simonhill wrote: ↑19 Jan 2022, 12:59pm
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned.
There was a Panorama program on Monday evening (17/1) at 7:30 detailing a number of reasons why our roads have got more dangerous.
Reduction in policing;
Speed cameras switched off;
Dangerous roads;
Reduction in use of breathalysers; and
Bad driving.
Nothing we don't know, but some rather sobering statistics. If you didn't see it, it will be on catch up, etc.
(My emphasis.)
I didn't watch the programme but from this clear summary I'll jump to the conclusion that it was about casualty counting. ie Not about dangers like air pollution or a lack of exercise through things like children being discouraged from walking to school and "playing out." It seems obvious to me then that almost all crashes are the result of human behaviour. There was a report the other day of a bridge (in the Trough of Bowland?) collapsing but cases like that are statistically tiny. Put another way, roads are inanimate.
============================================================
PS Here's the latest on the bridge collapse I mentioned, including a pic. Keeping an open mind etc., there may have been driver error in assuming that flimsy structure could take the weight
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.
Watched yesterday evening. Just another story of deteriorating standards due to budget cuts and a few irresponsible drivers taking advantage by disregarding rules no longer enforced. And the dumbness of ‘smart’ motorways of course.
DaveReading wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 5:12pm
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!
roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 6:03pm
My prejudice is that driver use of mobile phones has had a big impact, but not mentioned here.
Am I wrong?
(genuine question)
The catch phrase is the "Fatal four."
The NPCC strategy is clear that the focus of all police activity, especially enforcement, should be the ‘fatal four’ offences: “drink and drug driving; the non-wearing of seat belts; excess speed and driving whilst distracted”
On what constitutes a 'Dangerous Road': The example given in the program was the A82, the contention being that this road is becoming increasingly dangerous in that it's not been improved to keep pace with 'modern' traffic. Specifically they mentioned or alluded to larger vehicles, increase in volume, higher speeds, and carriageway width/proximity of 'scenery'(cliffs).
Has the road itself become more dangerous? Hard to say without specific local knowledge. eg surface condition/potholes, drainage etc. However, it appears that the only significant things that have changed are the number and type of vehicle using the road, and the way they are driven (higher speeds).
As has been pointed out by others. Blaming the road itself for being dangerous risks diverting attention and blame away from the root causes of the problem. Perhaps building larger, 'safer' roads is the price we have to pay to accommodate greater numbers of larger vehicles travelling at higher speeds. Even if it were the answer in some cases, it can't happen everywhere: Motorway past Loch Lomond? Tunnel under Stonehenge? etc. Yet the government permit ever large HGV's and too many drivers expect to be able to drive above speed limits.
Icsunonove wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 9:26am
On what constitutes a 'Dangerous Road': The example given in the program was the A82, the contention being that this road is becoming increasingly dangerous in that it's not been improved to keep pace with 'modern' traffic. Specifically they mentioned or alluded to larger vehicles, increase in volume, higher speeds, and carriageway width/proximity of 'scenery'(cliffs).
Which is all a bit odd - if not totally contradictory. Most of those things are permanent features of the A82, rather than things that have changed recently.
There has certainly been no change in the scenery over the last year or two.
Increased traffic volume tends to correlate to lower speeds - though over the last two years there lockdowns have reduced the volume of traffic on that route - which is heavily dominated by tourists. There have been no recent changes to the road itself.
The most relevent comparison here is the A9 (the other major N-S route through the highlands to Inverness). This used to regularly be listed as one of the most dangerous roads, but unlike the A82 has been upgradaded to modern highway standards all the way. What has changed over the past few years ... the A9 is now controlled by average speed cameras.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the only 'dangerous roads' are those where there are objective hazards unrelated to the actions of road users. Some of the most obvious of these - rockfall/avalanche in mountainous areas for instance - are almost completely absent in the UK. There are others, again rare in the UK, which are the consequence of negligence by external human agency, such as bridges neglected to the point of sudden collapse. But there are a few where hazards are inherent - the 'tidal roads' in South Devon which are flooded twice daily even though part of the adopted road network, roads on causeways linking islands in the Outer Hebrides where cars have been swept away in storms, or roads through heavily wooded areas where there's always a risk of falling trees. I'm sure there are other examples. But with any of these, the objective risk is statistically tiny, and is vanishingly small when set beside the risk of consequences from human action.
I used to be similarly perplexed, until somebody told me the sign is intended to warn you of fallen rocks on the road, as a consequence of the event depicted. This is indeed a fairly common hazard on Alpine roads.