What should be done to improve road safety?

[12LDA28C]

I would back a move to make all cars limited to 70 mph, would make the motorways a lot safer.

mods note - split from this thread

Would it? What percentage of accidents / deaths on UK motorways for example, are caused by cars travelling at more than 70mph, compared to say careless driving, drivers failing to react to other road users / their surroundings and so on?

 

[PsychoMouse]

Would it? What percentage of accidents / deaths on UK motorways for example, are caused by cars travelling at more than 70mph, compared to say careless driving, drivers failing to react to other road users / their surroundings and so on?

And what if you need to accelerate (briefly past the speed limit) out of a dangerous situation?

I've had to do that a couple of times because of people changing lanes without looking

 

[jfowkes]

Would it? What percentage of accidents / deaths on UK motorways for example, are caused by cars travelling at more than 70mph, compared to say careless driving, drivers failing to react to other road users / their surroundings and so on?

The government have a very nice tool for road accident statistics (https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/custom-downloads/road-accidents).

For example (I know this isn't the exact question you asked, I just wanted to try it out), in 2021 there were 22,758 fatal or serious injury accidents on the roads, of which 1410 (6.2%) occurred on roads with 70mph speed limits (679 of these, 3%, were on motorways).

Unfortunately you can't filter by accidents where speed was a factor. RAS0704 is a dataset that does contain this information, but not categorised by road/speed limit type.

 

[Krokodil]

Would it? What percentage of accidents / deaths on UK motorways for example, are caused by cars travelling at more than 70mph, compared to say careless driving, drivers failing to react to other road users / their surroundings and so on?

Where speed is a factor, boy racers on country roads seem to cause far more fatal accidents than motorways. Intelligent Speed Assist can unfortunately be switched off so won't help in that situation.

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

And what if you need to accelerate (briefly past the speed limit) out of a dangerous situation?

Intelligent Speed Assist permits short bursts of speed.

 

[12LDA28C]

Where speed is a factor, boy racers on country roads seem to cause far more fatal accidents than motorways. Intelligent Speed Assist can unfortunately be switched off so won't help in that situation.

Indeed, which suggests that limiting cars to 70mph would not necessarily make motorways safer, as was claimed.

 

[jfowkes]

Indeed, which suggests that limiting cars to 70mph would not necessarily make motorways safer, as was claimed.

It's not going to make them more dangerous, if you are allowed "emergency" bursts to get out of trouble.

Even a slight reduction in deaths and injuries (not to mention the economic savings from fewer motorway closures) is still a benefit.

Imagine explaining to someone who has lost a relative "well, we could have legislated for the car that killed your Dad to have automatic speed limiting, but we thought the risk was so low it wasn't worth it. Sucks to be you though."

 

[PsychoMouse]

It's not going to make them more dangerous, if you are allowed "emergency" bursts to get out of trouble.

Even a slight reduction in deaths and injuries (not to mention the economic savings from fewer motorway closures) is still a benefit.

Imagine explaining to someone who has lost a relative "well, we could have legislated for the car that killed your Dad to have automatic speed limiting, but we thought the risk was so low it wasn't worth it. Sucks to be you though."

You're trying to find a solution to a problem which doesn't really exist. The UK's roads are some of the safest in the world.

 

[PGAT]

You're trying to find a solution to a problem which doesn't really exist. The UK's roads are some of the safest in the world.

Try explaining that to one involved in a serious or fatal injury. Just because it’s lower doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem

 

[Krokodil]

You're trying to find a solution to a problem which doesn't really exist. The UK's roads are some of the safest in the world.

Just so long as you don't breathe in the fumes.

 

[Falcon1200]

Unfortunately you can't filter by accidents where speed was a factor.

Speed is surely a factor, but not necessarily the cause, in every single road accident, because the faster vehicles are travelling when an accident occurs, the more devastating the consequences.

 

[jfowkes]

Speed is surely a factor, but not necessarily the cause, in every single road accident, because the faster vehicles are travelling when an accident occurs, the more devastating the consequences.

I should have specifically said speeding (being over the limit). Specifically those accidents that would not have occurred if the driver had not been speeding, because of reaction time, braking distance etc.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's not going to make them more dangerous, if you are allowed "emergency" bursts to get out of trouble.

Even a slight reduction in deaths and injuries (not to mention the economic savings from fewer motorway closures) is still a benefit.

Imagine explaining to someone who has lost a relative "well, we could have legislated for the car that killed your Dad to have automatic speed limiting, but we thought the risk was so low it wasn't worth it. Sucks to be you though."

Poor control of speed (at 70mph or below), lack of awareness of other road users and poor judgement causes far more deaths on the roads than speed alone, as has already been pointed out.

 

[jfowkes]

Poor control of speed (at 70mph or below), lack of awareness of other road users and poor judgement causes far more deaths on the roads than speed alone, as has already been pointed out.

Not denying that. We can fix more than one thing at a time.

 

[renegademaster]

It's not going to make them more dangerous, if you are allowed "emergency" bursts to get out of trouble.

Even a slight reduction in deaths and injuries (not to mention the economic savings from fewer motorway closures) is still a benefit.

Imagine explaining to someone who has lost a relative "well, we could have legislated for the car that killed your Dad to have automatic speed limiting, but we thought the risk was so low it wasn't worth it. Sucks to be you though."

You can make this emotionally manipulative argument to ban basically anything with slightest amount of danger. "Sorry your husband died of falling tree to head , only if we legislated everyone had to walk around with motorcycle helmets on, sucks to be you I guess"

 

[jfowkes]

You can make this emotionally manipulative argument to ban basically anything with slightest amount of danger. "Sorry your husband died of falling tree to head , only if we legislated everyone had to walk around with motorcycle helmets on, sucks to be you I guess"

Falling tree branches are true accidents that are mostly unpredictable. Speeding cars are deliberate, illegal acts. The correct metaphor here would be that people are recklessly throwing tree branches at other people's heads, but that there's a simple piece of technology we could fit to the tree branches to stop that happening.

 

[philthetube]

Speed is surely a factor, but not necessarily the cause, in every single road accident, because the faster vehicles are travelling when an accident occurs, the more devastating the consequences.

Speed is deff a factor, if all vehicles are stationary then no accidents, (regarding the thread title I am not sure I should have posted this as it is logical.

 

[al78]

Speed is deff a factor, if all vehicles are stationary then no accidents, (regarding the thread title I am not sure I should have posted this as it is logical.

It is a factor in some collisions (excessive speed for the conditions), not all. Higher speeds increase the consequences of collisions which is not the same as causing the collision. A cause could be not paying attention which can happen at any speed. The collision that nearly killed me happened at a low speed (estimated <15 mph) and was caused by carelessness.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Try explaining that to one involved in a serious or fatal injury. Just because it’s lower doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem

It can never be zero risk. That would be impossible.

Our roads are plenty safe enough.

 

[yorksrob]

It can never be zero risk. That would be impossible.

Our roads are plenty safe enough.

Just like the railways were with opening windows, and is with the third rail.

 

[PsychoMouse]

With five deaths a day on the roads? I don’t think so. Most dangerous form of transport.

Disingenuous. Millions and millions of journeys every single day. You're much more likely to die staying at home than you are in your car.

How many of those deaths are because the driver is drunk/drugged up/tired rather than purely speeding? A limiter of 70mph or other ludicrous suggestions on this thread would do precisely nothing to bring this figure down.

Just like the railways were with opening windows, and is with the third rail.

False comparisons, which have nothing to do with speed or road safety. Do you want all windows on cars to be permanently closed, is that what you're saying?

 

[yorksrob]

False comparisons, which have nothing to do with speed or road safety. Do you want all windows on cars to be permanently closed, is that what you're saying?

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.

 

[PsychoMouse]

There isn't any 'carnage' on our roads.

 

[stuu]

There isn't any 'carnage' on our roads.

The number of deaths s about the same as a 737 crashing every 5-6 weeks. What would that be described as if it happened? Business as usual?

 

[PsychoMouse]

The number of deaths s about the same as a 737 crashing every 5-6 weeks. What would that be described as if it happened? Business as usual?

What are the figures in comparable countries to the UK?

Do you own a car? Are you (truthfully) scared of driving? I highly doubt you are because it's incredibly safe. 200 people dying in the what must be bordering on billions of journeys in the UK in 6 weeks is vanishingly small odds and it's being blown massively out of proportion on this thread for some odd reason.

Yes, obviously I'd like that number to be zero but it would be an impossible feat and silly ideas like putting 70mph limiters on cars is doing more harm than good.

 

[jfowkes]

Yes, obviously I'd like that number to be zero but it would be an impossible feat and silly ideas like putting 70mph limiters on cars is doing more harm than good.

What is the harm of putting speed limiters on cars, beyond the small increase in cost and material (material cost is probably zero given it's likely to be implemented in software)?

 

[PsychoMouse]

• 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.

Etc, etc, etc.

There are many ways that the government could legislate to make the roads even more safe than they already are but this suggestion is hyperbolic nonsense (on this forum? no never, surely not!), and thankfully a complete non-starter.

 

[gg1]

What is the harm of putting speed limiters on cars, beyond the small increase in cost and material (material cost is probably zero given it's likely to be implemented in software)?

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.

 

[stuu]

What are the figures in comparable countries to the UK?

Do you own a car? Are you (truthfully) scared of driving? I highly doubt you are because it's incredibly safe. 200 people dying in the what must be bordering on billions of journeys in the UK in 6 weeks is vanishingly small odds and it's being blown massively out of proportion on this thread for some odd reason.

No, but the point is that road deaths are far more accepted than they would be for any other form of transport. If planes were crashing at the same rate (per million km) as cars, no one would be flying.

Yes, obviously I'd like that number to be zero but it would be an impossible feat and silly ideas like putting 70mph limiters on cars is doing more harm than good.

Why would a speed limiter do any harm?

 

[xotGD]

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.

 

[PsychoMouse]

No, but the point is that road deaths are far more accepted than they would be for any other form of transport. If planes were crashing at the same rate (per million km) as cars, no one would be flying.

Why would a speed limiter do any harm?

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.

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.

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