Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 03:48

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 00:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Who is successful in reducing KSI's, and what do they do that Cumbria do not?
This report is from the BBC, February 2005:
BBC Lincolnshire wrote:
Sharp fall in county road deaths
Road safety experts say the number of road accidents in Lincolnshire has dropped since the introduction of a rural safe-driving campaign.
The Red Route scheme started 18 months ago with signs at 12 well-known accident hotspots in the county.

The scheme has resulted in a 25% reduction in the number of serious accidents on county roads.

The police say the new campaign seeks to remind motorists to drive carefully on rural roads.

Richard Greener, Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership development manager, said: "Rural roads are a particular cause for concern in this county.

"Eighty-eight people were killed and 274 were seriously injured on such roads in Lincolnshire last year."

However, this quote from November 2004 paints a slightly different picture:
BBC Lincolnshire wrote:
Fatalities plunge on county roads
The number of people killed on roads in Lincolnshire has dropped steeply so far this year compared with 2003.
Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership said 66 people died in accidents between January and November in 2004 compared with 94 in the previous year.

It follows a number of campaigns across the county aimed at cutting the number of road deaths.

The Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership has warned the figures are still too high.

Spokesman Steve Batchelor said: "We had a decrease when the partnership started in the first year and I think everybody was quick to believe we'd fixed the problem and everything is improving.

"I would tend to think you have to have several years of this reduction occurring before you can say: 'Yes, we are making this big difference and things are improving'."

Lincolnshire Police have previously said the three most consistent factors in road fatalities in the county are excessive speed, lack of seat belts and unroadworthy cars.

They said most of the road fatalities in the county were local people.


It seems Lincolnshire are not SO different from CSCP - the fatals rose from 64 to 83 in the last months of the year, so the drastic drop in fatals was suddenly not so drastic!
However their spokesman is at least keen to say that they want several years of figures before they claim success.
The high number of fatals compared to Cumbria, when they have no major motorways worries me - any ideas?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 00:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
And I forgot to post this bit from December 2003....
BBC Lincolnshire wrote:
County records 101 road deaths

A motorist has died following a road accident in Sleaford in Lincolnshire.
The death is the 101st fatality on the county's road in 2003.


I thought it was 94? Ah, then that was until November.

And there is conflicting views here, from 2003....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/2974526.stm
Quote:
Nearby residents felt the uneven condition of the road and its deceptive speed had contributed to the accident.

But the police said that while they took the issue extremely seriously, there was only so much enforcement could achieve and there were other important factors.


Quote:
Mechanically unfit

"In this weekend just gone we had an additional 13 cars go off the road, no collisions with other cars, 13 cars go off the roads and there, thanks to the grace of God, go 13 drivers and who knows how many passengers?"

Mr Davies also pointed out the three most consistent factors in road fatalities in the county remained the same.

These are excessive speed, all the people in the car not wearing seat belts and cars not being in a fit mechanical condition for the roads.

He also rejected the idea that most accidents were caused by drivers unfamiliar with the county's roads.

Mr Davies said: "The sad and tragic truth of it are that most of the fatalities are local people.

"All four fatalities this weekend were Lincolnshire people on Lincolnshire's roads.

"Most of the people we are tragically losing at the moment know the roads."

I have driven in Lincolnshire, and found a major hazard to be the flatness - one could approach a bend/hazard at NSL, and not see the hazard until you were on top of it, as there were no visual clues. However the police chief seems keen to discount this. I am not so sure :?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:55 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
Ernest Marsh wrote:

It seems Lincolnshire are not SO different from CSCP - the fatals rose from 64 to 83 in the last months of the year, so the drastic drop in fatals was suddenly not so drastic!
However their spokesman is at least keen to say that they want several years of figures before they claim success.
The high number of fatals compared to Cumbria, when they have no major motorways worries me - any ideas?


I'm not sure that motorways necessarily add significantly to the stats.

Our stretch of motorway (including A74) was responsible for 6 Fatal RTCs last year, (7 fatalities)
  • 3 were drunk pedestrians killed because they staggered or ran on to the carriageway.
  • 2 were HGV RTCs.
  • 1 involved a car which left the carriageway colliding with a motorway bridge.

Ernest Marsh wrote:
Who is successful in reducing KSI's, and what do they do that Cumbria do not?


Cumbria shares in the national trend of reduction of serious injuries.

Image

There are of course numerous hypotheses about why the fatal trend diverges from the downward path enjoyed by serious injury RTCs. :wink:

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:19 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
BVKM? Wasnt that the measure Steve was not keen on? :wink:

I had to look, because the A1 skirts Lincolnshire, and has a bad reputation.
Also, Steve has at times said the KSI on the M6 were of serious concern - which does not seem the case from the figures you show.

Fatals diverging from SI's? The stats of course lump Killed AND Seriously Injured together - which makes the case for cameras seem more pressing - but after the event, CSCP seem to wish to show SI improving even though fatals rose!
However, am I right in thinking KSI's refer to incidents and not persons?

Lincolnshire seem keen to point out that in some instances there are multiple fatalities in ONE vehicle - ergo one accident.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:37 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
I guess every area has its idiosyncracies, my understanding is that the particular "local hazard" prevelant in Lincolnshire is the number of deep ditches next to it's rural lanes. What would be a "minor off" into a Cumbrian dry stone wall turns into a serious accident when the car slides into an unseen ditch, impacts heavily with the side of it then drops into 6 feet of water.

Surely motorways are the safest roads of all, so the absence of them could hardly be expected to improve accident history?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Having recently moved to Cambridgeshire, which is very similar in topography to Lincs. I can confirm that the flat roads and deep drainage ditches are very deceptive. Road edge definition is easily lost and inexperienced drivers do make braking distance errors. You quite often see skid marks into ditches. What's the answer? It would be impractical to put an armco barrier at every corner on every rural road.
It's not a matter of thge breaking of the speed limits, it's errors of judgement by the le3ss experienced. Maybe better driver training would help. It seems as though many who 'go off' are just ordinary middle-aged drivers, not young kids. A 60 year-old lady drove into the river near our village last Winter. She was pulled out OK (but very cold and wet), but she just misjudged a corner at night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 13:16 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
Cooperman wrote:
Having recently moved to Cambridgeshire, which is very similar in topography to Lincs. I can confirm that the flat roads and deep drainage ditches are very deceptive. Road edge definition is easily lost and inexperienced drivers do make braking distance errors. You quite often see skid marks into ditches. What's the answer? It would be impractical to put an armco barrier at every corner on every rural road.
It's not a matter of thge breaking of the speed limits, it's errors of judgement by the le3ss experienced. Maybe better driver training would help. It seems as though many who 'go off' are just ordinary middle-aged drivers, not young kids. A 60 year-old lady drove into the river near our village last Winter. She was pulled out OK (but very cold and wet), but she just misjudged a corner at night.


Had a look at Countryfile yesterday, and they had this piece about driving in rural areas of Nottingham and Kent.

Again the solution to the problem was naive, based simply on speed being the only problem, they argued for reduction of limits on rural roads, more enforcement of those limits and a blanket limit of 30 in rural villages. Mandatory ISA in all vehicles was trumpeted as the answer to all evils, the only downside being that it was still seven years off!!

It's likely that there are many well minded members of these communities, perhaps relatives and friends of bereaved who feel that draconian action in the form of reduced speed limits will be a lasting legacy to the death of their loved one - "she did not die in vain."

The reality is that this understandable emotion, combined with gut reaction responses and naive thought processes could well be responsible for forming our current and future road policy.

It needs intelligent and understanding counter-argument.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 14:11 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
In areas like Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, the number of long straight stretches (often on quite narrow roads) is likely to lead to a greater than average number of accidents resulting from misjudged overtaking, particularly as, on a totally straight road, it's more difficult to judge the speed of approaching vehicles.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Last edited by PeterE on Mon Mar 07, 2005 19:10, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 19:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
We (entire family - relative lives there) also find there is a certain amount of subsidence on Cambs rural roads. This - coupled with the narrow straights and ditches - would lead inexperienced to choose an unsafe speed as well on these roads.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 19:49 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
Cooperman wrote:
Road edge definition is easily lost and inexperienced drivers do make braking distance errors. You quite often see skid marks into ditches. What's the answer? It would be impractical to put an armco barrier at every corner on every rural road.
It's not a matter of thge breaking of the speed limits, it's errors of judgement by the le3ss experienced. Maybe better driver training would help. It seems as though many who 'go off' are just ordinary middle-aged drivers, not young kids. A 60 year-old lady drove into the river near our village last Winter. She was pulled out OK (but very cold and wet), but she just misjudged a corner at night.


My wife comes from a small village in Lincolnshire which is approached from the Sleaford direction along a bit of fen road which goes straight for several miles before taking a 90 degree right hand bend followed by a 90 degree left hand bend and then another two bends of the same orientation. My father-in-law got quite used to getting in his tractor and heading out to either the first (but often the second as well oddly enough) right hand bend to haul cars out of the dyke :lol:
There was no actual pattern to who had to be pulled out, young blokes, middle aged men and women - the lot. He used to say time and again, why not just paint some warning of the upcoming bend on the road - no armco needed.

I nearly came a cropper one night riding my bike back to Wittering from Wyton near Huntingdon. Was tearing down a fen road and could see head lights coming towards me in the distance - assumed the road ran straight up ahead. It didn't :shock: The road took a right, left, left, right around a field- I just got it around (ahem).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 20:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Ian H wrote:
I'm not sure that motorways necessarily add significantly to the stats.

Our stretch of motorway (including A74) was responsible for 6 Fatal RTCs last year, (7 fatalities)

3 were drunk pedestrians killed because they staggered or ran on to the carriageway.
2 were HGV RTCs.
1 involved a car which left the carriageway colliding with a motorway bridge.

I'm often puzzled by the way the stats are published - 6 RTC's, 7 fatalities - does that mean the three drunk pedestrians were three completely separate incidents? :shock:

Near Burton Services, there used to be a footpath which came down the bank, and passed under the bridge over the motorway and back up the other side. I had often thought why not put a cycle/footpath alongside motorways (and railways), fenced off. It must be reasonably cost effective, but now I am not so sure we can trust pedestrians.
It's about time they were taxed and insured like the restof us road users - and maybe MOT'd too! :wink:

edited to correct my typing

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 14:41 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Ian H wrote:
I'm not sure that motorways necessarily add significantly to the stats.

Our stretch of motorway (including A74) was responsible for 6 Fatal RTCs last year, (7 fatalities)

3 were drunk pedestrians killed because they staggered or ran on to the carriageway.
2 were HGV RTCs.
1 involved a car which left the carriageway colliding with a motorway bridge.

I'm often puzzled by the way the stats are published - 6 RTC's, 7 fatalities - does that mean the three drunk pedestrians were three completely separate incidents? :shock:

Near Burton Services, there used to be a footpath which came down the bank, and passed under the bridge over the motorway and back up the other side. I had often thought why not put a cycle/footpath alongside motorways (and railways), fenced off. It must be reasonably cost effective, but now I am not so sure we can trust pedestrians.
It's about time they were taxed and insured like the restof us road users - and maybe MOT'd too! :wink:

edited to correct my typing


There you are Ernest,

One
Two
Three.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 17:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Those M6/A74 figures are very interesting.
If the guy who hit the bridge went to sleep or lost control due to a mechanical failure, then none of those accidents were a esult of exceeding the NSL.
So, why have the CSCP put scamvans there? For the cash? Surely not! It makes one wonder at the now increasingly apparent basic dishonesty in the entire scheme.
JJ (or is it really the SG) now won't reply to my posts where I, and others, ask how the logic of speed cameras works. I'm from aviation where we deal with engineering logic. If 10% of a problem is caused by one single factor and that factor is eliminated, then 10% of the problem goes away.
However, JJ seems to think that by addressing 5% of a problem it is possible to reduce the problem by a multiple of this factor. How?
Before we get back to the "1/3rd of accidents are caused by speeding", which we all know is rubbish, I'm prepared to believe that 1/3rd, or more, accidents are caused by bad or inappropriate driving. This includes driving at an inappropriate speed, but not necessarily breaking the speed limit.
The cars in the ditches in Lincs, Cambs, etc, are proof of this, as not many are breaking the NSL but they go off due to misjudging the braking distances for the sharp corners and 'fall off' at night - nothing to do with excess speed down the straight bits, just too fast into the corners. Is that 'speeding'? A camera wouldn't help at all.
The problem, as Ian alludes to, is that the current obsession with 'Speed Kills' is taking away consideration of the real factors in road safety, and we've been through those so many times, even though the CSCP can't understand them. Of course, their continued salaries depend on them not understanding or accepting them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 19:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
If 10% of a problem is caused by one single factor and that factor is eliminated, then 10% of the problem goes away.
However, JJ seems to think that by addressing 5% of a problem it is possible to reduce the problem by a multiple of this factor. How?


I am confident that speed cameras cost lives from analysis and sheer feel. However, it is entirely possible for *something* tackling 5% of a problem to have serendipitous effects.

I repeat, I do not think it is the case here, but it can happen - and logically. I can think of many non-motoring examples but no motoring ones at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 20:21 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Roger wrote:
I am confident that speed cameras cost lives from analysis and sheer feel.


I was very nearly a statistic because of a scamera a few years ago. A guy in a BMW overtook a lorry, and as he pulled in in front he spied a camera, and braked so hard that the lorry was all over the road trying to avoid hitting him - and very nearly hit me coming the other way.
And to anyone who says anything about the BMW going too fast, I'd like to ask a question: How in God's name are you supposed to overtake safely and stick to the limit?


Cheers
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 22:12 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
And to anyone who says anything about the BMW going too fast, I'd like to ask a question: How in God's name are you supposed to overtake safely and stick to the limit?

He was selfish and nearly caused something that could have increased the statistics. That happened to me once (though I wasn't driving a beamer). I decided - in next to no time - to take a camera hit rather than risk anything. In my case there was nothing coming towards me, but I'd certainly got up to perhaps 80 in a 50 to get past the lorry doing, er, 49.99999 :oops: , but with the intention of backing off gently to somethng noty too far different to the speed limit. Fortunately I never got paperwork :lol: (but I was flashed). :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 22:18 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Roger wrote:
He was selfish and nearly caused something that could have increased the statistics. That happened to me once (though I wasn't driving a beamer). I decided - in next to no time - to take a camera hit rather than risk anything. In my case there was nothing coming towards me, but I'd certainly got up to perhaps 80 in a 50 to get past the lorry doing, er, 49.99999 :oops: , but with the intention of backing off gently to somethng noty too far different to the speed limit. Fortunately I never got paperwork :lol: (but I was flashed). :twisted:


Yes, he was in the wrong - not in his overtaking, but what he did afterwards.
But my point is that if not for the camera, there would not have been an incident.

Cheers
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 22:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
Yes, he was in the wrong - not in his overtaking, but what he did afterwards.
But my point is that if not for the camera, there would not have been an incident.

Absolutgely, Peter. And apologies if my interjection has inadvertently diluted that fact. It wasn't meant to, it was meant to reinforce it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 23:47 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
OK, devils advocate time here.

If you are doing 50 mph in a 50 mph zone behind a lorry doing 50mph, or even 49 or 48....why do you need to overtake it? Apart from satisfying ones impatience that is.
And if, in doing 80 as you pass the lorry doing 50, what do you do if a real hazard (not a self-inflicted one) materialises that you hadn't realised was developing because you were concentrating on overtaking. This hazard is one commensurate with the 50mph limit, i.e. the reason the limit exixts in teh first place. You are now doing 80mph with a 50 mph level hazard right in front of you and a lorry in the near environs.
And how do you explain your way out of that one in court?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 00:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
If you are doing 50 behind a lorry doing 50 in a 50 limit, then no problem.
However if said lorry is slowed drastically every time it comes to a hill, or if it encounters obstacles which slow evryone behind it's progress, then one would wish to be past it at the earliest safe opportunity.
If safe means briefly exceeding the limit, then that should be forgivable.

Many lorry drivers are considerate enough to recognise a safe overtake section, and slow or pull over to expediate such a manouvre in the safest manner for all concerned. An odd one or two seem to take pleasure in hindering the course of other drivers when baulked themselves - it has happened to me on the A66 and the A69, and in both instances, the drivers speeded up whilst I was along side - beyond any previous speed they had displayed! Had a camera been in the vicinity, I might well have been over the limit to complete the overtake in safety.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.360s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]