Demand to maintain and improve safety standards are key factors for policy-makers and transport service providers. One widely believed theory is that speed is the cause of anything between a third to most of all road crash injuries or deaths. Correspondingly there are widespread calls for more measures to reduce vehicle speeds on roads – especially in residential areas of streets. There is currently a UK vogue for the spread of 20 mph zones. Enforcement of such limits can be achieved by the introduction of physical speed-reducing devices like road humps or deployment of automated enforcement cameras. But, in practice, ‘Exceeding speed limit’ was attributed to “3 per cent of cars involved in accidents” and five percent of all severities of accidents were a police officer attended – according to the latest DfT casualty report. In practice, speed is not the most common cause of traffic injuries, “Failed to look properly” is and was linked to 35% of all casualty incidents. It also transpires revealed that “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), and that “Motorcycles are most likely to be in an accident with another vehicle that failed to look properly”.
So, there is also support for reducing road casualties by increasing the deployment of traffic police – who unlike cameras are able to discern careless or dangerous driving that is not related to exceeding speed limits. How to optimise the improvement of transport safety is however the subject of great debate and considerable confusion. At one extreme there are groups and individuals who believe that it is possible and desirable to eliminate the prospect or even risk of injury from transport activities completely – well at least on roads. The leaders of this school of thought are a bunch of Swedes who founded an organisation called Vision Zero. They say: “it is possible to use a public health model combining research, engineering, education, and enforcement to arrive at a zero accident rate.” And what ever you may think of this notion, including an inclination to dismiss the whole idea as barking mad you should note that the UK’s very own Department for Transport took it so seriously that it commissioned a formal exploration of it and report, see for yourselves at DfT Project: Vision Zero On the other hand there are those who have very different views about such notions as Vision Zero and indeed the optimum way to maintain and enhance safety. One place to find a discussion about this idea is on a forum section of the Safe Speed website.
Further explorations of vision zero lead to a suggestion in the Telegraph (albeit perhaps a mischievous one) that one essential step in that direction would be to; Ban Motorcycles, Safety Expert Says There are of course a myriad of organisations with views on transport safety in the midst of which is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents RoSPA, and small but often quoted outfits like BRAKE .
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I have been following the development of potential Toll Roads ever since during the 1990s when I deduced that road safety was being used as an excuse to obstruct any alternatives. All three main parties are keen to demonstrate just how green they are and combating Global Warming. However, they all appear to support the continued introduction of traffic calming, ( mini-roundabouts etc. ) which increases carbon dioxide emissions by at least 50%, likewise 20 Mph Zones ( without humps or chicanes ) which add to emissions by 10%. The nastier potentially toxic pollutants are doubled by traffic calming.
The alleged road safety benefits are less than clear, heavily traffic calmed Burnley reported a 44% reduction in child deaths over the past seven years, yet Ribble Valley with minimal traffic calming also reported a fall of 42% despite being far away from any A&E department. The reduction in road deaths is a good thing, but may be mostly due to better paramedic ambulance services and now the air ambulance service. Better medical provision was introduced alongside traffic calming, it may be wrong to give traffic calming all the credit when its contribution may be minimal. I believe that casualties have been cut by 15% in the Borough of Barnet since they ripped out existing traffic calming, casualties for cyclists dropped by twice the London average.
It would appear that traffic calming has become a TB infested sacred cow for the eco-fascist leaning groups who were originally and still campaign for its introduction. It would appear that the eco-fascists cling to traffic calming in the belief that divers will be ” irritated ” out of their cars and use the train, at least a few anyway. If anyone had deliberately set out to design death traps for cyclists its doubtful whether they could have made a better job of it than traffic calming.
Getting back to Toll Roads, take the Ribble Valley for example, there were once two national speed limit routes into Preston, the direct A59 and through Longridge. The Longridge route now has a 40 Mph speed limit when it was safe to do 50 on most of the route. Similarly, the old A59 alternative route to the Whalley-Clitheroe by-pass has had the limit cut to 40 from 60, and many 40 sections have been reduced to an often ridiculous 30. I suspect that the busses struggle to keep time legally even though running on a 1960s timetable.
The Corporate Nazis in the civil service have been seriously planning toll roads for at least 20 years. In towns they use traffic calming to obstruct any direct route traffic might find as an alternative to toll roads. The safety fascists are making roads in towns almost totally impassable in decent time and now even TFL admits that it has been deliberately creating extra congestion under Labour’s Livingstone.
It is interesting to note that almost all the scenes of recent fatal Knife Crime featured traffic calming or a 20 Mph speed limit. The installation of traffic calming is probably the key step towards a residential area becoming totally run down and lawless. By deterring regular through traffic from the streets criminals have more opportunities to commit crime without detection. Gangs of youths are more likely to congregate and cause trouble if they don’t need to keep a sharp lookout for traffic. The evidence must show that almost all current semi-derelict slum areas have one thing in common, namely traffic calming installed at some point over the last 20 years. This must say something about the mentality of those alleged community leaders who campaign for the introduction of traffic calming. Take danger out of people’s life ( particularly teenagers ) and they may replace it with something far worse.
The current main argument for imposing traffic calming is totally based on the NIMBY philosophy, ten bob fat cat property speculators desperately attempting to increase the theoretical value of their home. It would appear that they were under the impression that they actually own the road outside their mortgaged house and can dictate who can or can’t use it, only a complete fool would buy a house with traffic calming on the street, especially if it was adjacent to an obstacle.
It would appear that traffic calming and the imposition of unrealistically low speed limits are being used to discourage drivers from using any route other than a potential future ” Corporate Nazi ” toll road, pay the toll or use more fuel and take twice as long to get there. People are already using far more fuel than they need to avoiding traffic calmed roads or unrealistically low speed limit routes, it also causes congestion on the main routes under pressure.
Traffic should flow though the town like blood in arteries, if the main route becomes restricted, traffic flows on the most convenient alternative route. Drivers are likely to ” speed ” in inappropriate places to make up time lost through traffic calming or sections of road with ridiculously low speed limits. This leads to more requests for traffic calming or lower speed limits from people who formerly had a relatively quiet section of road.
The result of alleged ” green ” transport policy is that the Corporate Nazis can engage in a spot of Corporate Ethnic Cleansing. If you can’t afford the tolls or the fuel price you are forced to move home. No wonder city centre property developers support the introduction of the Manchester congestion charge. You can also bet that the politicians all have shares in the companies likely to benefit. There is a fortune to be made in the form of private tax for the in car equipment. The stock market parasites will make an imaginary fortune with a private toll road operating company plugged directly into the treasury. Its all false economic growth which by increasing the cost of living makes the British worker less competitive in the global economy. None of the current UK politicians can comprehend the fact that toll roads will put the relative basic human rights of the population back into the 18th century just for the sake of false profit.
Perhaps the government have no option but to proceed the eco-fascists favorite tool for corporate ethnic cleansing, Spy in the Sky road charging. Otherwise the Corporate Multinational Cartel could close key parts of UK industry. Of course nobody will notice that its basically a key fascist Big Brother policy because the alleged left wing Green Party support it. Many Corporate Nazi measures like Bin Tax and related fines for putting the wrong type of rubbish in your bin are also supported by the ” greens ” likewise the PFJ left love the smoking ban. Perhaps you will need a biometric ID card to register your Spy in the Sky in car equipment.
As for Spy in the Sky road charging technology its just another massively expensive and needlessly complicated IT project for the stock market ” tech sector ” to parasite on, its all potential false economic growth which increases the divide between rich and poor. It is perhaps hardly surprising to find that Graham Stringer was one of the Labour rebels calling for a leadership election, one of his main bones of contention is the proposed Manchester congestion charge. New investment in the infrastructure is tied to a road pricing plan, which even without actual satellite Spy in the Sky (overhead gantries with simple electronic tags for vehicles ) will cost billions to introduce and maintain. As with most government projects under PFI its just a virtual welfare state for the stock market parasites.
Traffic calming also reduces the safe life of a road, particularly if HGV’s use it regularly.
Once again the A59 is being resurfaced through Copster Green. It will cost the council taxpayers twice as much as it needs to due to the traffic calming installed there. I believe that it is the second time that this section of road has needed major resurfacing since traffic calming was introduced there in the 1990s. I have travelled this road regularly since the 1970s and can’t recall it needing any major work before the traffic calming was introduced. The ” Pedestrian Islands” and central road hatching force all HGV’s into the gutter over all the drain grates and man-hole covers.
The extreme nearside is the weakest part of any road, perhaps that’s why HGV drivers trained in the 1980s were encouraged to remain 18 inches from the nearside kerb where possible. With central traffic islands this road friendly practical distance is impossible to achieve.
The service life of this road is only half of that before the traffic calming was introduced, the obvious solution to cut operating costs is to remove the traffic calming during the current works and then we will not be in the same expensive position.
It is now an almost pointless ongoing high cost for the sake of several central ” pedestrian refuges ” in an area with a low population. I have never yet seen a pedestrian using one of the said islands. Typical local government policy, always find the most inefficient way to squander council taxpayers hard earned money.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:15 am
All the evidence suggests that a large proportion of road deaths occur in ” head on overtaking ” accidents or as the result of an overtaking maneuver. In the original Highway Code written in the 1930s it states “As a responsible citizen you have a duty to the community not to endanger or impede others in their lawful use of the King’s Highway,” This common sense approach applies just as much today as it did then.
I can’t help speculating that if a vehicle any driver attempted to overtake had been travelling 10 Mph faster they would have been content to remain behind at least until they could reach a safer place to overtake. Leg-Irons, i.e. those people who will insist on driving up to 20 Mph less than the national speed limit ( 60 Mph on single carriageway A roads ) are a real menace on Britain’s roads. Many sections of road with double white lines or hazard lines are quite undulating and curvy, but it is possible for a competent driver to safely maintain close to 60 Mph throughout in a car and 50 Mph in an articulated lorry.
Of course the HGV speed limit for “A ” roads is currently 40 Mph but 90% of HGV drivers do the safe thing and ignore this stupid law which has no basis in science. I did all the vehicle motion science at tech and the mass cancels itself out in all the crucial equations, the limit is there purely to technically make the railways more competitive. Some may travel slowly in the belief that they are saving fuel, but this doesn’t hold water in science or practical experience either. I check my fuel consumption figures of my 1000cc car each time I fill up and I can expect to have to pay significantly more if I have been significantly delayed by Leg-Irons on open roads during that period. Contrary to the green spin the most fuel efficient speed for a vehicle is 60 Mph, a vehicle will build up its own streamlining effect so air resistance is actually reduced at slightly higher speeds. To reduce transport’s effect on Global Warming many speed limits need to be increased not cut further. When 90 Kph EU speed limiters were introduced on HGV’s during the 1990s fuel consumption on local 38 tonne tanker vehicles doing night runs from Lancashire to Scotland increased from 9 Mpg to 7 Mpg.
Perhaps the most potentially dangerous Leg-Irons are those who totally fail to attempt to pass slow moving vehicles like tractors at the earliest opportunity. All too soon a ” funeral procession ” of several vehicles can build up and some completely incompetent idiot in a high powered car comes along and is likely to try to pass the lot. Queues formed on open roads generally tend to lead to severe congestion at junctions. It is perhaps hardly surprising that the government fails to do anything about this because they are now considering charging for road use on the strength of it. It is my considered opinion that many drivers buy high power cars or 4 by 4′s to make up for their self confessed lack of aptitude and driving ability.
Of course the road safety high priests will preach that everyone is expected to drive like morons watching their speed all the time and not attempt to pass anywhere. Unfortunately human nature is not like that and its tragic that many of the brightest, imaginative ” get up and go ” younger drivers kill themselves and others simply trying to make their way in life to the best of their ability.
To improve road safety and cut the number of head-on accidents during overtaking the HGV speed limit needs to be scrapped. Similarly a new offence of Not Making Satisfactory Progress needs to be brought in for car drivers who consistently fail to maintain the posted speed limit. Encouraging traffic officers to stop or film people going too slow and subjecting them to an eye test could be a sufficient deterrent, but perhaps a fixed penalty fine of £30 could work better.
I suspect that many basically incompetent drivers would give up driving altogether if they were faced with fines for going too slow. It is also probable that many of them would fail the eyesight test anyway.
In the early 1960s when the goods vehicle speed limit was only 20 Mph it was not unknown for the police to stop vehicles travelling at only 20 and inquire if there was something seriously wrong with it. It is probably the case that any theoretical reductions in deaths ascribed to traffic calming and other quasi-religious road safety measures of the past 15 years are down to better paramedics and the air ambulance service.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Warwickshire County Council are cutting many rural speed limits on the strength of a DfT Circular 1/2006.
IF the government allow local authorities to cut speed limits to 40Mph, transport in rural areas will be put back to 1930s standards. Pre 1974 local councils spent an absolute fortune improving and widening many miles of road between rural communities to make them safe for the then national limit of 70 Mph. If cuts in speed limits go through, the investment of our far sighted forefathers will be completely wasted. Cutting speed limits will also increase fuel consumption for rural drivers. It would appear that today’s politicians have had their brains washed by well organized anti speed campaigners and greens, who’s main aim appears to be to bring back the Red Flag Act and turn the UK into a third world country when it comes to transport. If road safety campaigners were serious about actually reducing accidents they would all propose annual eyesight tests. However, as they get most of their funding from the transport industry it would appear that they would prefer more accidents at lower speeds.
I expect that most rural accidents are caused by tourists going relatively slow watching the scenery not the road ahead. Reducing rural speed limits to 40 Mph will not cut accidents as most rural accidents occur in locations where the safe speed may be as low as 30 or even less than 20 Mph. Cutting the current allowed maximum of 60 Mph will actually encourage some drivers to go faster where road conditions do not allow higher speed.
Many rural road accidents are caused by drivers foolishly swerving to avoid small animals like rabbits and pheasants. Killing something like a sheep is surely preferable to risking you life, running over things like rabbits and pheasants wont even damage your vehicle. Similarly parking in potentially dangerous locations like in blind bends and over the brow of a hill can be easily avoided. Pedestrians should not always follow the highway code to the letter, crossing over to the side of the bend where you can easily be seen from a reasonable distance is advisable
Keeping rural speed limits at the current 60Mph is more important now the prospect of spy in the sky satellite tracking and road pricing looms on the horizon. It would appear that there are plans to put lower limits on every road except the more expensive trunk roads. This will restrict choice to avoid the routes with the highest rates and still get to your destination in a reasonable time. It could be said that rural speed limits are almost impractical or impossible to police, but with spy in the sky tracking, they can get you anywhere between two fixed points. Any average driver is faced with the prospect of becoming a criminal he is skilful enough to complete his rural journey at an average over 40Mph. I seem to remember of something in New Labour’s “clause 4 ” about allowing people to attain their full potential, not much sign of it in policy when it comes to driving.
It is pretty obvious that those leading the call for lower rural speed limits are almost exclusively townies who are probably not good drivers themselves. This country is being wrecked by narrow minded people who because they can’t do something safely themselves think that nobody else is capable of doing it either. Like the Foxhunting Ban, policy is all about trying to destroy the rural economy so that ten bob fat cat city dwellers can ” Escape to the Country ” and take the homes currently occupied by indigenous rural people. Like the road fuel tax escalator, its all part of a general trend for ethnic cleansing by stealth. Rural Post Office closures are also likely to be considered if the legal time taken for collections / delivery significantly increases.