Safe Speed Forums

Are roads just for cars?
29 August 2011

Fifty-eight per cent of people think that drivers should be held legally responsible for accidents between cars and more vulnerable road users in pedestrian-priority zones, according to the latest poll by road safety charity the IAM.

Woonerfs* are the most sophisticated of these zones, and are a concept which comes from the Netherlands where they are commonly used. They are designed to be used at walking pace to make them safer for more vulnerable road users and encourage cycling and walking. Forty-eight per cent of the 4,000 respondents think the Woonerf concept – with no pavements, giving cars, pedestrians and cyclists equal use of the same road space – is a good idea for use in the UK, with 27 per cent thinking they are a bad idea.

When asked where these zones should be sited primarily, 36 per cent said in shopping areas, and similar areas with high pedestrian traffic, and a further 33 per cent thought they would be of the most use in some residential areas where a particular need was identified. Sixteen per cent think they should be used on all residential roads.

The biggest benefit of the system, as voted for by more than half of the respondents was the removal of street clutter including kerbs, signs and railings. Improved pedestrian and cyclist safety were also popular at 49 and 43 per cent respectively, and only a quarter believed there would be no benefit at all.
Opinion on whether the respondents themselves would want to live in such a zone was evenly split, at 39 per cent each.

IAM director of policy and research Neil Greig said: “Our poll reveals a surprisingly positive attitude towards better protection of cyclists and pedestrians, both in road layout and legal responsibility. On the continent, attractive street design is used to make it clear where pedestrians have priority but this approach is in its infancy in the UK.

“The IAM supports any move to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, but research is needed into the best way to inform drivers about changes in legal responsibility, and also on the effect a Woonerf might have on the road sense of children brought up in such a zone, when later exposed to less protected areas.” ENDS

Notes for Editors:
*A Woonerf is a Dutch concept where by design, drivers and riders are restricted to a maximum speed called ‘footpace’ (one of the last archaic concepts in Dutch traffic law) referring to the pace of a horse. In practice this means a 15 km/h (10mph) maximum applies to all drivers and riders. Pedestrians may use all of the road and the responsibility is on drivers and riders to avoid being in an accident with a pedestrian. In an accident with a child under 14 years old, the driver is held to be liable; in one involving a pedestrian over 14, the likelihood is that the court will decide in favour of the pedestrian, but it is not based on explicit traffic law.
The IAM is the UK’s largest independent road safety charity, dedicated to improving standards and safety in driving, motorcycling and cycling. The commercial division of the IAM operates through its occupational driver training company IAM Drive & Survive. The IAM has more than 200 local volunteer groups and over 100,000 members in the UK and Ireland. It is best known for the advanced driving test and the advanced driving, motorcycling and cycling courses. Its policy and research division offers advice and expertise on road safety.

Are roads just for cars?

Fifty-eight per cent of people think that drivers should be held legally responsible for accidents between cars and more vulnerable road users in pedestrian-priority zones

*A Woonerf is a Dutch concept where by design, drivers and riders are restricted to a maximum speed ... this means a 15 km/h (10mph) maximum applies to all drivers and riders.

Sixteen per cent think they should be used on all residential roads.

Agreed DoktorMandrake, but do you recall what the questions were in the 'survey', how they were listed and the 'flow' of the questions too by any chance ?
Often many questions that most people will answer 'yes' to, will have a likely 'no' answered question, thrown in there as having answered yes, it is less likely (psychologically) to then say a 'no'. Plus careful ways in which questions are asked can often seem to sound sensible, but when looked at really carefully makes you realise that the negative and positive is really hard to know for sure in which way the question is being asked (even) !
In other words people are fooled into saying what the 'survey' commissioners want !

Was this an online questionnaire open to anyone?

If so it is worthless as a serious research attempt anyway, the same person can fill it out multiple times, could have been filled out by 5,000 12 year old students in Outer Lithuania as an English class exercise, who knows?

Very funny but potentially, at least, very true. I am pretty sure it was open to anyone and so any 'data' or 'conclusions' are indeed worthless. I love the way the IAM prints its findings as indisputable fact. Obviosuly the Institute of Advanced Motorists releases the results of a questionnaire and prints it on their site it will be treated as a credible gauge of public opinion but as you say Zippo, maybe it reflects the opinion of 5,000 Lithuanian twelve year olds.