What if highway fatalities were treated as seriously as those of Covid?

[kristiang85]

You could say it about many things - 70,000 people a year die from smoking related illness in the UK, yet I don't see the full scale ban on cigarettes. In fact, I noticed bring forced to sit outside pubs meant I was breathing in more cancer smoke from others than I usually would.

 

[peters]

I'd question how many of the deaths on the roads are caused by idiotic actions and only resulted in the person taking the idiotic action getting killed? Maybe these figures should be considered separately?

In a village not far from me one parent set up a campaign for a speed limit on a main road through the village to be lowered from 30mph to 20mph. The reason being his son was injured after being hit by a car. However, his son decided to cross the road in front of a bus instead of using the pelican crossing a short distance down the road from where the accident happened. There was also no evidence the car which hit him, which was on the wrong side of the road due to driving around the stationary bus when there was no oncoming traffic, was even driving above 20mph. It seems it's fashionable for people to campaign for 20mph speed limits at the moment and people see them as a solution to all the problems. Back when I was a teenager if I'd crossed the road in a stupid place and been involved in an accident because of it, I wouldn't have expected my parents to by sympathetic, I would have expected to be told off even if I was obviously injured, not expected a media campaign to get a speed limit lowered.

 

[Bantamzen]

We are back to the 'might' again here aren't we? There is no direct evidence as to what effect the measures have had - the first lockdown was imposed at the end of winter, when all respiratory viruses would have been in decline anyway. The most recent lockdown has been so widely ignored that it's probably made little difference, especially considering that those shops which remain open have been busier.

If you think that the measures were solely / mainly responsible, how do you explain Sweden? Logically, they should have had a massive spike in April / May, way above that of all the countries which imposed lockdowns - but that didn't happen.

These measures are imposed on the basis of 'might'. Even when there is no evidence of them making any difference (masks particularlly) they are forced into more and more areas, and the very real negative effects on society (which are not 'might' - they are actually happening) are simply ignored.

And if NHS capacity was such an issue, why didn't they remove all restrictions in the summer (a better time for it to spread, as the NHS is always busier in winter), and take steps to build up capacity? In 8 months they could have achieved quite a lot, but appear to have done nothing at all.

That last sentence is unfair, they have done lots to get the public to blame each other whilst they sat and did nothing else.

 

[Bikeman78]

It'll be the reverse. Far more fatalities will have happened earlier in the period than are happening now. As despite there being more cars and more people travelling on the roads cars have gotten safer and the way we engineer roads to enhance safety has improved as well. One of the reason cars have gotten bigger, for instance, is that they now have more safety features. Crumple zones for example mean you need somewhere to crumple that isn't the passenger compartment. We have collapsing steering columns so that drivers don't get impaled on their steering wheels, airbags all over the interior of the car, we use laminated and toughened glass which doesn't turn into deadly shrapnel and of course the big dog of them all the seat belt.

To be quite honest a modern car probably doesn't get enough credit for the miraculous piece of engineering that it really is when you look at the safety features that are now built into them. The underlying technology of containing exploding dead dinosaurs to generate motion might not have changed all that much in the last hundred years but everything that goes around it has changed out of all recognition.

Unfortunately a third of UK road deaths are people outside vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the numbers showing who caused the accident, the driver or the non driver. 30 to 40 of the pedestrians are on the pavement at the time of their demise! Given the way people drive near my kid's school, this is not surprising. The road is clogged with parked vehicles and people happily mount the narrow pavement to get around obstructions.

 

[TheBeard]

What's the average BMI in Sweden?

 

[Bikeman78]

Actually our response to Covid has been akin to that of commercial transport services - air and rail - when they encounter a dangerous state of affairs. Road traffic is a conspicuous exemption.

On the railways the corporate meltdown of Railtrack after the Hatfield crash in 2000 was very similar to the response to Covid. That was the one that involved temporary speed restrictions all over the network and total collapse of train punctuality. In that instance the problem was Railtrack's inability to track and trace fatigued rails rather than infected people.

In the airline industry the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA are well known and contemporary of the Railtrack meltdown era. More recently the Boeing 737 Max debacle shows that major action can be taken when a danger to human life is identified.

Hitherto road transport in general and personal motoring in particular has been at odds with the precautionary principle applied for commercial transport. This might be because it is sold as an exercise in personal liberty as much as a means of mobility. However, and in light of the curtailment in our liberties imposed to deal with Covid, giving motorists an exemption to continue to impose manageable risks on communities they pass through becomes much less tenable.

Also, the imposition in personal liberties for Covid was accepted as a stopgap whilst waiting for a vaccine or remedy which most people just assumed would come soon. Road safety is in a similar position now: we think that electric cars will be the majority soon, and eventually driverless technology will become viable. This will make cars both pollution free and unlikely to crash.

Should we not be taking a similar attitude to road casualties and those due to air pollution in the same way as Covid: the technology to eliminate them are in its way but we can toughen enforcement to minimise unnecessary deaths in the interim?

The recent accident near Carmont was an extreme example. Wasn't it something like 38 days before the various authorities would allow NR to start moving the wreckage and repairing the line? As Roger Ford points out in Modern Railways, can you imagine a road being shut for that long for an investigation to take place.

It's ironic that the least safe methods of transport have recovered from Covid much more quickly than air and rail.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@peters
In some countries (US, Germany?) there are restrictions on overtaking/passing school and other buses, in any case one should expect children crossing the road, best to wait a few seconds

One hopes such legislation is soon introduced the UK, and enforced of course too

 

[peters]

@peters
In some countries (US, Germany?) there are restrictions on overtaking/passing school and other buses, in any case one should expect children crossing the road, best to wait a few seconds

One hopes such legislation is soon introduced the UK, and enforced of course too

What about when school children use ordinary buses? In Cheshire there's very few designated school buses due to funding cuts.

Regardless on the legislation there's no excuse for teenagers not following The Green Cross Code when crossing a road.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

But one knows they do it, even if they should not
Perhaps adult grownup drivers could keep their side of the bargain by always observing traffic law

Sorry, getting into the realms of speculation and fantasy %-(

 

[Ianno87]

What about when school children use ordinary buses? In Cheshire there's very few designated school buses due to funding cuts.

Regardless on the legislation there's no excuse for teenagers not following The Green Cross Code when crossing a road.

And no excuses for drivers not following the Highway Code and exercise caution around stopping buses for this very reason.

It's a human factor - you can know The Green Cross code inside out but step mindlessley out into the road when distracted by something else.

 

[peters]

And no excuses for drivers not following the Highway Code and exercise caution around stopping buses for this very reason.

It's a human factor - you can know The Green Cross code inside out but step mindlessley out into the road when distracted by something else.

Like I said in the earlier post there was no evidence the car driver was even driving at the speed limit, nevermind breaking The Highway Code. If they hit the teenager at 30mph I'm sure the teenager would have got more than just a few cuts and bruises. Are you saying no car should ever drive around a stationary bus even if the bus is stopped there for a significant amount of time and there's no oncoming traffic?

 

[Ianno87]

Like I said in the earlier post there was no evidence the car driver was even driving at the speed limit, nevermind breaking The Highway Code. If they hit the teenager at 30mph I'm sure the teenager would have got more than just a few cuts and bruises. Are you saying no car should ever drive around a stationary bus even if the bus is stopped there for a significant amount of time and there's no oncoming traffic?

I'm saying that, as per the Highway Code, should you drive around a bus, you should be anticipating and prepared to stop for a pedestrian darting out in front.

 

[DustyBin]

I'm saying that, as per the Highway Code, should you drive around a bus, you should be anticipating and prepared to stop for a pedestrian darting out in front.

I exercise due caution when driving around buses and I generally have to slow down in any case whilst checking for oncoming traffic, but seriously, who on earth darts out into the road from in front of a bus? Darwinism springs to mind!

 

[Butts]

You could say it about many things - 70,000 people a year die from smoking related illness in the UK, yet I don't see the full scale ban on cigarettes. In fact, I noticed bring forced to sit outside pubs meant I was breathing in more cancer smoke from others than I usually would.

If the smoke upset you that much why did you subject yourself to it ? - no once forced you to !!

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Young children who just do not yet have the perceptions of adults, for example
..
I have not lost someone in an 'accident', nor have I been present when news of an 'accidental' death was received, but I think I can sort of imagine how awful it is

 

[peters]

I'm saying that, as per the Highway Code, should you drive around a bus, you should be anticipating and prepared to stop for a pedestrian darting out in front.

As per the Hazard Perception test, which is something you now have to pass to get a full licence, you look for signs of a potential hazard before the hazard actually happening e.g. if a ball rolls across the road, is a child going to run after it without checking for traffic? However, drivers aren't psychic so if a teenager (who should be aware of the dangers) walks out in front of you at the last second, due to crossing somewhere where they don't have a clear view of the road, you might not have time to react even if you're driving a milk float which can't go over 10mph.

With hybrid and electric cars becoming more commonplace it's even more important for children to follow The Green Cross Code when crossing a road.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

One wonders how a driver feels who did not wait a few seconds, and caused/was involved in a fatal 'accident'

Best generally to drive to a higher standard than required by the law

 

[DustyBin]

One wonders how a driver feels who did not wait a few seconds, and caused/was involved in a fatal 'accident'

Best generally to drive to a higher standard than required by the law

So are you suggesting that cars shouldn’t overtake buses stopped at a bus stop? What about the next stop? Or the one after that? We’d end up with a procession of cars behind every bus!

Condemning genuinely bad driving is one thing but you appear to have an irrational dislike and fear of cars for some reason....

 

[peters]

So are you suggesting that cars shouldn’t overtake buses stopped at a bus stop? What about the next stop? Or the one after that? We’d end up with a procession of cars behind every bus!

In the village I actually referred to for where an accident happened, one of the stops is a timing point, the buses sometimes arrive early there and there's no lay-by for the buses. Therefore, it may not be just the time it takes for a driver to issue a couple of tickets the bus might be stopped there for a few minutes, even if no-one gets on or off.

There are also some villages where there's request stops with no bus stop signs. If you don't know the bus route how do you know if the bus is pulling up to let someone off, or if it's for another reason e.g. a fault with the bus or the driver needing to adjust the side mirror after it got knocked on a tree branch?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Usually the bus has moved off before one can overtake, best to wait behind usually. If one does pass, one should go very slowly in case people are crossing the road, even at a place where they 'may' not do so

I certainly do have a rational contempt for the numerous drivers who habitually break the law

 

[peters]

Usually the bus has moved off before one can overtake, best to wait behind usually. If one does pass, one should go very slowly in case people are crossing the road, even at a place where they 'may' not do so

I certainly do have a rational contempt for the numerous drivers who habitually break the law

So to confirm if you were following a bus and it pulled in at this stop (which is a timing point) 5 minutes before it's departure time, the driver didn't open the doors but turned off the engine, you would wait behind the bus for 5 minutes as it's "best to wait behind", even though you would be parked on double yellow lines near a junction and would be causing an obstruction? By the way that is the bus stop where I referred to an accident in an earlier post because a teenager crossed in front of a bus instead of walking up to the traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing which you can see behind the bus stop.

The council perhaps give you a clue that they expect people to drive around stationary buses by not putting the bus stops in the same place on both sides of the road.

 

[HS2isgood]

The opinion is often expressed on these forums (and amongst the rail advocacy scene) that there is a massive disconnect between the way that highway deaths are perceived and investigated and deaths that occur on the railways.

Perhaps there is a similar disconnect between deaths caused by covid and those from highway crashes:

• According to DfT, between 1951 and 2006 a total of 309,144 people were killed and 17.6 million were injured in accidents on British roads.
• In 2019, toxic air leads to the premature deaths of at least 40,000 people a year in the UK – 9,000 in London – and it leaves hundreds of thousands more suffering serious long-term health problems. (Royal College of Physicians).
• If you break your Covid quarantine in England - thus endangering public safety - the fine is £1000. If you public lives in danger with your car through excess speed the speeding ticket is £60. Does this difference in fine represent the likelihood and amount of injury that could be caused by these different misdemeanours?

Do you feel there is an absence of proportionality between our tolerance of highway and covid deaths? If so, how could the sense of public duty we have invoked for the covid crisis be applied to highway safety? If nothing else, highway deaths are an interesting experiment against which to measure the costs on personal freedom imposed by the Covid response. I believe we could as a society choose to reduce highway costs to zero and with fewer restrictions on personal liberty than that imposed by "lockdowns" which reduce (but not eliminate) covid deaths.

If we took highway deaths as seriously as covid deaths, cars would be banned, except in areas with poor public transportation, and we'd be talking about capacity issues in HS2 instead of talking about capacity issues in the WCML

 

[kristiang85]

If the smoke upset you that much why did you subject yourself to it ? - no once forced you to !!

Well obviously I'm not going to stop going to the pub because of that.

But my point is that I'm told to sit outside the pub with the smokers, for the benefit of my lung health. I find that ironic.

 

[typefish]

If you public lives in danger with your car through excess speed the speeding ticket is £60.

I'm in the process of researching into a potential campaign to remove or otherwise limit the exemptions that police officers and other emergency service workers have with regards to exceeding speed limits. I mean, if I can't safely do 100mph on a motorway (and as someone who does do such a thing - I can categorically tell you that it is safe when done properly) then surely the police shouldn't be in a position to do it either.

Therefore, can I count on your support when I get around to launching this campaign?

Hitherto road transport in general and personal motoring in particular has been at odds with the precautionary principle applied for commercial transport. This might be because it is sold as an exercise in personal liberty as much as a means of mobility. However, and in light of the curtailment in our liberties imposed to deal with Covid, giving motorists an exemption to continue to impose manageable risks on communities they pass through becomes much less tenable.

Also, the imposition in personal liberties for Covid was accepted as a stopgap whilst waiting for a vaccine or remedy which most people just assumed would come soon. Road safety is in a similar position now: we think that electric cars will be the majority soon, and eventually driverless technology will become viable. This will make cars both pollution free and unlikely to crash.

I wouldn't say what you're suggesting is an assault on personal liberties, but however an assault on personal responsibilities and not being given any incentives to be responsible.

Whilst vehicles have undoubtedly become safer, those in the road safety community have for whatever reason deemed it that every driver must be treated as if they're to be wrapped in cotton wool and rendered unable to think. And if drivers lose the ability to think, then they'll see a 50mph sign and see that it's good to do that speed around that really tight corner because some number on a post says it's okay.

And I do very much want zero people to be killed on the roads, or even injured for that matter - but hey, as long as those in power don't realise that they themselves are truly to blame, we'll be going nowhere.

Through enforcement, so that many drivers lose their licences and/or learn to obey the law
Through stopping toleration of pavement parking, moving parked vehicles on to the road, slows traffic, simples
(Yes my suggestion is serious)

I'd like to recommend you to live on a modern estate with narrow-ish roads. Please, tell me that you shouldn't park on the pavement when ambulances and fire engines can't get through due to people parking on the roads. It's not a fun experience not knowing whether or not an ambulance will reach you in a life threatening emergency due to poorly parked vehicles.

 

[yorkie]

People should not be blocking pavements, it's as simple as that. If there is nowhere else nearby to park, then they should park in a suitable place and walk from there.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

By the North Circular, nearby residential streets are choked with parked vehicles, both sides, on the pavements
They could park on the first lane of the North Circular instead, simples, makes space where people live, slows traffic
Same for arterial roads and leafy suburbs in many other towns

 

[Horizon22]

We are back to the 'might' again here aren't we? There is no direct evidence as to what effect the measures have had - the first lockdown was imposed at the end of winter, when all respiratory viruses would have been in decline anyway. The most recent lockdown has been so widely ignored that it's probably made little difference, especially considering that those shops which remain open have been busier.

If you think that the measures were solely / mainly responsible, how do you explain Sweden? Logically, they should have had a massive spike in April / May, way above that of all the countries which imposed lockdowns - but that didn't happen.

These measures are imposed on the basis of 'might'. Even when there is no evidence of them making any difference (masks particularlly) they are forced into more and more areas, and the very real negative effects on society (which are not 'might' - they are actually happening) are simply ignored.

And if NHS capacity was such an issue, why didn't they remove all restrictions in the summer (a better time for it to spread, as the NHS is always busier in winter), and take steps to build up capacity? In 8 months they could have achieved quite a lot, but appear to have done nothing at all.

Of course we are in 'might' territory. And that works both ways and in any aspect of life. We can't know either way, but any measures to prevent contact between people - with lockdown being the most extreme - will have an impact. The respiratory virus wasn't in decline when it was going up through March and April. Ultimately we can only speculate and that comes to whether we locked down earlier for instance, or not at all. A lot of things in this country are done on probabilities or risk (the chance of 'might' if you will). Masks being the example you used; they might (I would say do) ensure that less particulates are spread by individuals, but the overall cost of wearing masks is relatively low so it "might as well be done". Lockdown is a far greater risk and don't disagree that there are very negative risks which may be disproportionate.

Even though Sweden didn't 'lockdown', it did rely on fewer people mixing and meeting voluntarily which is of course going to reduce cases. My original point stands; putting in some restrictions will have had some impact. Quantifying it is of course hard and we are not data scientists.

 

[DB]

Of course we are in 'might' territory. And that works both ways and in any aspect of life. We can't know either way, but any measures to prevent contact between people - with lockdown being the most extreme - will have an impact. The respiratory virus wasn't in decline when it was going up through March and April. Ultimately we can only speculate and that comes to whether we locked down earlier for instance, or not at all. A lot of things in this country are done on probabilities or risk (the chance of 'might' if you will). Masks being the example you used; they might (I would say do) ensure that less particulates are spread by individuals, but the overall cost of wearing masks is relatively low so it "might as well be done". Lockdown is a far greater risk and don't disagree that there are very negative risks which may be disproportionate.

Even though Sweden didn't 'lockdown', it did rely on fewer people mixing and meeting voluntarily which is of course going to reduce cases. My original point stands; putting in some restrictions will have had some impact. Quantifying it is of course hard and we are not data scientists.

I very strongly disagree with you on masks. In no country is there any evidence of a mask mandate leading to a drop in infections in the expected timescale. As someone unable to wear a mask I am getting sick of being treated like toxic scum by Maskivists and jobsworths when out and about.

Perhaps if you were one of us who are clearly regarded as vermin by a proportion of the population, you wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the cost is 'relatively low'.

And regarding Sweden, the measures they have taken are much less than this country. If the measures taken here were actually effective, they would have had a higher percentage increase than we have - but that hasn't been the case.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I thought the emergency medics were always sent to 'accidents' where people may have been hurt. Often enough they are not needed, if no-one is hurt or if people are obviously dead
If the cops enforced the law, maximum speed limits especially, many fewer 'accidents' would occur, so the paramedics would have lots less to do

 

[typefish]

I thought the emergency medics were always sent to 'accidents' where people may have been hurt. Often enough they are not needed, if no-one is hurt or if people are obviously dead
If the cops enforced the law, maximum speed limits especially, many fewer 'accidents' would occur, so the paramedics would have lots less to do

Most accidents happen below the speed limit, in fact, more than 95% of them happen below the speed limit.