started to pull out, at that point it was safer to floor the accelerator than try and drop back by the length of the trailer.

 

[Krokodil]

I hate the phrase but it's a bit 'nanny state'

A nanny state is one that insists on protecting you from yourself (you could include mandating seatbelts in this because the only potential victim if you didn't wear one is you). Measures taken to protect innocent third parties such as pedestrians are not 'nanny state' however.

Life time driving bans for dangerous driving (especially those which cause serious injury) should also be more common

A cyclist got rammed by a car locally, the driver yelling "I'm going to f***ing kill you". The driver failed to stop. Whole incident, including audio was recorded on the cyclist's helmet camera. With all of that evidence, you'd think that they'd be looking at an attempted murder charge, or at least dangerous driving wouldn't you? No, the CPS went for 'driving without due care and attention' for which the man got a slap on the wrist.

 

[Lost property]

The technology isn't there yet.

My car has a speed limit detection system with the stated speed limit displayed on the dashboard. A sensor on the windscreen reads speed limit signs and displays the limit on the dashboard, the snag is it often misses signs where there is a change in speed limit (probably 10-20% of the time) and sometime misreads the limit on a parallel road or sliproad as applying to the road I'm driving on. A GPS based system would still carry the very real risk of the vehicle location being incorrectly detected where two roads with different speed limits are running in parallel to each other and would be no use for temporary speed limits.

Do you see yourself as say a F-35 or Typhoon, or maybe an Airbus / Boeing pilot then ?

You see, in many ways, you exemplify a paradox when it comes to safety....the development of safety features in vehicles allied to technology tends to make drivers over reliant on the basics....such as the Mk 1 eyeball and actually driving the car, not sitting in, pushing buttons as "the car does everything ".

One thing that would help safety is....Education. They may seem antiquated in terms of speech, but, many of those old Public Information films could, and should, be reinstated. Preferably with some graphic images as to what happens to the human body when stupidity overcomes safe driving practices.

Speed is a contributory factor but really, there's no need for speed limiters as we all have one built in....called our right foot.

Motorways are comparatively safe, apart from (not so) smart sections with no hard shoulder...these do concern me when I'm driving on them. The worst tend to be rural A and B roads, rarely policed, which some people assume are there personal racing tracks.

Germany, quite rightly, has been mentioned. German traffic laws are absolute, there's no abiguity....STOP means STOP. not casually trundle onto the crossing road and the Priority road designation is a positive benefit in this respect.

The principal difference between the UK and Germany is cultural allied to training drivers.

 

[75A]

Banning SUVs and other assorted w***panzers would help.

A typical knee jerk reaction from someone that lives in a City.

Here in rural Ireland a SUV is vital owing to the very narrow and poorly maintained roads.

We have no public transport so a car is vital.

 

[birchesgreen]

A typical knee jerk reaction from someone that lives in a City.

Here in rural Ireland a SUV is vital owing to the very narrow and poorly maintained roads.

We have no public transport so a car is vital.

Fine, have them in the countryside where they make sense. The vast majority drive them in cities where they don't make any sense.

 

[75A]

Ok that sounds sensible, must admit you see em on the tele and wonder why you need something that big in a City.

 

[birchesgreen]

Ok that sounds sensible, must admit you see em on the tele and wonder why you need something that big in a City.

My neighbour has an Audi SUV too big for his driveway so it sticks out (about half the bonnet) onto the pavement.

 

[75A]

No that's just plainly stupid.

 

[judethegreat]

Entitled motorists.

We have allowed the situation to develop over the past century where driving a motor vehicle wherever, whenever and however you want (and parking it wherever, whenever and however you want..) is seen as the most fundamental human right, and don't let anyone get in the way of that in any way...

Too many drivers apparently advocate the death sentence for anyone physically slowing them down in any way, even an 80 year old man crossing the road who blatantly cannot move any faster...i've seen them not slow down or swerve even slightly, and just skim past with a couple of feet to spare.

I know not all motorists, many are good...there is equal good and bad across all demographics...including pedestrians. I do so hate seeing my fellow cyclists routinely jumping red lights and riding on pavements without giving priority to pedestrians.

But the fact remains that even a well driven car can do far more damage than a badly ridden bicycle - yes i know knock-on effects of actions and all that, but i'm talking direct impact of the respective vehicles.

I just often feel like the roads are a warzone...reflective of society generally, increasingly, it seems.

Around six years ago, i was talking with a cyclist originally from Eastern Europe, about Russian dash cam footage on youtube (if anyone hasn't seen any, check it out...there, atleast was, loads available...). He said yeah...drivers there and in Eastern Europe are crazy, but here they are aggressive.

 

[Kite159]

Fine, have them in the countryside where they make sense. The vast majority drive them in cities where they don't make any sense.

SUVs make no sense in the countryside, if anything make things worse being wide on narrower roads.

 

[75A]

SUVs make no sense in the countryside, if anything make things worse being wide on narrower roads.

Here it's not the width, so much as the depth of the passing places, something like a mini size car would be underwater.

4X4 is needed for the Winter, we don't have Gritters or Snow Ploughs, just neighbours with Tractors to help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

SUVs make no sense in the countryside, if anything make things worse being wide on narrower roads.

They make a lot of sense when it's winter and the roads aren't gritted or when it's thrown it down and they're flooded. Also most pick ups and the likes you see in the countryside are working farm vehicles.

Anyway, most cars are wider now due to side impact protection. The anti-SUV moaners seem to forget that. The second narrowest car I've ever owned* was a Land Rover Defender, as the doors are made of tin foil and there's no side impact protection at all.

The majority of UK SUVs are just bodykitted MPVs, anyway - for one, the Kuga is effectively just a bodykitted C-Max, and the Puma a slightly bigger Fiesta (basically replacing the Focus). Range Rovers and big pick ups don't make sense in cities, but these aren't most SUVs.

* The narrowest was a Vauxhall Agila, a tiny little box car.

 

[judethegreat]

As a society we seem to find the current death toll amongst pedestrians, cyclists and the occupants of motor vehicles acceptable.

And yet the railway, from a starting point of much higher safety standards, has been obliged to jump through hoops and spend a fortune to make the railway even safer.

Double standards. And with a finite pot of money, many more lives could be saved by targeting safety improvements where you would get the biggest bang for your buck. Plus facilitating modal shift from hazardous roads to less hazardous railways.

Totally agreed. And even just a shift to less dangerous roads would be good..

In the late nineties, i noticed the mainstream media having an obsession with any incident whatsoever on the railways...there were two or three major crashes in a relatively short space of time, but it seemed someone breaking their fingernail in the vicinity of a train was headline news...and always the railways' fault. Certainly level crossing incidents.. And it rubbed off on the public... Overheard on a train someone talking about when they arrive at their destination, "if the train doesn't crash"...

I wrote several letters to the PM programme on Radio 4, my news programme of choice at the time, pointing out, for instance, the ten deaths per day at the time on British roads, a figure which will not include all the health related deaths due to polution. Not one was read out on air, nor any others saying similar things.

Since then, UK road deaths have cut in half to five per day, so considering how driving standards have fallen noticably - my (very level headed) friend with 40 years of very heavy driving experience attests to this - i can only assume the multitudes of road safety measures which have been carried out actually do work. That said however, human responsibility would still be the best...as with anything, laws just breed resentment and rebellion...but sadly too many motorists have collectively foregone their right to that, in my opinion.

When a 20 zone was implemented in one bunch of streets in my town around six years ago, they actually seemed to increase their speed...including bus drivers...

My neighbour has an Audi SUV too big for his driveway so it sticks out (about half the bonnet) onto the pavement.

That is common round my way, with all vehicles...and narrow pavements.

One transit type van just fits, but the step on the back sticks out...

Seems they were unable to measure the length of their driveway before purchasing their car...or house...

 

[birchesgreen]

That is common round my way, with all vehicles...and narrow pavements.

Seems they were unable to measure the length of their driveway before purchasing their car...or house...

Supposedly it is an offense around here to park on the pavement unless it is in a marked bay but as it isn't enforced well...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Supposedly it is an offense around here to park on the pavement unless it is in a marked bay but as it isn't enforced well...

A lot of societal problems at the moment are being caused by underpolicing. Indeed in most cases no policing at all.

 

[judethegreat]

Supposedly it is an offense around here to park on the pavement unless it is in a marked bay but as it isn't enforced well...

Pavement parking..... Don't cycle on them, but park, atleast half, on them..... Again, common round here.

My then 81 year old Dad had a small van swoop up totally onto the (wide) pavement a few metres in front of him, leaving hardly any room either side.

Driver then accused my Dad of scratching the van with his shopping trolley. The particular scratches in question could no way have been caused by the rickety little old trolley.

The guy and his boss/Dad then proceeded to claim about £600 from my Dad, who was buckling and letting them run rings around him, until i jumped in on one phone call and used some choice words at them, and nothing more was heard...