Last night, at a family gathering, we were talking about the holidays years ago, and especially how the seven of us used to travel in my dad's Cortina Estate, 3 in the back and 2 in the boot, all over Europe at holiday time, as well as in Britain every time we all went out together.
This was of course before seatbelts, airbags etc. Someone else mentioned how we have all grown older, we have all spent our childhood cycling, but never wore a helmet. But now we wouldn't think of going out without a helmet.
Now I know everyone will have seen the various emails doing the rounds, you know the one that lists all the things we used to do and eat and how we managed to survive!
But as my dad says, he has driven for best part of 50 years and has never had an accident, although he wouldn't now do it, with hindsight he says he could still have been driving about without seatbelt, having people in the boot etc.
Is the risk todays now more than it was say 20,30 years ago? Anyone got the stats to hand? OK, if you do have an accident nowadays then you have better chance of survival but did lots of people really die in car accidents 20/30 years ago?
Has the advent of ABS and other such aides made cars safer, or made drivers take more risks? I understand there will be more vehicles on the road nowadays but there are also more roads?Where Mr Butcher may have driven his lorry and dropped off to ten retailers, nowadays he just drives to Tesco / Sains etc and does one delivery surely?
|
|
Cars are safer and seatbelts are mandatory so despite traffic density being much greater the roads are safer to use.
|
|
That was then. This is now. We have moved on, and not always for the better. Its ood to be able to remember the risks we all took-me included- in the past.
|
I think the number of fatalities has approximately halved since the 70's, so it must be safer now? I think certainly for car occupants.
John Adams has an interesting view of the seat belt law, see here:
john-adams.co.uk/2006/12/16/britains-seat-belt-law.../
|
According to the official statistics:
Compared with the 1994?98 average baseline, in 2006
? The number of people killed or seriously injured was under 32 thousand, 33 per cent below the baseline (Table 1a).
? The number of children killed or seriously injured was 52 per cent below the baseline.
? The slight casualty rate was 28 per cent below the baseline.
? The number of people killed was 11 per cent below the 1994?98 baseline.
? The number of children killed was 35 per cent below the 1994?98 baseline.
? In this period the traffic has risen by an estimated 15 per cent.
There are some other interesting observations:
This article describes the scope and limitations of the contributory factors information recently added to the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the second year of collection, including:
? Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 35 per cent of all accidents. Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents.
? Pedal cyclists; followed by LGV drivers are the most likely to be in an accident in which they failed to look properly, (25 per cent and 23 per cent respectively). Motorcycles are most likely to be in an accident with another vehicle that failed to look properly. Drivers or riders between 40 and 49 are the least likely to fail to look properly (17 per cent), but above this age the factor increases with driver/rider age.
? In 16 per cent of accidents involving injured or killed pedestrians, the pedestrian casualty had 'Pedestrian masked when crossing' as a contributory factor.
I think we need a major blitz on observation rather than just on speed!
|
Does anyone know the actual accident/incident statistics? I suspect there are more actualt crashes due to more vehicles competing for the same roadspace, but that the aforementioned vehicle safety improvements make injury or death of vehicle occupants far less likely. As the pedestrian safety rules start to bite, this should filter through to pedestrian injuries too.
Part of me can't help that the feeling of safety in a modern car, and the knowledge that you're cocooned in a safety cell with a berjillion airbags around you is a contributory factor to some of the truly appalling driving that is now a daily occurrence on the roads. As Sir Stirling Moss put it once when discussing modern F1, in his day you would never drive into someone deliberately, or force them off the road because one or both of you would probably die. Now it happens all the time. The same psychology can be applied to road users in my opinion.
cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 11/02/2008 at 10:24
|
DP - They're all available here.
tiny.cc/2ws6O (Links to the Dft website)
Edited by Marlot on 11/02/2008 at 10:30
|
|
Most motoring accidents ever in the UK was 1926-and that is total accidents NOT per thousand cars.
|
Most motoring accidents ever in the UK was 1926-and that is total accidents NOT per thousand cars.
Are you sure? According to the DFT official stats on road accidents and casualties started in 1926 when 4,886 deaths were recorded in 124,000 accidents.
Excluding the period during WW2 the most dangerous time on the roads was 1965-66 with just under 8,000 deaths per year in 300,000 accidents.
In 2006, total fatalities were 3,172 in 189,000 accidents.
|
|
When Airbags were first fitted Fifteen years ago I recall a Road Safety Expert saying that you would do more to reduce road casualties if you replaced the Airbag with a 6 inch spike aimed at the drivers chest.
|
There was a sketch on the radio on Saturday where the bloke was recalling being in the car with his Dad when he was a child, and mentioned seatbelts:
"Dad, what's this fabric belt thingy rolled up under the seat?"
"Whoa, dont you touch that, if you unravel that it could fly around in here and injure someone..."
|
My subjective view is:
It's difficult to judge whether driving standards have improved or deteriorated since teh 1970s. Vehicles are safer, main roads are safer, drink driving is less widespread. But there is more traffic and vehicles are generally capable of higher speeds.
I think there are fewer dangerous HGV drivers about now - the standard there is improved.
|
I really think we're in danger of worrying ourselves to death.
Fatalities per annum have bumped along at around 3500 for the past few years. Nearer 5000 in the seventies in spite of much lower traffic volumes. Injuries, minor accidents and near misses more difficult to quantify as definitions and perceptions change, bit I don't see family and colleagues falling like flies
Cycled 15 miles yesterday on rural Northants roads and hardly saw a car - helmets? pahhh.
|
Cycled 15 miles yesterday on rural Northants roads and hardly saw a car - helmets? pahhh.
It only needs one who didn't see YOU!
|
It only needs one who didn't see YOU!
But that would have been true years ago as well. I can hear as well as see cars and cyclists develop a sixth sense for the one that's not seen you.
A helmet might help if I fall off onto a kerb. If I'm hit unseen by a car then its no use at all.
|
you would do more to reduce road casualties if you replaced the Airbag with a 6 inch spike aimed at the drivers chest.
Bit radical but I can see the point if you'll forgive the pun! :-)
Modern cars come with such a wealth of safety devices that it must be tempting for younger drivers especially to think they're invincible; I'm pretty certain that the increased incidences of tailgating stem from the fact that drivers feel that they are protected even if they do drive too close.
Why, for example, do some drivers think that they can drive fast in foggy conditions simply because they've got their front and rear fog lights on? Or in wet conditions because they've got all-singing all-dancing super-grip tyres?
My "fun" motorcycle is a 1972 Harley Sportster; it'll do well over a ton but has single shoe drums front and rear, which whilst perfectly legal and up to MOT standard would be hard pressed to stop a clock! Consequently I ride the beast according to road conditions; that IMHO is what many drivers fail to do these days, for the reasons mentioned above.
|
A year or so back, I read a psychological report that argued that people in general, not just drivers, operate at a risk level that they feel comfortable with. In particular, the authors postulated that drivers tend to take more risks than earlier because cars and roads are safer than before. They drive to their own perceived level of maximum risk.
|
|
We've become more risk averse that's all.
|
risk averse
Polite, no, wheyfaced or something, phrase for what we would have called wimpish, if that word had been current at the time, before everything avalanched down into the present, er, pretty pass, sort of thing...
Edited by Lud on 12/02/2008 at 22:21
|
|
Put White Van Man back in BMC J4's, Ford Thamses and those appallingly dreadful Commer vans with the narrow front track - One sheet pf pressed steel between their knees and the accident! OK, van drivers have always had a bit of a reputation but it might cut down on the tailgating!
|
those appallingly dreadful Commer vans
oi!!
still the best looking van of its time and nothing like as bad as you might think
Edited by Webmaster on 14/02/2008 at 12:56
|
PU - more risk averse???? or more inclined to try and find some one else to blame???
Particularly if you believe the case for 'Risk homoeostasis' (also called risk compensation) theory predicts that, as safety features are added to vehicles and roads, drivers tend to increase their exposure to collision risk because they feel better protected.
The following article makes for interesting reading, but make sure that you read it to the end as 'the case for the defence' has some interesting points.
www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/324/7346/1149.pdf
happy reading.......
|
|
