In light of the Governments recent proposals to slash the national limit to 50mph and to 20mph in towns, I was wondering if anybody could think of some more intelligent ways to save the c300 lives the govt. are talking about, preferabley without sacrificing any vital freedoms.
I have a few proposals;
- Big crackdown on uninsured, drunk, drugged drivers. Surely must account for a vast no. of fatalities.
- Give every new driver a demonstration on a seatbelt simulator to give them some idea of the forces involved even in a low speed impact.
- Better education in car maintainance for those sitting test. Learn the finer points of motoring, not just how to operate a car.
|
I would reduce;
signs
road paint
cameras
traffic lights
the number employed in road safety
I would spend the money on driver and pedestrian education, primarily reinforcing the message that road safety is the individual's responsibility, not the state's or the HA's or the council's.
While I know it must devastate those involved, 3000 or so lives per year is at the level of background noise when compared with the number of passenger journeys undertaken every year, and it shouldn't be dominating our thinking. There's no problem with road safety in the UK, and really it needs less spending on it rather than more.
It's a bit like the MP expense claim fiasco. The money we're getting all het up about is truly trivial compared to the sums which are dragging the country as a whole down the pan.
|
While I know it must devastate those involved 3000 or so lives per year is at the level of background noise when compared with the number of passenger journeys undertaken every year and it shouldn't be dominating our thinking. There's no problem with road safety in the UK and really it needs less spending on it rather than more.
I really could not agree more with this.
|
I really could not agree more with this.
And me. While each death is a personal tragedy, frankly far more people die of other causes than those on the road.
The level of deaths on the road is in the statistical baseline noise level. The 80/20 rule kicks in and to reduce the level further requires huge levels of effort and expense and severe disruption to daily life
we have our baseline level, (and have had for a few years). If it goes up fix it, but to try and chase it down is a waste of time and effort, and frankly a smokescreen.
|
>> I really could not agree more with this. And me. >>
And me. Billions of journeys every year. The odd coming together is inevitable. That is not in any way to diminish my sympathy to relatives of any innocent victims of said comings together.
|
|
|
The level of deaths on the road is in the statistical baseline noise level.
That's all right then.
What about the 27,774 seriously injured and 247,780 total injuries (2007 figures). Is that background noise too? Seems quite noisy to me.
Apart form the human cost the actual cost of providing emergency services is colossal.
Surely it is possible to reduce these numbers further. Seems a bit lame to somehow take the view that nothing can or should be done.
|
> Thats all right then
Yes its fine - Lets look at the numbers you failed to mention,
Based on that 2007 report
There were a total of 247,780 casualties of all severities, 4 per cent lower than in 2006. 2,946 people were killed, 7 per cent lower than in 2006, 27,774 were seriously injured (down 3 per cent on 2006) and 217,060 were slightly injured (down 4 per cent on 2006).
So to do nothing, is a vaild course of action as clearly the current measures are sufficient.
Edited by Altea Ego on 22/05/2009 at 14:30
|
"clearly the current measures are sufficient".
Sufficent for what?
Should we not be a little more ambitious in our targets? Say halve the 2007 figures in five years.
|
"clearly the current measures are sufficient". Sufficent for what? Should we not be a little more ambitious in our targets? Say halve the 2007 figures in five years.
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here, Here. Seconded by myself.
|
|
|
|
Very good stuff NC, the minimalist approach is best.
Most people thinking about this fall into the same trap as legislators: assuming that more rules and a busier road landscape will improve things, when really they will make them worse.
|
|
|
There's no problem with road safety in the UK and really it needs less spending on it rather than more.
I completely disagree. I'm on the verge of giving up motorbiking after the number of car drivers not paying attention seems to have reached tipping point.
|
>> There's no problem with road safety in the UK and really it needs less spending on it rather than more. I completely disagree. I'm on the verge of giving up motorbiking after the number of car drivers not paying attention seems to have reached tipping point.
Spending taxpayer's money is never ever going to make motorcycling safe, and would represent a waste that makes the MP's expenses seem like good housekeeping.
What you're actually on the verge of doing is accepting that road safety is the individual's responsibility, not the state's or the HA's or the council's.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the crackdown, but the issue is not particularly the catching of them, which is already done, but the punishment they get, and, in the case of banned drivers, a way of preventing them driving again whilst banned... Most of the "incidents" I see in my local paper involved people who have already been banned doing it again and causing mayhem... The only way i can see of enforcing it is to have some sort of electronic tag on the car and the person which will only allow them to drive if they are legal... but I can't see that happenning any time shortly...
Crack that one and the rest will follow...
|
|
|
- Big crackdown on uninsured drunk drugged drivers.
An uninsured driver is not necessarily dangerous.
A driver who is drunk or drugged is, as is a driver on the telephone (handheld or handsfree), one not paying proper attention, driving dangerously, or one driving a faulty car.
|
I would introduce more signs.
Small repeater signs especially before camera sites to reduce slamming on brakes by those that are unsure of the speed limit.
I would sort out route direction signs so that it is easy to navigate unfamiliar locations especially towns so that concentration is on the road and not searching for directions.
As part of this it should mean that some existing signs can be removed.
All vehicles to have mandatory tyre pressure monitors and bulb monitors.
Maybe all newly qualified drivers within say 25 miles of a fast dual carriageway to have lessons on how to join and drive with the flow.
Driving simulator based checks for all new drivers to check their ability to recognise hazards that they do not meet on their test route.
Some form of demonstrator to show the truckers view of ignorant car drivers actions in and around trucks.
Mandatory comprehensive eyesight tests for all say every 5 years til 40 then annually.
|
|
|
I would crack down on unlicenced drivers, including better identity checks at test centres to cut out impersonation.
I would increase the speed limiter settings on lorries and raise their speed limits to reduce convoys and the temptation to overtake inappropriately.
I would review all speed limits and use the Rule of 85, setting the limit to at least the speed at which 85% of drivers would travel if the road were unlimited and reduce the number of speed cameras.
I would introduce random tests for drink and drugs.
Most of all I would introduce unmarked video-equipped police cars who could pick up the 99% instances of careless and dangerous drivin that cameras ignore.
|
|
Stop under 25's being able to drive powerful cars. Being a young male myself I hate to say that so many of them just do not have the maturity to operate such a powerful engine.
|
Being a young male myself I hate to say that so many of them just do not have the maturity to operate such a powerful engine.
How about a campaign for more mature F1 drivers Rattle? Those young chavs are always staging the most horrendous high-speed shunts, and in front of everyone too. It ought to be put a stop to, I agree.
:o}
|
|
|
Stop under 25's being able to drive powerful cars. Being a young male myself I hate to say that so many of them just do not have the maturity to operate such a powerful engine.
there's so many comments on this thread that I could pick up on but, as Rattles is so topical for me (I turned 25 this week) I must pick this one.
I don't think that this will make any difference Rattle, for starters, this is already partially done by insurance premiums, I'm sure you'll have noticed that the vast majority of under-25's drive around in horrible little buzz boxes fitted with 1.0 or 1.2 engines for mainly this reason.
The problem therefore, isn't the cars that are being driven by under-25's, it's the standard of their driving that is at fault.
I've been driving cars with moderately warm performance (compared to the usual array of buzz boxes though they're pretty brisk) since I was 21, I've had a BMW 323Ci, MG TF 135 (that was "fun" in the wet), Mondeo V6 and of course my old Focus TDCi Sport. These cars are all, without a doubt, safer than the equivalent "safe" Saxo, Clio, Fiesta or Corsa that could be bought at the time.
I vividly remember coming around a roundabout in the wet when a young lady in a Saxo approached too quickly to slow down, my ABS kicked in and I pulled up to a safe and controlled stop whilst circling the roundabout, she locked her front wheels (and with that lost the ability to steer) and went barrelling out half way onto the roundabout. Now then, that's just one little example of how when driven sensibly, a decent car gets you out of trouble rather than into it.
I also have examples where a weak and gutless little car can get you into trouble when not driven sensibly. I guess the point that I'm trying to make in quite a long winded manner is that most under-25's that splatter themselves over Britain's roads do so in small and underpowered cars, often very old ones as well because that is all they can afford. I certain;y don't see many Imprezza's or Focus ST's wrapped around lamposts by young drivers, so therefore, why ban them? Especially when you consider that some under 25's (myself included until this week) need to drive large engined vehicles as part of their jobs sometimes.
|
|
The problem is they drive fast whatever there in a smart car can do 86mph, a 1 litre seat arosa can do 93mph thats the speed they'll get driven at.
|
|
|
|
|
I would increase the speed limiter settings on lorries and raise their speed limits to reduce convoys and the temptation to overtake inappropriately.
I don't follow that - we had convoys before we had the 56mph limiters, if you do away with it all you'll get is faster convoys... that limiter is something that I'd leave... but what I would do is ban all HGVs from the roads during rush hours and encourage more overnight HGV work.
|
>
>>but what I would do is ban all HGVs from the roadsduring rush hours and encourage more overnight HGV work.
Is that because your journey is more important than theirs? Why not get a job on nights and see how you like it?
Delivery drivers already have to cope with enough restrictions in city centres already, without making it even more difficult.
Overnight HGV work is all very well, and I think many operators already use that to the maximum, but would I be right in thinking that you'd complain just as much, if not more, if all the deliveries in your town were done during the wee small hours and the noise of lorries kept you awake; or the cost of everything rose yet again owing to companies having to employ more staff to handle nocturnal deliveries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to agree with Number Cruncher on this one. I feel that excess road paint, signage, traffic calming etc. all help lull people into a false sense of security and negate the need to think too deeply about the situation. I see people drive very quikly on very narrow, twisty roads if they are festooned with high-grip sections, double white lines, warning signs and arrows everywhere. No amount of these 'safety' measures can cure the fact that it is still a narrow and twisty road, they only serve to allow people to go faster.
|
It is not the roads that are the problem - it is the people that use them.
How many of you have even looked at, never mind studied, a drivers road craft manual, and not just the Highway Code, or taken any form of driving tuition since you passed your driving test?
What would be wrong with all every 5 years since passing, sitting a full retest for each and all categories of licences held for those under 50 years old and then every 3 years for over 50's and two or even annually for those over 60?
To make the roads an even safer place, those sentenced for any category or degree of dangerous, careless and drink driving; should never get their licences back.
|
Get rid of silly road furniture overkill
Too much paint on the road. Bump thump approaching roundabouts is ridiculous. Is it so I can approach with my eyes closed?
Air bags & seat belts=invincible. Get rid of them all. You tend to be a bit more careful when you know you could go flying, wearing a Pilkington collarette.
Get rid of speed cameras. We know they don't save lives, the game's over.
More police patrols please
|
>Air bags & seat belts=invincible. Get rid of them all. You tend to be a bit more careful >when you know you could go flying, wearing a Pilkington collarette.
Oh ho
Here we go, the old spike in the centre of the steering wheel routine. What a load of old cods!
Why not go the whole hog and strap your children to the front of the car radiator?
|
|
That would restrict air flow and the car would overheat. Good for keeping flies off though. Wouldn't have to listen to "are we there yet?" either... ;-)
|
I do think there's more that could be done in terms of continuing education. On passing the test I'd issue the licence for 18 months. The new driver would have to a) attend a couple of hours' worth of road safety sessions, given by serving/recently retired Traffic officers, showing them the potential for accidents driving when drunk/drugged/tired/car in dangerous condition. Show them the nasty crashes that have happened in their area, by the officers who had to do the clearing up - shock tactics, but may work.
There might even be a req. for a one hour lesson/assessment with a suitably qualified instructor after twelve months driving, to point out bad habits.
They'd get their licence to 75 when they had completed the continuation training. Non-completion = withdrawal of licence and start over....
|
I do think there's more that could be done in terms of continuing education.
I agree. I think there should be mandatory top-up training every 5 years. It could include an overview of new traffic laws and an accompanied drive pointing out a few of the bad habits. Say 0.5 day, with an option for a skidpad in the afternoon.
For so many of the drivers on the road they face going from no penalty for using their mobile (say) to facing several years in jail for killing someone - yet all they've done is continue a bad habit which they've got away with for the last 300 or 600 days. We need some intervention.
|
|
|
|
It takes two for an accident to occur (usually) I drive on the defensive, well I would do being an ex biker!
I was driving from Camelford to Truro in Cornwall mid day today - along what is called The Atlantic Highway - A39, this road is well known for its yearly fatalities, usually tourists, well, I was driving along at a mimserish 50MPH and a heavy lorry + a motorcaravan came flying around the blind bend *over my side* of the centre line but, although it certainly woke me up - I'm still here (I think!)
Sooooooooo many accidents can be avoided by what I call class 1 (Police) driving
Keep em peeled!
|
|
Another vote here for NC's approach. If you take out the drunk, drugged and damned foolish, the number killed will shrink dramatically.
|
I certainly agree with on-going driver assessment. Lets face it, it many walks of life and with a lot of jobs, people need regular assessments on how to handle machinery.
First Aiders for instance also get tested every few years and have to regain their certificate.
There are even courses run so that you can be taught how to use a ladder safely even if you've been climbing them for 40 years so if it can be done for something as simple as a set of aluminium steps surely ongoing assessment of driver's skills on these busy roads should be law.
We all do daft things on the road from time to time and an accident or near miss often sobers us up for a few weeks before we forget about it and go back to our old bad habits. If there was the thought we could have our licences revoked maybe we'd put a bit more effort in each and everyday.
It won't stop every incident but may go someway to prevent a few.
|
I would make the actual driving test far more stringent with a certain number of hours compulsory, under qualified instruction, before the test. I think there should be more on the practical side too, as a driver who knows what makes the engine turn is a more sympathetic operator of the clutch and brake.
I would also like to see 2 hours of Motorway instruction needed immediately after passing the test.
Remove signs and force people to think for themselves.
Fit a breathtester to every ignition key that immobilises the vehicle if even a tad over the limit.
Ban cars from parking within a half of a mile of a school, to encourage families to walk more.
I could go on, but maybe I better sit back and take the flak for this first:)
Pat
Edited by pda on 22/05/2009 at 20:27
|
|
|
|
I was driving from Camelford to Truro in Cornwall mid day today
What, near the cheese factory?
|
|
Put everyone on a 125cc motorcycle for a year before they're allowed out in a car. That and teach everyone to drive a RWD car.
|
Agree with Pugugly that the lack of a biking phase before going onto a car does nothing for road awareness.
Th other thing is that as cars get improved roadholding, acceleration, steering response and braking, people just drive that much nearer the limit assuming that the vehicle will always get them out of trouble, instead letting the improved performance add to the safety margin.
|
|
A nice basic RWD car would soon sort that ham fisted stuff out.
Edited by Pugugly on 22/05/2009 at 23:38
|
|
|
my mate had a 125cc bike for 9 omnths before he stuck it in side of a car, totally there fault you understand thats why he never got any compensation or another bike....buys a car a couple of years later he's had about 7 or 8 crashes without needing to involve the insurance (friends, familes...and cash in hand).
|
|
|
|
>>> What, near the cheese factory? <<<
You are probably referring to Cathedral City cheese FT, the Cathedral City is Truro but the cheese is made at Davidstowe which is just outside Camelford on the edge of Bodmin Moor.
|
>>> What near the cheese factory? <<< You are probably referring to Cathedral City cheese FT
No.
the Cathedral City is Truro but the cheese is made at Davidstowe which is just outside Camelford on the edge of Bodmin Moor.
If you go to Launceston from Camelford the only bit of the A39 you'll travel is the bit that goes past the cheese factory, unless you're going by a pretty strange route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would be wrong with all every 5 years since passing sitting a full retest for each and all categories of licences held for those under 50 years old and then every 3 years for over 50's and two or even annually for those over 60?
I agree. More driver training is required. However as younger drivers are more accident prone why test them less frequently?
Airline pilots are highly trained. Imagine a BA pilot trying to burn off an air France airliner on the runway! But on the roads such competition is common, encourged by motor companies selling 'sport' models
|
|
Airline pilots have to go and do simulator training and assessments every six months. It's not possible to practice for emergencies in passenger flights, so it's all done in the sim. Imagine if HGV drivers had to do the same!
|
|
I agree that much stricter driving tests repeated at short intervals would cull a lot of today's drivers. Quite an expensive and inconvenient way of doing it though.
|
I agree that much stricter driving tests repeated at short intervals would cull a lot of today's drivers. Quite an expensive and inconvenient way of doing it though.
The trouble is Lud, it would cull a lot of very safe drivers too. I was in the business for 20 years and could pass a test 9 times out of ten with one eye shut because I know exactly what is required and how to deal with the psychology of sitting a test. But we all have bad days, especially when we know our job and our lifestyle are going to disappear instantly if we make a mistake.
Imagine taking the bus home from the test centre, having to tell your employer you won't be available for your job which involves driving for at least the next 3 to 6 months and arranging for someone to collect the car you can no longer drive and bring it home.
Accidents are not caused by basic lack of skill, but the failure to put the skills you already have into practice in any particular instance. The people best equipped to pass a re-test would be the arrogant two foot from your bumper red light runners who are the most dangerous road users. They are actually very good car controllers in most cases and can easily adjust their driving to suit, but get the bit of paper they need and it is back to not giving a stuff again till the next test.
|
|
I agree with most of that RR. The thought that a lot of competent drivers would fail the test because they were having a bad day was what made me add 'inconvenient' to 'expensive'. But it's the expense that rules the idea out.
|
|
|
I did say TRAINING and not testing. If properly trained drivers do not drive too close. As for cost I can imagine the howls of protest at a £100 fee, but compared with the depreciation some people are happy with on their vehicles it is a mere pittance.
Farm sprayer operators are required to undergo a test every 3 years and have to collect a number of points by various means to qualify. How many deaths did these cause and how many less are there now? NONE!
|
|
|
|
|
SQWhat would be wrong with all every 5 years since passing sitting a full retest for each and all categories of licences held for those under 50 years old and then every 3 years for over 50's and two or even annually for those over 60?
Logisticly impossible.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 23/05/2009 at 03:54
|
|
In addition, most of what has been suggested would be too expensive as well...
|
its been a long day and havent read all these posts but scanned them so apologies if its been said ,but i have a definative view of what all new drivers should be made to see
take then to the local compound where the weeks wrecks are pulled into by the police approved road clearer
anybody who looks at these blood infested wrecks with barely visible means of determining the model should reconsider the notion that newtons laws are indeed valid and brick walls or trees do come out of crashes better
here endeth the sermon,my brother ron
|
I would increase the use of driving bans and retests as a punishment. Persistent bad drivers could be judged psychologically unfit to drive (in the same way as some people now are judged medically unfit to drive).
I would phase out 'derestricted' signs and replace them with '60' ones on single carriageways and '70' ones on dual carraigways and motorways.
I would try and devise a way that your road tax and insurance have to be renewed when your car passes its MOT - so all 3 coincide.
I would build more cycle lanes that are physically separated from the main carriageway.
I would concentrate roadbuilding projects on improving dangerous junctions.
|
"Persistent bad drivers could be judged psychologically unfit to drive (in the same way as some people now are judged medically unfit to drive)."
But you have to catch them first, which is what our speed camera orientated "road safety" mentality cannot do.
Swap two milliion or so speeding tickets for one hundred thousand careless or dangerous driving prosecutions and there would be a dramatic improvement.
|
But you have to catch them first which is what our speed camera orientated "road safety" mentality cannot do.
They do that now... and then let them off with a slap on the wrist or yet another ban on top of the ones they already have...
And then they go out and do it again....
And again...
And again.... until they injure or kill someone and then they are stuck away for a short period of time...
If you are banned then it must MEAN banned... and ENFORCED.
|
>>Removing signsFit to drive
>>
Sadly another fatal head on crash reported today with four killed.
Yet another on a Motorway. This seems to be happening more often.
I can think of no answer.
|
|
I would increase the use of driving bans and retests as a punishment.
Still wouldn't keep the idiots off the road who think a licence, MOT and insurance are unnecessary.
I would try and devise a way that your road tax and insurance have to be renewed when your car passes its MOT - so all 3 coincide.
Why? Not all of us have the means to pay for all three at once.
I would build more cycle lanes that are physically separated from the main carriageway.
And prosecute cyclists who fail to use them I hope?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-introduce traffic police. Remove all fixed speed cameras, specs and everything else. Set speed limits properly. 30 in built up areas. 40 on urban roads of a certain size. 50 on urban dual carriageways. NSL everywhere else unless there is a flipping good reason for it to be less. The HGV limit on NSL needs to be raised to 50 immediately. Raise motorway limit to 80. Remove truck limiters and set the HGV max speed to about 65. Anyone caught speeding by an officer must have a chat by the road and be talked to, not just sent a letter in the post. Their speed must be a danger not a technical infringement to get a penalty.
Compulsory further driving education for all commercial drivers focussing on COAST. All male drivers under the age of 25 to be given a fear of death as their brains don't naturally develop it until around 25.
The minimum driver standards need improving. The irony is that the slowest 30% on the roads are actually the most dangerous so time needs to be spent on undoing the damage the 'just stick to the speed limit and you'll be ok' brigade has done. The 90% percentile drivers are actually the safest. Inattention is the biggest killer out there. The criminal drivers and those here driving on foreign licences are also much more dangerous than the average driver.
Anyone with a fault accident claim should be offered a free driving improvement programme that would also stop their premium from rising due to the accident. Further accidents would lead to compulsory education and possibly even having to retake the test as more than a few fault accidents indicates incompetence. Those with poor accident records need to be targetted actively.
Accidents involve speed, space and surprise. If you increase road space by removing obstructions you help one element. All humps, chicanes and other buffoonery to go. Surprise can be tackled with better driver education and having a good crackdown on people that make basic driving errors such as failure to indicate correctly at roundabouts. Speed has to be tackled in such a way that drivers are educated to choose a safe speed under the prevailing conditions not just blindly doing whatever is on the sign.
All commercial drivers should also have to have maximum enforced driving times. Multi drop drivers and other drivers should not be forced to drive without care to meet their bosses schedules. Company owners that put pressure on drivers should be prosecuted.
Anyone caught using a handheld phone while driving should be required to have a phone blocker fitted to their car for the next 2 years so they can't use their phone. Subsequent offenders would have their phone disabled by the network when it was moving as clearly they're too thick to stop or too self important. Handsfree mobile phone use should also be discouraged as latest research by the TRL has shown that even handsfree leads to serious driver impairment.
|
I agree with the bulk of that, teabelly. The thing that dismayed me most while I was learning to drive was my instructor's insistance that I should blandly adhere to the prescribed speed limit at all times, and to brake or accelerate as quickly as possible when arriving at a new limit. I believe that drivers should be better educated in real world situations and given the power to use personal judgement to their advantage.
|
Too much common sense there, teabelly
It'll never happen :-(
|
''Their speed must be a danger not a technical infringement to get a penalty. ''
That's the key point for me. Lots of common sense, teabelly. Run for parliament!
|
|
|
|
