• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Creation of Road Safety Investigation Branch

Status
Not open for further replies.

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Interesting one this:

Government launches consultation on Road Collision Investigation Branch​

Consultation proposing creation of a Road Collision Investigation Branch (RCIB) to thematically investigate road accidents released.

A new investigation branch dedicated to learning lessons from road traffic collisions, including those involving self-driving vehicles, could be established under plans being unveiled by the government today (28 October 2021).

The Department for Transport (DfT) has launched a consultation on proposals to set up a Road Collision Investigation Branch (RCIB), which would operate much like the similar independent bodies that already exist for air, maritime and rail accidents.

An RCIB would carry out thematic investigations and probe specific incidents of concern to establish the causes of collisions and make independent safety recommendations to help further improve road safety across the country.

The consultation is being launched now due to the huge developments which are taking place across the transport sector, such as the rollout of increasingly automated and electric vehicles.

Roads Minister Baroness Vere said:

The UK’s roads are among the safest in the world, but we’re always looking at ways to make them even safer.
A new investigation branch would play a huge role in this work by identifying the underlying causes of road traffic collisions, so we can take action to prevent them from happening again.
It would also provide us with vital insight as we continue to modernise our road network to ensure better, greener and safer journeys.
Director of the RAC Foundation Steve Gooding said:

After excellent progress across many years, sustained road safety improvement has been hard to achieve over the past decade, both in the UK and further afield.
We should be challenging ourselves on whether we are understanding all we can about the causes of road collisions and what could be done to prevent them – our research to date suggests that more could be learnt – which is why today’s consultation is so important and so welcome.
The consultation, which has been published on GOV.UK, will run until 9 December 2021.

Independent bodies are longstanding features of accident investigation practice in the UK. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has been operating since 1915, while the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) and Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) have operated since 1989 and 2005 respectively.


Seems like a good idea to me as whilst the UKs roads are on the whole very safe with well over a hundred fatalities a month on the road there's clearly room for improvement. Having an independent investigation branch seems a logical part of trying to do that!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Especially if they close roads for a week to investigate accidents before removing the vehicles!
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
I honestly thought this was some sort of April Fool's joke when I saw the title. Roads benefit from all sorts of double standards.

If the government were really interested in reducing the number of road collisions, there's one very simple thing they could do - make public transport a viable and attractive alternative for far more journeys, and make driving more inconvenient. Only then will people reduce the amount of driving they do.

Anything else is just tinkering around the edges in the hope of getting some positive column inches.

That's not to suggest that this is a bad move - indeed, it's well overdue. But it is simply a drop in the ocean compared to what needs to be done.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,448
Location
London
Could understand it being worthwhile to some extent especially for multi-vehicle collisions on major arteries. However there are around 48,000 incidents alone on major roads (M / A) so their scope would have to be very specific if not to be completely overwhelmed or essentially useless. Rail, maritime and air incidents are incredibly rare in comparison.

My understand is various Police forces already have collision investigation teams, so it would need to work within that framework most likely.
 
Last edited:

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
I think there is enough knowledge, no need to analyse why 'accidents' occur when it is too late.

What is missing is enforcement, simples.

BTW many more than the 1200 quoted die: those dying more than 30 days later are counted as 'seriously injured', some die many years later after awful suffering.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I think there is enough knowledge, no need to analyse why 'accidents' occur when it is too late.

What is missing is enforcement, simples.

BTW many more than the 1200 quoted die: those dying more than 30 days later are counted as 'seriously injured', some die many years later after awful suffering.
Totally agree.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I think there is enough knowledge, no need to analyse why 'accidents' occur when it is too late.

What is missing is enforcement, simples.

BTW many more than the 1200 quoted die: those dying more than 30 days later are counted as 'seriously injured', some die many years later after awful suffering.
Totally agree.
Me too. I hope this proposal is true.
 

dm1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
206
Investigating all accidents in this way is how the concept of Vision Zero came about, and why road construction standards changed and continue to change in many countries around the world. As long as they don't get too side-tracked by autonomous vehicles, and as long as they get given the power and funding to do their job well, with their conclusions and recommendations being taken seriously, then I think this could be a good thing. The devil will as ever be in the details.

The fundamental point with almost all accidents, is that whilst the perpetrator/cause and victim of a road accident are often discussed, the third party involved in any accident - the people who designed and built the road - generally gets neglected when analysing the causes of the accident. I would wager that a very large proportion of accidents could be designed out of our roads along with better maintenance.
I think there is enough knowledge, no need to analyse why 'accidents' occur when it is too late.

What is missing is enforcement, simples.

BTW many more than the 1200 quoted die: those dying more than 30 days later are counted as 'seriously injured', some die many years later after awful suffering.
Enforcement is more or less the last resort as far as road safety is concerned. Ideally you want to discourage people from violating rules by making it uncomfortable for them to do so - e.g. people are far more likely to speed on a straight road with wide lanes and no obstructions on either side, than one with narrow lanes, traffic calming and trees on either side, independent of the amount of speeding enforcement.

That doesn't apply to things like drink driving or distracted driving - but even there the most effective measures are likely to be cultural and educational - make distracted or drunk driving stigmatised and educate drivers on why and how it is so dangerous and they are less likely to do it.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Until the roads can be rebuilt, lower maximum speed limits plus enforcement are needed.

I wonder how much distance an autonomous vehicle is programmed to keep to the vehicle in front. Very little perhaps because it can react so fast, I might find that discomfiting.
If I flash my brake lights does it understand and drop back?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
I think there is enough knowledge, no need to analyse why 'accidents' occur when it is too late.

What is missing is enforcement, simples.

BTW many more than the 1200 quoted die: those dying more than 30 days later are counted as 'seriously injured', some die many years later after awful suffering.
I think the level of knowledge of why many collisions happen is very poor. Currently driving accidents are either “no further action, nothing to see here”, or a crime. Look at aviation and see how mistakes and errors are treated there.

There are at least as many things can go wrong on the roads as the railways for example, and there is a sheer lack of curiosity about accident prevention and learning from them in the road sector.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,448
Location
London
I think the level of knowledge of why many collisions happen is very poor. Currently driving accidents are either “no further action, nothing to see here”, or a crime. Look at aviation and see how mistakes and errors are treated there.

I suppose a lot of time it is hard to tell - a lot relies on what the driver says and there is often little to back that up in terms of data. Off the top of my head I can think of issues as wide as distraction / inattention (with multiple sub reasons as to why e.g. fatigue, stress, drink/drugs), excessive speed (with multiple sub-reasons as to why), criminal activity (pursuit of stolen vehicle etc., under the influence), vehicle failure (tyre blowout etc.). A proper categorisation would be good although it may well exist.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Anything that seeks to enforce and enable higher standards of driving than the currently (frankly) pathetic/ careless/ negligent/ dangerous attitude that many drivers today can only be a good thing.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,448
Location
London
Anything that seeks to enforce and enable higher standards of driving than the currently (frankly) pathetic/ careless/ negligent/ dangerous attitude that many drivers today can only be a good thing.

I think its interesting to try and enforce something that isn't an 'industry' to me. For example air, rail & maritime incidents are all as a result of by employees / employers / workers by and their work environment as part of some sort of 'system'. The vast majority of drivers are just "members of the public" by and large. It may well be possible but I think its an important (and interesting) distinction compared to the other sectors.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
I think its interesting to try and enforce something that isn't an 'industry' to me. For example air, rail & maritime incidents are all as a result of by employees / employers / workers by and their work environment as part of some sort of 'system'. The vast majority of drivers are just "members of the public" by and large. It may well be possible but I think its an important (and interesting) distinction compared to the other sectors.
There are plenty of private aircraft and boats, some of which have incidents which are investigated by the AAIB and MAIB.

Neither the AAIB nor MAIB are involved with enforcement. There are separate agencies for enforcement.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
There are plenty of private aircraft and boats, some of which have incidents which are investigated by the AAIB and MAIB.

Neither the AAIB nor MAIB are involved with enforcement. There are separate agencies for enforcement.
The RAIB investigate incidents on private railways as well, don't they?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
I suppose a lot of time it is hard to tell - a lot relies on what the driver says and there is often little to back that up in terms of data. Off the top of my head I can think of issues as wide as distraction / inattention (with multiple sub reasons as to why e.g. fatigue, stress, drink/drugs), excessive speed (with multiple sub-reasons as to why), criminal activity (pursuit of stolen vehicle etc., under the influence), vehicle failure (tyre blowout etc.). A proper categorisation would be good although it may well exist.
There are also many factors like signal sighting on the railway which just aren’t really investigated in similar circumstances on our roads. We don’t get post-crash rundowns of how a red traffic light was obscured or difficult to see in the sun, or how drivers can be subject to optical illusions, for example.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
There are also many factors like signal sighting on the railway which just aren’t really investigated in similar circumstances on our roads. We don’t get post-crash rundowns of how a red traffic light was obscured or difficult to see in the sun, or how drivers can be subject to optical illusions, for example.

I would have thought, for example, there would be good learning to improve good practice for, for example, road junction design.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,448
Location
London
There are plenty of private aircraft and boats, some of which have incidents which are investigated by the AAIB and MAIB.

Neither the AAIB nor MAIB are involved with enforcement. There are separate agencies for enforcement.

I wasn't really referring to enforcement as such but RAIB etc. can offer recommendations and so on and so forth. It doesn't exactly have the same weight if its advising members of the public who are, essentially, free to do whatever they like (within the realms of the law). We should definitely get road collision incidents down and improve the standard of driving, but I think there obviously has to be some understanding its a very different kettle of fish.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
I think its interesting to try and enforce something that isn't an 'industry' to me. For example air, rail & maritime incidents are all as a result of by employees / employers / workers by and their work environment as part of some sort of 'system'. The vast majority of drivers are just "members of the public" by and large. It may well be possible but I think its an important (and interesting) distinction compared to the other sectors.
That is the thing. Train drivers have lots of training and are expected not to make mistakes, often mistakes are impossible.

To drive a car you take a short test and then there is no more training or checks, obeying many laws is in practice voluntary because the chance of being caught is negligible.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I would have thought, for example, there would be good learning to improve good practice for, for example, road junction design.
There are plenty of things which could be done to improve junction design, none of which require the creation of an accident investigation authority, just a change in attitude by the people who design roads (or, more accurately, a change in the design manual to take into account best practise from other countries etc).

Of course, that's not to say an accident investigation branch isn't a good idea..
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Legal restrictions on radio/music would be good, no need for investigations, seems obvious.

What other rules from the railway could be applied to drivers of road vehicles?
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
Legal restrictions on radio/music would be good, no need for investigations, seems obvious.

What other rules from the railway could be applied to drivers of road vehicles?
One vehicle in section between each set of traffic lights? o_O
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
It would be interesting to see if mechanical defects play any large part in the causes of accidents. I've noticed things like defective lights, but in the absence of traffic cops (when did you last see any traffic cops?), what is the deterrent in ensuring your car is maintained, has a legal MOT, insurance etc? (As an aside, the Youtube videos of accidents, mostly in Eastern Europe, often see a traffic cop appear very quickly; could an increase in UK traffic cops be funded by the fines they could impose for poor driving, mechanical defects etc?)

I am also intrigued by the number of foreign Mercedes and Transit vans on the roads - if they are UK based, do they avoid Road Fund Tax, MOTs, insurance etc?
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Legal restrictions on radio/music would be good, no need for investigations, seems obvious.

Excuse me what? You can pry my right to listen to podcasts on long drives from my cold dead hands.

In my opinion I think the ability to listen to music while driving trains could be a good solution to the growing issue of underload impacting driving at the moment, but that's for another thread.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,809
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
Kind of a shame that a previous government saw fit to privatise the former Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), which now trades as TRL, as they seem well positioned to fulfil the brief in the OP.
From their website:
We conduct leading edge research into infrastructure, vehicles and human behaviours which enables safer, cleaner, more efficient transport.

We deliver detailed incident investigation, structural survey and other high value field services...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Legal restrictions on radio/music would be good, no need for investigations, seems obvious.

What other rules from the railway could be applied to drivers of road vehicles?
Yes yes but as we all know you'd rather we went back to the "good" old days of having a man carrying a red flag in front of every vehicle.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there seems to be quite obviously some utility in investigating the causes of accidents (without an eye on whether a crime has been committed) to see what further changes could be implemented to improve safety be that changes in road or vehicle design, legislation, driver training or anything else.
 

beermaddavep

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2005
Messages
803
Location
East Durham
Yes yes but as we all know you'd rather we went back to the "good" old days of having a man carrying a red flag in front of every vehicle.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there seems to be quite obviously some utility in investigating the causes of accidents (without an eye on whether a crime has been committed) to see what further changes could be implemented to improve safety be that changes in road or vehicle design, legislation, driver training or anything else.
Couldn't agree more.

As an example, one area where technology seems to have outpaced safety legislation is that around lighting, both on and off the road.

Years ago filament based headlights were limited to 55watts- the logic being that wattage was directly related to brightness. Nowadays super bright LEDs/ xenons etc make that figure is no longer relevant.
Any advantage given by having a brighter dipped beam is outweighed by the horrific glare from oncoming vehicles and tailgating vehicles with higher positioned headlights eg vans/MPVs particularly in bad weather. Clearly this was recognised by earlier generations of road safety experts hence the old 55w limit. Perhaps this is the kind of area any new safety board should be examining?

Then there are the home owners and farmers etc that place incredibly bright security lights on their buildings without thought of the effect on the road users that they point them at, on back roads at night these can be blinding. Should there be better enforced rules regarding the siting of these very bright concentrated light sources near roads?
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
Then there are the home owners and farmers etc that place incredibly bright security lights on their buildings without thought of the effect on the road users that they point them at, on back roads at night these can be blinding. Should there be better enforced rules regarding the siting of these very bright concentrated light sources near roads?

Some houses have white lights in their brick gate pillars, so they look like a vehicle from a distance - not very helpful.
 

dm1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
206
I personally find it astonishing that switching off street lights at night - sometimes even on motorways - is considered acceptable, given how much safer lit roads are compared to unlit ones.

I'm not convinced the electricity saved could ever "compensate" for the number of lives lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top