More than 32,000 people have died on British roads in the past 10 years

[snorri]

Why are we arguing about this.

Ah! the end is nigh, praise be to the Lord.

 

[very-near]

Probably because your first posts on the subject suggested that the number of people killed on the roads was acceptable, and then you went on to suggest a lot of reasons why 20mph limits wouldn't save lives.

If you've come round then great, and have a happy Christmas.

What do you consider to be an acceptable figure IE - what would you accept as a target which you consider to be realistic given the 30 million cars on the roads in the UK ?

 

[marinyork]

What do you consider to be an acceptable figure IE - what would you accept as a target which you consider to be realistic given the 30 million cars on the roads in the UK ?

I'd say two to two and a half thousand. I checked the ONS and I don't know where you got your figures from but road deaths are pretty much the three thousand mark thesedays, not five hundred fewer.

 

[Origamist]

@Marinyork

According to the DfT:

The number of people killed in road accidents fell by 14 per cent from 2,946 in 2007 to 2,538 in 2008. In accidents reported to the police 28,572 people were killed or seriously injured in 2008, 7 per cent fewer than in 2007. There were just under 231,000 road casualties in Great Britain in 2008, 7 per cent less than in 2007.

The 2004- 2008 average baseline figures are: 3016 killed

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008

 

[marinyork]

@Marinyork

According to the DfT:



The 2004- 2008 average baseline figures are: 3016 killed

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008

It was the 2007 figures I looked at. What I said was broadly true though, it has been around 3000 for a number of years and I knew that even before I looked at the numbers.

One would hope that the 2009 numbers end up being so good as that is a massive drop.

 

[Origamist]

It was the 2007 figures I looked at. What I said was broadly true though, it has been around 3000 for a number of years and I knew that even before I looked at the numbers.

One would hope that the 2009 numbers end up being so good as that is a massive drop.

Yep, the 2008 figures were a welcome surprise. The estimates after the 2nd quarter this year suggest that they will be lower again, but it will be interesting to see how cyclists faired when we finally know to what extent cyclist numbers have increased.

I also understand there has been a 2% drop in all traffic in 2009.

As for 20mph limits, Clarkson has spoken today:

As we know, there is a general trend in the echelons of power to push for lower urban speed limits. And as a result, woolly-headed researchers are delivering all sorts of evidence — or tricks — to suggest that such a move would save 30,000 children’s lives, end the war in Afghanistan and cure the common cold.

It is all nonsense. I have tried driving through urban areas at the suggested new limit of 20mph and it is impossible. Gradients, gear ratios and the need to look up from the speedo from time to time mean that often you look back down again to see you’ve crept up to a jailable 26.

It is, of course, a fact that if you hit a pedestrian while travelling at 20mph, they will be more likely to survive than if you hit them at 40. But what the woolly-headed fools don’t seem to realise is that you rarely hit a pedestrian while travelling at the posted limit because most cars have steel discs attached to the wheels: these are called brakes.

You may well be doing 40 when you first see the drunk weaving out from behind a bus. But because of these so-called “brakes”, by the time you actually hit him, you will be doing 20. Which means he will emerge from the experience pretty much undamaged. Especially if he is really drunk and therefore all flobbery.

The fact is that almost everyone who is old enough to drive a car is sufficiently intelligent to work out the best speed for the prevailing conditions. Of course there are idiots who charge through town centres at 90 but do you really think they’ll slow down just because the limit goes down a bit? I don’t.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6961706.ece

 

[very-near]

An acceptable figure would be zero, and we should always be striving to minimise it by taking advantage of developing technology and knowledge, while accepting that we can never reach zero. It's not about picking a figure and being happy when we get there, but aiming towards the goal.


For example, when it's proven that 20mph limits save lives then this mechanism should be used to its appropriate fulness to bring the figures down.

For example, technology and developments in design are improving car safety all the time. We should welcome this and enjoy the reduction in KSIs that this brings, rather than using it as an excuse to raise speed limits.

Who is suggesting raising them ?

Great advances in safety has been achieved not by lowering speed limits, but by improving vehicle design.

I could think of many additional things which would make an immediate difference to the stats to satisfy your desire to see a zero number in thee KSI's

Anyway, how about these ways of reducing the numbers:-

Tiredness costs 300 lives a year on the roads in the UK

If you fall asleep at the wheel you risk killing yourself, your passengers and other innocent victims.

Tiredness reduces reaction time, alertness, concentration, decision making and all crucial driving skills.

Tired drivers are much more likely to have an accident and the crash is likely to be severe because a drowsy or sleeping driver does not usually brake or swerve before the impact.

An estimated 300 people a year are killed and many more are seriously injured where a driver has fallen asleep at the wheel.
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=14736

Or Drink Driving which costs 570 lives each year in the UK

The risks
Drink-driving puts both drivers and other road users at risk. Of the 20,060 people killed or injured in drink-drive crashes in 2002 there were:
? 740 pedestrians, including 120 children;
? 140 cyclists, including 40 children;
? 6,930 car passengers, including 850 children;
? 720 passengers in other vehicles, including 40 children;
? plus many drivers and motorcyclists who had not been drinking themselves but were hit by drink-drivers.[10]
At twice the legal limit, drivers are at least 50 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. [11]

The law - the drink-drive limit
The current drink-drive limit in the UK is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, significantly higher than the majority of EU countries (the EC recommends a limit of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood or less). Research shows that a driver’s judgement and motor skills are affected when they are still well below the legal alcohol limit.[12]
An estimated 80 people die each year in crashes caused by drivers who are impaired by alcohol but who are under the limit. [13]

This amounts to approx 570 people who lose their lives to drink drivers each year in the UK
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/drink-driving

Drug Driving is a contributing factor in 18% of fatal accidents on the road or approx 450 of those who are killed or cause the death of others on the roads

Around 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis being the most common. [1]

Although the risks of drug driving aren’t as well known as the risks of drink driving they are just as dangerous ? drugs can affect people dramatically and therefore make them lethal when behind the wheel of a car.

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/drug-driving

Without looking closely at the cycling stats, and without including any deliberate acts of speeding (or even looking at speed as a factor), we are up to 1400 deaths a year (or 54% of the 2570 deaths last year) which are caused by impaired judgment through drink, drugs and tiredness.

You never mention any of these in your road safety crusades, but they are plainly the primary causes of road deaths in the UK.

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position as it will never bring the result you are pursuing whichever way you want to be 'aiming towards the goal'.

 

[marinyork]

Who is suggesting raising them ?

Roads are often asked to have the speed limit raised through various measures. A bit of ring road round here there's a campaign to raise a 40 road to 60 or 70. When I lived in another city a past time of much of the population was whining endlessly about dualling a bit of the ring road and raising the speed limit.

You never mention any of these in your road safety crusades, but they are plainly the primary causes of road deaths in the UK.

People talk about drunk driving quite often. There's not much I can do about it. If someone drink drives has a crash and the police attend they'll get taken to court. If someone doesn't have a crash it's extremely unlikely they'll get caught. Police just don't do enough breathaliser tests. It's mindnumbingly boring work with little reward but it needs upping. In some bits of the year they run fairly good campaigns in targeted areas. I saw the police out on Thursday night testing for drink.

I got hit by someone that I think may have been drug driving. It wasn't a pleasant experience.

 

[Cab]

As for 20mph limits, Clarkson has spoken today:

So, if that smeg head were to spout that drivel here, I'd say 'but 20mph zones have been proven to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the road, so whats your point?'.

 

[Cab]

Do Clarksons brakes not work at all at 20mph then?!

Its more like his brain doesn't. Seems that he can't drive at that speed without constantly looking at his speedometer. If he can't keep his car under (legal) control, he has no business being out on the roads.

Of course his previous comment urging motorists that to mow down cyclists and suggesting that bus drivers are jumped up little Hitlers who should be shot in the face also gave some hints to the fact that he is unsuitable driving matter.

 

[theclaud]

the fact that he is unsuitable driving matter.

Unsuitable breathing matter, in fact.

 

[very-near]

It's an oft-used petrolhead excuse. You've alluded to it a fair few times on here when excusing speeding, suggesting that high speed is ok because these days cars are safer.

Yup, that's what I just said.

So could all of us. There are a lot of them.

That's right. There are things that can be done to reduce the risk that these activities bring to the roads. And they are being done.

None of it changes the facts about the safety improvements that 20mph limits can bring.

Yes I do. Have another look.


See above.

Sorry, but you are wrong .

The trend of drug and drink driving is rising. The government spent a pitiful £2.3 million on a campaign to help stop this. They are attributing 1 in 5 deaths to this cause alone or not even what is spent on the cost of a road 3 deaths in the UK (£1million each).

The cost of implementing and policing a 20mph limit nationwide will cost billions.

We have to balance risk against value and money could be better spent on reducing the drink driving and drug driving.

Perhaps they could even offer free coffee stops in motorway service stations and in rest areas on trunk roads as a networks of these would undoubtedly save millions if they help to reduce this problem given the £1million cost of each life lost on the roads. I'd say that they should return excellent value for money in the quest for safer roads.

You need to think outside of the box as your idea will simply not give a decent return for the cost of policing it.

 

[summerdays]

The 20 mph zones are not just about saving lives, they will also reduce other less severe injuries and to make it more pleasant for the people who live and work there.

 

[very-near]

I'd prefer to be hit by a drunk driver at 20mph than I would at 30mph

Think very carefully about what you are asking for smeggers

 

[theclaud]

Think very carefully about what you are asking for smeggers

Eh? So you'd rather be hit by the faster drunk-driver?