[Closed] Perhaps time to restart the "War On Motorists"?

In case it's not clear,

I wasn't comparing F1 to road driving in any practical sense other than to show (badly) that, all other factors aside, driving quickly does not always equate to causing accidents. Please don't get tied up dissecting light hearted but poor analogies, it's not important.

Everyone knows the air gets sucked out of your lungs above 60mph, right?

Which is kinda what I'm getting at. The whole justification for speed cameras hinges on something presented as fact which, as you say, may or may not be the case.

Does it particularly matter if excess speed was the actual cause of the accident, or just made the resulting crash more fatal?
Interesting to note that "Exceeding the speed limit" was a factor in 14% of fatal accidents and 7% is serious accidents, but just 5% of all accidents. That suggests a strong correlation between going fast and an accident being fatal. Which would fit with the physics really.

I do think that the militant cyclist types who try to say "all cars are bad" only serve to alienate us.

No one here has said that (yet) or offered any particularly militant views either. As you say most of us are drivers too (actually adult cyclists are slighly more likely to own a car than non-cycling adults).

hurt cyclists might well be increased overall numbers (maybe plus "new" cyclists ?)

A 2.2% rise in cycling responsible for a 16% rise in the number of cyclists seriously injured?
If that's true then new cyclists are being massacred on our roads!

A percentage of this increase in Cyclists & Pedestrian casualties will be down to people making the choice to not use the car. (plus also cycking is more pupular these days)

As above and mentioned before, the rises in casualties do not match the rise in people walking or cycling.

excess speed accounts for some 7% according to the DoT's own statistics.

What figures for what kind of accident? Source please.

As mentioned earlier the 2010 "Contributory Factors" table (from "DoT's own statistics") say exceeding the speed limit was a factor in 14% of fatal accidents and too fast for conditions was a factor in 13%. Also "Careless, reckless or in a hurry" factored in 20% of fatals and "Loss of control" in 34%

A 2.2% rise in cycling responsible for a 16% rise in the number of cyclists seriously injured?
If that's true then new cyclists are being massacred on our roads!

I think you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) the statistics here. It's not a one-to-one relationship.

(Pulling figures out of the air for example purposes,) if there's a million cyclists and a hundred accidents one year, and 1.02 million cyclists and a hundred and sixteen accidents the next, that's not a massacre or a trend, it's at worst statistical deviation.

I mean, come on, if it were that simple, rallying would be carnage, both for drivers, spectators and anyone who cycled to the event.

It's not a one-to-one relationship.

Isn't it? Why not?

Using your made-up figures, if there were a million cyclists and 100 accidents then you could express the risk by saying that 1 in every 10,000 had an accident. yes?

So adding 2.2% to the cyclists (1022000) and 16% to the accidents (116) means the risk to all cyclists increased to 1 in every 8810.

But several people suggested that the risk to existing cyclists hasn't increased and the increase was down to new folk cycling. For your figures that would mean that the 22,000 new cyclists were involved in 16 accidents, a risk of 1 in 1375.

(caveat: I've not had coffee yet)

I think what is of paramount importance is that drivers must not be made to slow down but to use [b]APPROPRIATE[/b] speed ([s]that they think, as Gods of the road, they can use while the rest of us mortals drive at the legal target)[/s].

[url= http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/ ]http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/[/url]

Cycle Rates in UK Summary

Cycling on the road in the UK has increased 12% up the last 10 years (using 3 year rolling average).
The biggest increase has been on surfaces other than the road. The % Cycling ‘mainly on the road’ has fallen from 46% (2002) to 40% 2009[1]
[b]London has seen the biggest boom with over 110% increase since 2000[/b].
Britain is spending more on bikes.
Cycling is a diverse activity with participants from all socio-economic groups, but cycling rates are highest amongst young professional men.

I'd like to guess that "london" is an exaggerated microcosm of UK urban commutey cycling and that's where the major contact with traffic must arise

I have always thought the biggest problem in the UK is the concentration of enforcement in major highways, I don't think I have ever seen any speed cameras or speed traps in residential areas.

Incidentally, I'm surprised at the large "non-road" component here:
[img] [/img]

Cycling on the road in the UK has increased 12% up the last 10 years

A rise of 12% over a period of ten years doesn't explain a 16% rise in the number of serious accidents in one year.

This years rise can't simply be dismissed as "more people cycling".

I'm in agreement with Graham.

I'd wager if I could be bothered to turn out some statistical analysis to correct for the rise in cycling, there would still be a statistically significant rise in serious injuries when compared with previous years.

Just case it hasn't already been linked.
[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/9370309/Motorists-should-be-stopped-from-driving-above-55mph-says-Formula-One-ace-Damon-Hill.html [/url]

Hmmm.. not sure I agree with "Forumula One ace" Damon Hill there.

Motorways are statistically safer than other roads. Long, straight, lots of room, minimum of junctions and other potential hazards.

I can't see that dropping the speed limit to 55mph would deal with his main observation that [i]"Mostly they drive too fast, too close to the car in front, and they think they know what they’re doing. And they don’t."[/i]

The A1 (dual carriageway) around Newcastle/Gateshead is a 50, but most folk do well over that and drive far too close to each other.

Every car fitted with a GPS dongle and speed tickets automatically issued to those who speed (inappropriately of course). Up the points to 18, with analog scale for speeding offences so that drivers can get 1 point up to 6 point endorsements. Warnings for tailgating at speed. Warnings for repeated middle-lane hogging. At 18 points, automatic 3 week ban. Points suspended for a year after any bans. Subsequent bans double each time; so 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks etc. No "but it's my job your honour appeals allowed" but in general, appeals could be heard for extenuating circumstances.

See how soon everybody would start driving safely.

I like that, but it would have to issue a Fonz thumbs up [b]Heehhh![/b] each time you do an awesome overtake.
[img] http://aperionaudio.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345171ef69e2016764b0627b970b-800wi [/img]

In my head, that's what you look like Ian, but with gopping running trainers. 🙂

I like that, but it would have to issue a Fonz thumbs up Heehhh! each time you do an awesome overtake

Nobody driving a car on a public road has ever done an awesome overtake. Or an awesome anything in relation to their driving.

doubleD: sounds good, but not sure how you'd implement any of that.

How about compulsory black boxes in cars that record all driving data (speed, acceleration, braking, lateral g-force in corners etc) then use that info to adjust your insurance premiums?

Like this:

https://www.theaadrivesafe.com/
http://www.comparethebox.com/

And of course make that data freely available to accident investigators.

I've read a lot of comments, some of which challenge my own assertion about excess speed accounting for some 7% of causes of accidents according to the DoT...you've kind of missed the point.

No-one has commented on my suggestion that learner drivers should be obliged to ride a bicycle on the road as part of their driving qualification.

I do not agree with the opinion that black boxes in cars are a good idea, any more than I'd agree with putting number plates on bicycles. I think the problem has much more to do with education and road layout than scaring the screaming bejeesus out of all parties. I commute in London on a daily basis and I've seen an abundance of stupidity by commuters, drivers and cyclists alike.

Nobody driving a car on a public road has ever done an awesome overtake. Or an awesome anything in relation to their driving.

You might thing that, but that's because you've never seen me in my Fiat Panda 1.2 Dynamic!
I haven't got an exact picture, but this should give you the general jist.

[img] [/img]

No-one has commented on my suggestion that learner drivers should be obliged to ride a bicycle on the road as part of their driving qualification.

Okay I will. Sounds like a fine plan. I'd also want anyone being forced to re-sit a test to do likewise.

How about compulsory black boxes in cars that record all driving data (speed, acceleration, braking, lateral g-force in corners etc) then use that info to adjust your insurance premiums?

The so called "war" on motorists was and is a massive exaggeration. The government are far too dependent on motorists lovely taxes to force people off the roads.

Precisely. It was, and is, a total myth.

Oh, and any speed above the limit is by default inappropriate. If you can't organise your right foot and eyes to comply with the big sign with the red circle, then you're not competent to hold a licence.

(Yes, I have a car).

more fatal

More fatal than fatal …chuckles

DD for transport minister

whew!, statistics, eh?

maybe it would be worth starting a new thread along the lines of 'suggestions for improving road safety'.

my personal bugbear is cars parking next to the kerb, irrespective of the presence of cycle lanes.

and how about a mandatory 20mph speed limit in built up areas?

any other suggestions?

Oh, and any speed above the limit is by default inappropriate. If you can't organise your right foot and eyes to comply with the big sign with the red circle, then you're not competent to hold a licence.

I'm a driver too.

My local back roads are mostly national speed limit, but to drive along them at sixty would be suicidally fast. Add in wet weather and oncoming traffic and it's clear that the posted speed limit is a moot point. Simple things like not overtaking on a blind bend or ensuring that there's adequate room on the inside before overtaking are oft overlooked.

We're not going to change this kind of behaviour by getting all Big Brother on drivers, it's got to be done by education. Speed awareness courses are more successful in changing behaviour than simply dishing out points, we need to learn from this.

More fatal than fatal …chuckles

Yeah yeah, relative term innit?

Crash killing one person = "fatal".
Crash killing several people = "more fatal".

😉

My local back roads are mostly national speed limit, but to drive along them at sixty would be suicidally fast.

So you'd support reducing the speed limit on those roads?

My local back roads are mostly national speed limit, but to drive along them at sixty would be suicidally fast. Add in wet weather and oncoming traffic and it's clear that the posted speed limit is a moot point.

It's a limit, not a target.

So you'd support reducing the speed limit on those roads?

Again, I think you've missed my point...the posted speed limit bears very little relation to the speed which would be appropriate along certain stretches of these roads, which in itself is variable depending on the time of day and the weather conditions.

FWIW, in twenty years and half a million miles of driving I've never collected any points, nor have I ever been pulled for speeding. Does that help? Again, to reiterate my point which seems to be missed, I believe that education is key to changing the behaviour of road users.

Sorry, I'm not being clear, I get your point that speed limits are a very blunt tool and don't address bad driving. And I agree.

But in the case of rural roads where 60 on a clear day would be "suicidally fast" (and there are a few round here like that too) then isn't that a failing of the current National Speed Limit system which basically just seems to look at the road category and abutters, rather than the road itself.

in twenty years and half a million miles of driving I've never collected any points, nor have I ever been pulled for speeding. Does that help?

[cynic]It just means you've been getting away with speeding for 20 years.[/cynic]

Limits are not targets.

Limits are not targets.

Yep, but if it's not possible to reach a limit (without being suicidal), then what purpose does it serve?

They are not targets, but it might be nice if they reflected a sensible maximum speed for a road (i.e. [i]"on a clear dry day, in a well-maintained modern car, then 50mph is as fast as you ever be going on this road"[/i]) - rather than just a blanket [i]"no houses nearby = 60 limit"[/i]

I think there is a general perception amongst drivers (and I am one too) that driving at <40mph in a 60 is a sign of weakness, when [url= https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=55.363942,-2.493017&spn=0.008196,0.026157&t=h&z=16 ]in some cases[/url] it might be an entirely sensible speed.

(And yes, that comes down to education too)

Problem is, that's how you're taught. If you mince around everywhere at 20mph on your driving test, you'll fail due to a 'failure to make progress'.

Whether the limits are targets or not is by the by, unfortunately that's how they're commonly perceived. It's a side effect of relieving a driver of the requirement to think and make sensible judgements for themselves (probably because there's too many who proved incapable of doing so). So, many people instead either blindly follow the signs without any consideration for road conditions, or ignore them. Either way, we're back to driver education as a root cause.

Wow, is someone dissecting a simplification now? 😉

Problem is, that's how you're taught. If you mince around everywhere at 20mph on your driving test, you'll fail due to a 'failure to make progress'.

It's not how you're taught - you'll also fail if you take a NSL blind bend at 60mph.

you'll also fail if you take a NSL blind bend at 60mph.

True, however I'm not sure how it was on your test, but mine was a bimble through some residential streets then a blast up a couple of junctions on a (nice straight) dual carriageway.

No bendy rural NSL.

(and no Motorway either obviously, which is another bugbear of mine)

True, however I'm not sure how it was on your test, but mine was a bimble through some residential streets then a blast up a couple of junctions on a (nice straight) dual carriageway.

No bendy rural NSL.

Actually, there was a NSL road. My instructor had taught me to accelerate up to near the limit on the straight bit, and slow down for the corner. It would seem that a few people have trouble with the slowing down bit, as the whole section is now designated 40mph.

A rise of 12% over a period of ten years doesn't explain a 16% rise in the number of serious accidents in one year.
This years rise can't simply be dismissed as "more people cycling"

Where did the deaths happen, in cities ? (110% rise in London cycling - presumably very much dominated by on-road)

I'll also wait a year or two and I bet we see regression to the mean in numbers (unless that's what this latest figure already is, after a good spell)

Don't get me wrong - I do not in any way think current, past, or any, level of fatalities is acceptable but I don't believe "the end of the war on motorists" is involved causally

Whether the limits are targets or not is by the by, unfortunately that's how they're commonly perceived.

Round by me, no-one perceives the limits at all, they just drive at whatever speed they feel like. Until they see a speed camera or van, then they slam on the brakes because they have no idea what speed they were supposed to be doing.

Some interesting analysis of the cycling injury figures from the CTC, including some pretty graphs:

http://beta.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/16-increase-in-serious-injuries-so-whats-happening

The "more people cycling" argument doesn't seem to account for all of it, given that injuries fell sharply as cycling increased between 1996 and 2004:

[img] [/img]
"The graph above shows cycle use and casualties, indexed (ie, turned into percentages) based on three year averages, starting in 1996."