BBC Program on Why Are Our Roads Getting Less Safe

[thirdcrank]

The point is no less significant because I got my facts wrong. The number of occasions when people have a minor bump at motorway speeds is probably small (although presumably unrecorded.) Most motorway-speed collisions must have quite a spectacular result with at least one of the vehicles immobilised, even if that's only temporary. Then, there are other stoppages such as breakdowns, where the driver + vehicle are stranded. eg a colleague of one of my sons driving a brand new Discovery had the gearbox fail when he was in the fourth lane of the M1. He managed to freewheel at speed - hazards on and sounding horn I believe - and by good luck gained some sort a safety.

From police chase programmes etc., I've seen examples of drivers running out of fuel or ignoring a warning light getting a ticket for careless driving but that doesn't begin to touch the problem of vehicles stopped on a live lane. Obviously, if all drivers drove at the speed they can see to be clear that wouldn't be a problem, but they don't. Indeed, cases have been reported of drivers ignoring a red X lane closure so technology isn't 100% effective.

"Stopping after an accident" does attract quite a bit of attention, especially when it involves not stopping. In my long-gone days as a panda car driver, it was quite common for a minor shunt in urban traffic to involve at least one aggrieved driver who wasn't going to move their car an inch until the police had arrived and measured up. I fancy expectations are reduced now.

I don't think I've watched one of those fly-on-the-windscreen ads carefully, but I'm not sure they really convey the message of not stopping eg "after an accident."

On the broad subject of the "safety" of smart motorways without a hard shoulder, I can see more space is visibly created. I can also see that the presence of gantry camera signs slows traffic, with a lot of drivers seeming to comply with their (over-reading) speedos so traffic is spread across all four lanes at typically 65mph. The difference between that and nose-to-tail at 80+ mph must reduces crashes - a form of traffic calming. But this introduces another variable in any sort of proper evaluation.

[Tiggertoo]

I expect one day, maybe not soon enough, all cars will have the 'idiot' component, ie, driver, removed and cars will be self driven connected with a satellite system whereby automatic distancing and speed regulation will be normal.

[robing]

I saw this. Certainly confirmed my own subjective view that roads had become more dangerous in the last 2 years and it's all down to poor driving. It made my think if more people in cars are being killed or seriously injured, then what chance do us cyclists have?
Is some of this due to more people deserting public transport in the pandemic and taking to the roads?

[Tiggertoo]

I believe it is mostly due to drivers being in greater haste to get from one place to another - often for no good reason, mainly I suspect because of the increased pace of modern life.

[mjr]

Is some of this due to more people deserting public transport in the pandemic and taking to the roads?

Or is it due to sensible drivers working from home and leaving a higher proportion of the hard of thinking on the roads, without as many good drivers getting in their way and slowing them down.

[Jdsk]

4 pages in... has anyone got the data used in the programme, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Smart motorways: 'No manslaughter charge' over M1 death

Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Poolman said: "As part of our work, we sought specialist advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

"Having considered the CPS advice, we have concluded that in the circumstances, Highways England [now known as National Highways] cannot be held liable for the offence of corporate manslaughter.

"This is because, in legal terms, the organisation did not owe road users a 'relevant duty of care' under the terms set out in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. (My bold)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-s ... e-60214759

[RickH]

A suitable parallel might be the distinction made in accident investigation across a number of sectors between "primary cause" and "contributing factors".

So it would be perfectly possible for a road accident to have a primary cause of driver error (incompetence, inattention, lack of skill/judgement, etc) but with a contributory factor being road design/maintenance/etc.

Yes, that's a good description.

But the road design didn't harm anyone - the poor driver making an error did. Without the driver there, the road is perfectly safe!

Better road design can influence the behaviour of those liable to drive in a more dangerous manner, such as wide throated junctions in residential areas that enable folk likely to speed to take corners without slowing & also necessitate pedestrians spending longer time in the road crossing the extra width of the carriageway.

I came across this twitter post today with an animated gif that illustrates the sort of junction I was meaning & is probably clearer than any explanation of mine.

https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/ ... mIZ1A&s=19

[qwerty360]

I have a huge problem with it (and other similar recent programs).

The excessive focus on smart motorways and how they have 'killed 36 people'.

Which ignores that:
1. A significant chunk of said people would have died on normal motorways.
2. 36 over 5 years; Milage is down yet road fatalities are up last year (by both total and milage adjusted) (for the first time in 40 odd years) by significantly more than this... Basically it is a rounding error on the fatalities getting worse, yet alone total numbers, yet was ~1/4 of the show! (I expect it is much like cycle helmets - a way to blame something other than drivers behaving badly...)
3. ALR motorways are still safer than any non-motorway, so telling people they shouldn't drive on ALR motorways is reckless. It is highly likely that overall they save lives by increased capacity on the safest roads (taking traffic off roads with far higher accident rates)


If we are arguing that tech that was promised isn't being used on smart motorways, we should be discussing why it (and other cheaper, easier tech already on said motorways) isn't being put in on dual carriageways and other major roads (e.g. the A82) first, given there is a very strong argument that would make a far, far bigger difference. (Not to mention far wider use of LTNs and filtered permeability, given 50% reduction in KSI's seen in London boroughs).

[mattheus]

3. ALR motorways are still safer than any non-motorway, so telling people they shouldn't drive on ALR motorways is reckless. It is highly likely that overall they save lives by increased capacity on the safest roads (taking traffic off roads with far higher accident rates)

Good point. but ...
do they just take traffic off those other roads? Or do they increase overall traffic, which means they may be creating extra fatalities, as well as preventing some?

[Slowtwitch]

I expect one day, maybe not soon enough, all cars will have the 'idiot' component, ie, driver, removed and cars will be self driven connected with a satellite system whereby automatic distancing and speed regulation will be normal.

That day might come sooner than we think. The Americans are trialling a whole town network in California this year (in not sure who the hardware supplier is, I think its Tesla), so idiot free roads could be with us in less than 3 years. Can't come quick enough...

[Jdsk]

I have a huge problem with it (and other similar recent programs).

The excessive focus on smart motorways and how they have 'killed 36 people'.

Which ignores that:
1. A significant chunk of said people would have died on normal motorways.
2. 36 over 5 years; Milage is down yet road fatalities are up last year (by both total and milage adjusted) (for the first time in 40 odd years) by significantly more than this... Basically it is a rounding error on the fatalities getting worse, yet alone total numbers, yet was ~1/4 of the show! (I expect it is much like cycle helmets - a way to blame something other than drivers behaving badly...)
3. ALR motorways are still safer than any non-motorway, so telling people they shouldn't drive on ALR motorways is reckless. It is highly likely that overall they save lives by increased capacity on the safest roads (taking traffic off roads with far higher accident rates)

If we are arguing that tech that was promised isn't being used on smart motorways, we should be discussing why it (and other cheaper, easier tech already on said motorways) isn't being put in on dual carriageways and other major roads (e.g. the A82) first, given there is a very strong argument that would make a far, far bigger difference. (Not to mention far wider use of LTNs and filtered permeability, given 50% reduction in KSI's seen in London boroughs).

Yes. The emphasis should be based on cost-effectiveness of possible interventions.

But of course the dramatic nature of some adverse incidents attracts attention.

And there does seem to have been a problem in later implementations being different from what was evaluated. This needs to be sorted out if we're ever going to have evidence-based polices.

Jonathan

[Stevek76]

I expect one day, maybe not soon enough, all cars will have the 'idiot' component, ie, driver, removed and cars will be self driven connected with a satellite system whereby automatic distancing and speed regulation will be normal.

That day might come sooner than we think. The Americans are trialling a whole town network in California this year (in not sure who the hardware supplier is, I think its Tesla), so idiot free roads could be with us in less than 3 years. Can't come quick enough...

If it's actually Tesla I'd be very cautious. They're exactly the kind of company that would press for pedestrians and cyclists to be removed so their inadequate ai can cope. (More than happy to be proven wrong here but videos their fans have posted of the present self driving capability have been far off genuine autonomy)

Regarding the original topic, is there any article or transcript of this programme that explains the claim of roads being more dangerous? As I noted back on the first page this does not fit with official statistics.

[mjr]

Regarding the original topic, is there any article or transcript of this programme that explains the claim of roads being more dangerous? As I noted back on the first page this does not fit with official statistics.

I have a copy of the subtitles extracted from about half of the show. Here are the relevant lines from the introduction:

Tonight on Panorama, what's going on on Britain's roads?
For the first time in 40 years, the death rate is on the rise.
HORNS BEEP
The figure for people killed on our roads is 1,600 a year.
[...]
I want to find out more about the risks we face when we get behind the wheel, and why Britain's roads are getting more dangerous.
The thing is, it shouldn't be like this. Cars are getting safer.
Roads should be getting safer. But that is not what's going on.
For 30 years, the fatality rate - the number of deaths per billion miles travelled - was falling.
For the past decade, it stayed broadly the same but, in 2020, the death rate rose by 5% - the most significant increase in 40 years.
Last year, we've even seen an increase in the rate of fatalities, so it's very, very worrying.
It matters because these are real people that are dying on our roads, and many of them are totally unnecessary.
They're not accidents - these are deaths that could have been prevented.
Around 1,600 people die on our roads each year and 25,000 are seriously injured - so many families whose lives are changed for ever.
Rural roads are the most dangerous.

By far the biggest flaw is that most of these are absolute numbers, without any adjustment for amount of travel. Even though people disagree about the best measurement of that amount of travel (miles, time, trips, stages, ...), not including any of them seems pretty daft.

[Jdsk]

Regarding the original topic, is there any article or transcript of this programme that explains the claim of roads being more dangerous? As I noted back on the first page this does not fit with official statistics.

I have a copy of the subtitles extracted from about half of the show. Here are the relevant lines from the introduction:

...

For 30 years, the fatality rate - the number of deaths per billion miles travelled - was falling.
For the past decade, it stayed broadly the same but, in 2020, the death rate rose by 5% - the most significant increase in 40 years.

...

By far the biggest flaw is that these are absolute numbers, without any adjustment for amount of travel. Even though people disagree about the best measurement of that amount of travel (miles, time, trips, stages, ...), not including any of them seems pretty daft.

That one includes distance travelled....

Jonathan