Road safety rant

Blitzkrieger

I'm feeling bored today so I thought I'd have a bit of a rant. I've expressed most of these thoughts here before, but since so many threads repeat themselves here anyway, I thought I'd give it another go.

It seems at least once a week somebody posts a thread along the lines of : "Caught speeding, blah, blah, blah, trying to get out of it, etc." or "Passed a check point doing 300mph - was I caught?". You can then set your watch by some self-righteous, smug git replying with : "Speeding's bad, mmkay? Don't speed." or "You were caught speeding so you deserve everything you get. They should publicly hang you and castrate your family so nobody as evil as you can walk the earth again."

This is usually followed by the 'pro speed' giving reasoned arguments about how few accidents are caused by speed, how safe it is on the open road and giving ideas for improving road safety. The 'anti speed' side usually respond with banalities about not breaking the law and how swallowing government tripe is good for you. If any of them are feeling particularly lively they might quote some safety campaign about how high a number of accidents have speed as a contributory factor....

Well, duh! If we all traveled at 0mph I bet we'd see a dramatic *reduction in collision rates. The important word in that sentence is contributory. Maybe if we all go back to driving around at 5mph and employing a man to walk in front of the car waving a flag, we'll be able to stop when some twit pulls out of a junction without looking just 5ft in front of us. If we're traveling at 30mph, we've no chance. The speed of travel contributes to the accident but the cause was the twit at the junction. This is far more common than you think. In every study I've seen that went into such detail, the highest number of accidents were caused by people turning right onto a main road at a T-junction without looking. I guarantee if you stood by even a relatively quiet T-junction for 10 minutes, you would see people do this. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow you're traveling - if someone pulls right out in front of you, you're going to hit them.

Yes it's pedantic to spell it out like that, but sometimes I wonder if people get it.

The latest **British road safety ***survey I read put the number of accidents caused by inappropriate speed at 13%. The report went on to stress that motorways, the roads with the highest typical speed, had the lowest number of accidents and deaths per mile traveled. The majority were accidents on B roads or in towns and cities.

100mph is a number given far too much respect in this country. If you get caught traveling at 100mph you'll probably have your license suspended, but 100mph on a wide open dual-carriageway is actually quite pedestrian. Some people who've never driven at 100mph think that's fast, but most people who've been on the autobahns in Germany would agree. Given proper road conditions and a car in good condition, it'd be possible to drive from say Adenau (near Cologne), to Cherbourg at 100mph safely. If you haven't routinely driven at 100mph you don't know how pedestrian it is.

This morning on my to work I was traveling at about 100kph and passing lots of traffic. To travel at 100mph in the same conditions would have been suicidal. Dozy people wouldn't check their mirrors often enough or just wouldn't appreciate how fast I was approaching and would pull out in front of me. If the same road was empty or almost empty, I know I could travel at 100mph safely and I would probably pass a Garda checkpoint. The difference between speed, inappropriate speed and speeding.

Who can see the common solution to avoiding the two types of accidents I have described above?

I keep harping on about it - increased driver training is the biggest way of reducing accidents. I've undergone advanced driver training which dramatically increases your awareness of what's going on around you on the road. You learn to anticipate hazards and act to avoid them, rather than react (hopefully) when they occur. You get so much emphasis on observation and anticipation, something simple like not looking right at a junction almost never happens to you, and in the unlikely event that it does, because you've been trained to constantly evaluate your own driving, you'll realize your lucky escape and it won't happen next time. Driving standards in this country are appalling. People should focus more time and effort on driving well, and be given the training they need to do so.

This is hard to do, and the government are unwilling to do it. Instead they go after red herrings like speeding, where they can quote numbers of tickets given and penalty points given out, so that come election time they can say they're doing something while people continue to die on the roads. I can honestly say that with all the anti-speed campaigns I drive slower.....where I know there might be a checkpoint. All those lovely checkpoints on wide open roads with low accident rates.

Drink driving is another example of their incompetence when it comes to road safety. They don't have the vision or the courage to tackle the problem properly. If I was road safety minister, I'd push for alco-locks on every car. Some countries force drivers who've been convicted of drink driving to install these in their cars. They're basically a small breathalyzer tied into the ignition system. In order to start the engine, you have to blow into it, and if you don't pass, the engine won't start. It's a draconian measure, but if you really want to stop drink driving, I think it would almost stamp it out completely. Of course there's pitfalls to be avoided, there would be teething problems and people who really wanted to would find ways around it, but I think it would have a huge impact. Of course it would cost the public, but who wouldn't pay a small amount to all but guarantee there's no drink drivers on the road? If the government really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, they could even use the budget surplus to give a refund on car tax to cover all or part of the cost.

I'm sure Gaybo will come up with something better though. Gaybo will sort it all out.





*Somebody's going to be hit by lightning eventually.......
**Most things hold true for Ireland too.
***Can't remember if it was in the Times or Advanced Driving(Institute of Advance Motorist's magazine).
****Poor old Draco. You try to bring a bit of law and order and your name is a byword for ott severity.

Blitzkrieger

In a similar vein from timesonline.co.uk. Spot what's wrong with this article :

Teenage girls are to be taught in school that the biggest threat to life and limb is their boyfriend’s

driving.
A hard-hitting film funded by the Home Office will be sent free to all secondary schools to highlight the

dangers presented by teenage boys who get behind the wheel.





The film includes a dramatic crash scene created with the help of the emergency services. Firefighters from

South Yorkshire are seen using real cutting equipment and rescue methods on the wreckage, with young actors

playing the teenagers trapped inside.

Linda Gummery, spokeswoman for missdorothy.com, the charity behind the film, called Watch over Me III, said:

“Our films are aimed at helping young people develop strategies for dealing with everyday risks such as knife

crime and tough issues like internet paedophiles. But what struck us the most through our research for our

latest film was that one of the biggest killers of teenage girls in Britain was their boyfriends’ bad

driving.”

Although the charity has not been able to find statistics on the number of fatal car crashes involving

teenage boys, during their research they came across many cases. In the film Meredydd Hughes, Chief

Constable of South Yorkshire, says: “One fact quoted to me quite often is that the single biggest killer now

of teenage girls is their teenage boyfriends driving their cars.”

Among those featured in the film is Josie Palmer, from Bristol, whose 16-year-old son, Richard, was a

front-seat passenger in a stolen car that crashed during a high-speed police chase. He and the driver, also

16, died but Richard’s girlfriend, who was in the back seat, survived. Today is the fourteenth anniversary of

his death.

Mrs Palmer said: “Richard wasn’t a yob. He was a kind, caring son, who was bored and disillusioned. He met

the driver of the stolen car on a YTS scheme, but I’m not blaming anyone else, because Richard got into that

car of his own free will.”

Mrs Palmer visits schools for the Impact Roadshow, a police scheme. She said: “His girlfriend was badly

injured but survived and discovered she was pregnant with his baby. Apart from her physical injuries, she has

suffered so much trauma. As for me, part of me died with Richard, but I know that his death has not been in

vain.

“Teenage boys think they are immortal, but many tell me that the work I have done has made an impact on

them.”

Young men are responsible for nearly a third of serious driving offences, according to recent Home Office

figures.

In 2004 there were 7,017 convictions for “causing death or bodily harm by dangerous driving” or “dangerous

driving”, and 33 per cent of them were committed by men aged 17-20. Male drivers of this age are estimated to

account for only 3 per cent of the driving population.

Women, including young women, are much more safety-conscious drivers — they were responsible for 1 per cent

of the serious convictions.

Drax

Blitzkrieger wrote:

I'm feeling bored today so I thought I'd have a bit of a rant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gaybo will sort it all out.

Good post Blitzkrieger. Agree with you 100%. Particularly about the flow of threads....

Can you imagine though what would happen if people had to install those alco-locks?? There would be no end to the abuse. Pay some stranger walking by a couple of quid to blow into it etc...

It would be great if learner drivers were taught to advanced level before being let onto the road.

ballooba

I'm in the doghouse because I drive in bus lanes but I think that's a good post.

I have heard people commending the RSA for dropping the "Speed Kills" mantra. This lays it out quite well.

Sundy

Excellent post, i agree 100% with almost everything you say. Nice to see some people have common sense.

311

I don't post a lot in the motor forum ,but would like to agree with op.
Also ,it comes to mind a lot to me that ireland is still going through a growth that superseeds anything else ,our wealth is overtaking everything else at the moment.
Maybe when we get a lot of the construction out of the way in the country ,then people in general will start to contemplate on safety a little more and taking care of themselves. A big example would be our road network.

Funxy

Wow i cannot believe the day has come when there's a 100% sensible post on the motors forum and it hasn't turned into murder ...... yet! Watch out for the pc brigade, but before they come i would like to say excellent post. Really well thought out and a pleasure to read. If only everyone could be so sensible

kippy

Decent post-cant say I agree with it all but the Alco locks are definetly something that need to be looked at.

The advanced driver training, yes-it is a good idea-but as you can well imagine, we have trouble doing standard driving tests in this country (backlog) - I can only imagine the back log that more training will bring. Since we do not have advanced driver training as a standard for everyone, speed limits are needed.
That said, it should be brought it, but while it is not there, the majority of drivers in this country are not advanced enough and as such speed limits are needed.

If someone pulls out in from of you, you are going to hit them, common sense-if you happen to be travelling 100MPH then you have feck all chance of surviving.

I suppose I am one of the PC brigade, but my thoughts are this-speeding is something that is done by impatient people or people who do not give themselves enough time to get from A to B. People like this tend to take more risks on the road also-I do not want these people on our roads as they are a danger to me. Sorry, but that is my attitude.
Kippy

SouperComputer

If someone pulls out in from of you, you are going to hit them, common sense-if you happen to be travelling 100MPH then you have feck all chance of surviving.

Thats the whole thing about appropiate use of speed kippy, if the chances of this happening are reasonable, then you dont drive at 100MPH!

TBH this rule applies to almost any speed. Even if you are driving at 20mph, if a pedestian walks out from behind a parked van with blocked out rear windows 5 feet away from you, WHAM! True, they may not die, but I can assure you they will probably wish there were killed! Of course, its not very often you get a pedestian as stupid to do such a thing, which is why often we drive in excess of 20Mph in the city, its a calculated risk.

Also, you could argue that if you are travelling at 100MPH, you run the risk of hammering the other object square on, but you also may skim it at 100MPH and hit it head on at 60. Speed is not the problem, even drink is not the problem, it's people attitude towards their driving and others. How this can change I have no idea, ill leave that to someone else.

Although I somtimes drive over legal posted limit, im am nowhere near an impatient driver. I have no problem following the flow of traffic, or slowing down for a slower car. Things like that just dont' bother me.

Driving both here in the US and at home in Ireland, I drive over and under the legal posted limit. I somtimes drive 100MPH or more given suitable conditions (Although I NEVER overtake at these speeds, even on multiple lane roads, again appropiate use of speed), but also quite often find myself driving at 25MPH in the city for many reasons: proximity of parked cars, corners, junctions, undulations etc etc.

A good rule of thumb for appropiate speed is to imagine a leathal spike in the middle of your steering wheel. Although this only takes care of what is appropiate for your own safety

kippy

Soupercomputer,
I agree with your comments. Appropriate speed for the given conditions is fair enough.
However appropriate to you may not be what is appropriate to others. This is why we have the limits as they are. People cannot go out on the road and drive as fast as they please - there are far to many people who dont realise the dangers of excessive speed.

Kalina

Great opening post!
I just can't understand why we have 100kph zones on the worst of back roads and 80kph on our straightest widest motorways. It makes no sense. The death toll is rising and what's being done to combat this?
I lost someone I love in a car accident only a week ago, she and her sister and niece were hit head on by a 21 year old in a souped up car who came around the corner on the wrong side of the road after overtaking 2 cars. The 21 year old was killed aswell- 2 families destroyed because this guy was driving too fast on a corner and couldn't control his car. While speed may have been an issue here the main problem was lack of driving skill and lack of sense and respect for other road users. It is obvious that more training is required for drivers- both young and established.
The only way people will start to repsect the roads is when they have an accident themselves or lose someone in an accident- living with that pain every day will remind them to respect other people on the roads around them.

Drax

Sorry for your loss Kalina.

gyppo

First off, I have to say that the OP's post was great, and made some very valid points, though I would not agree on all of them.

I suppose I would be categorised as one of the 'anti speed' brigade, and feeling particularly lively today , would like to point out this medical paper

www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/publications/MaxillofacialInjuries.pdf

published very soon after the introduction of the penalty points sysyem, when the good motorists of Ireland actually obeyed the speed limits for a few fleeting moments. The results obtained ( a 61% reduction in necessary surgery in the 12 months after the introduction of the Penalty Points system ) speak for themselves.

Maybe if we all go back to driving around at 5mph and employing a man to walk in front of the car waving a flag, we'll be able to stop when some twit pulls out of a junction without looking just 5ft in front of us. If we're traveling at 30mph, we've no chance. The speed of travel contributes to the accident but the cause was the twit at the junction. This is far more common than you think. In every study I've seen that went into such detail, the highest number of accidents were caused by people turning right onto a main road at a T-junction without looking.

This scenario is biased in favour of the OP's arguement. If someone pulls out in front of you when you are within 5ft of them, then you have'nt much hope of avoiding them.
Its easy to massage the figures the other way too. Suppose the same twit pulls out of a junction 100ft ahead, and the speed limit is 50km/h, road dry.
At the speed limit, you will stop the car within 75ft.
If you are driving at 65km/h (40mph), it will take 120ft to stop the car, except in this case the twit who pulled out in front of you has stopped it for you!

My point here is that failure to obey the speed limit in urban areas can contribute greatly to accidents, probably far more so than failure to obey the speed limits on primary routes.

The OP uses the word inappropriate, which is the kernel of this debate. Many of the dopes who drive on Irish roads have no conception of what an appropriate speed is, hence the need for speed limits and enforcement. I too, have driven on german autobahns, and agree that 100mph a pedestrian pace. However excellent driver awareness exists there, something which is practically non-existant here.

In this country, if someone decides to drive without complying with the speed limit, knowing as they do of the appalling driving standards of other road users, and countered with the certainty that somewhere, someday, they will have to take emergency action when someone else makes a mistake, then this makes them a liability on our roads also.

There exists an ala carte interpretation of speed limits within this country, which has been exacerbated by the governments ridiculous limit of 80km/h on rural roads. Many of those who speed have an overestimated belief in their own driving abilities, often with tragic results. They believe that they will be able to deal with any situation which appears, and that accidents are something which only happen other people. They probably believe that they are better drivers than those who have undergone advanced driving courses.

The OP is 100% correct, increased driver training is the key to road safety and accident reduction. However, as Kippy pointed out, this country can't get its house in order with basic road training, never mind advanced training. Until we reach this advanced training utopia, I cannot see any other alternative other than coercion and enforcement of the existing road legislation.

ballooba

I was thinking of a scenario when I read the OP.

Say Car A pulls out of a T-Junction from R road without looking. Car B is on N road and has slightly excessive speed on. Car B t-bones Car A.

How is the blame apportioned?

Blitzkrieger

Maybe somebody from an insurance company could respond with a more definite answer, but from what I've heard, unless the driver of car B can come up with witnesses that car A drove right out in front of him, he bears the brunt of the blame.

Drax wrote:

Can you imagine though what would happen if people had to install those alco-locks?? There would be no end to the abuse. Pay some stranger walking by a couple of quid to blow into it etc...

It'd be easier just to 'tweak' it so that it always gives a good reading. How easy is it to find a sober person really late at night?

I know there would be problems. You could introduce harsh penalties for tampering with them, depending on how the system is being abused, but of course people will slip through the cracks. I still think it would make a huge difference.

gyppo wrote:

Its easy to massage the figures the other way too. Suppose the same twit pulls out of a junction 100ft ahead, and the speed limit is 50km/h, road dry.
At the speed limit, you will stop the car within 75ft.
If you are driving at 65km/h (40mph), it will take 120ft to stop the car, except in this case the twit who pulled out in front of you has stopped it for you!

I agree, but I don't think you've massaged your numbers enough.

There was a debate in this month's Advanced Driving magazine about official braking distances and how they haven't changed with better braking technology in cars. The IAM's position is that thought modern cars can brake faster, not enough reaction time was factored in. I don't agree. My old '91 Fiesta would probably have stopped in less than 120ft.....just. My 'new' car with 175mm discs all round and sports ABS will stop in a fraction of the distance. The problem is that reaction time is an unknown variable, so awareness and appropriate speed come to the fore again.

gyppo

Blitzkrieger wrote:

I agree, but I don't think you've massaged your numbers enough.

My source:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm

I agree that these are illustrative figures, and technology advancements may make these unrealistic - the point I was making however was just how much more effort it takes to stop a car which is doing 10mph more.

ballooba

Blitzkrieger wrote:

It'd be easier just to 'tweak' it so that it always gives a good reading. How easy is it to find a sober person really late at night?

Another good reason to bring the kids to the pub.

SouperComputer

[QUOTE=gyppo
]Its easy to massage the figures the other way too. Suppose the same twit pulls out of a junction 100ft ahead, and the speed limit is 50km/h, road dry.
At the speed limit, you will stop the car within 75ft.
If you are driving at 65km/h (40mph), it will take 120ft to stop the car, except in this case the twit who pulled out in front of you has stopped it for you![/QUOTE]

Thats where it gets complicated and stopping distances can be misleading. Stopping is not always the most efficent way of avoiding a collision, changing direction is, or, ideally, a combination of the two.

Again, appropiate speed rears it head. If you are driving on a road where such junctions exist but there is no room for a direction change (perhaps due to oncoming traffic), then you should probably be driving under the posted limit IMO. But its hard to judge unless you are actually at the scene.

For me appropiate speed is one where if such a situation occurs, you probably wouldnt need to brake at all, or if you do it would be very little.

Another complication:

Say the posted limted is 50Kph, but its one of those roads where drivers (for whatever reason, thats another discussion!) drive at 40-45MPH. The driver pulling out from the junction notices you are going slower, debates about pulling out and then pulls out too late. Bang! Its a funny old puzzle!