Drivers urged: don’t treat country roads like racetracks

12.00 | 24 July 2014 | | 56 comments

A “huge proportion” of drivers treat country roads “like racetracks”, according to Brake, the road safety charity.

In a survey of 1,000 drivers carried out on behalf of Brake, 33% of respondents admitted “driving too fast for safety” on country roads – and 37% said they have had a near miss while driving, walking or cycling on these roads.

Brake says that since there is less traffic on country roads, some drivers “feel a false sense of security and are prone to take risks like speeding, overtaking, and not slowing down for brows and bends”. The charity adds that, per mile travelled, country roads are the “most dangerous for all types of road user”.

The charity says that three quarters of those surveyed (76%) think country roads need to be safer for cyclists, walkers and horse-riders, and two in five say they would start cycling or cycle more (37%), or start walking or walk more (43%), if these roads were safer.

Brake is calling on Government to lower limits on rural roads to a maximum of 50mph, and to require authorities to implement lower limits “where there are particular risks”. The charity is also urging drivers to stay well under current limits because “60mph is generally far too fast for safety on these roads”.

Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive of Brake, said: "We hear constantly from people in rural areas whose communities are blighted by fast traffic.

“It’s a big issue over the summer when many people want to enjoy our beautiful countryside on foot, bike or horseback, and shouldn’t have to contend with drivers treating the roads as their personal racetrack.

“Driving in this way is incredibly selfish and means people feel less able to get out and enjoy the countryside.”

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Idris:
    The ‘quite a lot’ bit actually meant the total number of ‘bad apples’ on the road; a much larger figure than just the several thousand (recorded) accidents caused by them.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh – a few thousand out of 30 million is not a lot but some 0.01%.


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan,
    Disagreeing with the findings of a report is fine, but there is no need to label it as ‘utter rot’ with no evidence to back up that statement. In disagreement you could have cited the discussion between the authors and af Wahlberg, Dorn and Freeman (2012; in Journal of Safety Research, 43) which I’d encourage people to read to see both sides of the self-reported driver behaviour discussion.

    I only included one reference (albeit a meta-analysis of 174 studies using the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire), for other studies on psychological predictors of crash involvement you may want to see Iverson and Rundmo (2002), Turner and McClure (2004), Oltedal and Rundmo (2006), Dahlen et al. (2012), and Hassan and Abdel-Aty (2013) among others.

    Regarding the Safe System approach, I also struggle to see your point regarding it being back to front in its implementation? Surely starting from ‘what is the human tolerance to injury?’ and working back through the mechanisms causing that injury is the most logical approach in full knowledge that human error will always perform a function within the system so the root cause of collisions in the first place can never be fully irradicated?


    Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Nick:
    Could you modify your caveat a bit so that it says: “the views expressed above are clearly the personal opinion of Duncan MacKillop and a rapidly increasing number of road safety professionals, researchers, educators and scientists and readers should treat them as such”?


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan
    It really does begin to look as if you are sceptical of everything. Even the things you consider to be right are upside down. Is it my perception? You seem to be against rules, against training, against behaviour change. Maybe you could focus on what you would do and give us all the opportunity to provide some constructive criticism.


    Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Matt:
    The risky behaviour report is utter rot, the McKenna report is spot on and the Safe System approach is the right idea but completely back to front in its implementation.

    Editor’s note: the views expressed above are clearly the personal opinion of Duncan MacKillop, and readers should treat them as such.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    The sad thing is that, Acts of God aside, road accidents are avoidable, if everyone tried. Some don’t try at all, some not hard enough and some have turned it into an art form. However variations in human behaviour characteristics mean we will never not have bad road behaviour – until we’re all in driverless cars that is.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I’m coming to the party a little late on this one but would like to add a couple of points to the discussion:

    1. Research suggests negative or ‘risky’ attitudes are linked to ‘risky’ behaviours and crash involvement (see de Winter and Dodou, 2010 for a meta-analysis – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437510001131).

    2. With regard to a more recent report on UK road safety education and whether it (and other Public Health education) is effective (or not) see McKenna (2010; http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/education%20in%20road%20safety%20-%20mckenna%20-%20080910%20-%20report.pdf )

    3. In searching for a safe road transport system the key question is whether we are looking for a system where no collisions occur, or where no serious injuries result from any collisions that do? For the latter, and where I personally think we should be headed, see the Safe System approach (p.15 in the link: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPGLOROASAF/Resources/2582212-1265307800361/towards_zero.pdf)


    Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Rod:
    The Public’s individual and collective behaviour is responsible for road safety, not road casualties. It is their errors that expose deficiencies in the system not their behaviour.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh
    I believe there is a real appetite to reduce road casualties. However there is a disconnect between the average person and how their individual and collective behaviour is responsible for road casualties. If that were to be better explained and accompanied with “vision zero” leadership rather than the back-patting “look at how much we have improved since 1995” then we could make some real improvements not only to casualty reduction but also urban renewal.


    Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    “There is no road that can’t be driven down without a collision ocurring; when the people have a real appetite to do away with road casualties, then it can be achieved”. Spot on.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    The paper is very interesting from the brief scan I have made of it. I would have to observe that a comparison between road safety and pharmaceutical research is probably unfair because the degree to which the latter can be controlled and the predictability of pure chemical reaction are of a different order to driver behaviour. It is a fair point that better quality of research may enable better intervention to prevent collisions particularly in the field of road design, but it is by no means clear that the problem can be solved or even nearly solved by this. There isn’t even a guarantee better research wouldn’t find we are already doing the best interventions possible. And researching anything that depends on human response is always going to draw questionable conclusions.

    The report says clearly that for improvement to happen there must be a market for improvement both from the authorities and the people and I quite agree. But frankly the people’s approach to road safety seems to be to continue behaving as they do but to tell the authorities to fix the problem. There is no road that can’t be driven down without a collision ocurring; when the people have a real appetite to do away with road casualties then it can be achieved.


    Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    What is there on this subject that some think we don’t know, that would require yet another piece of research to tell us? We’re ignoring the elephant in the room.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Considering the paper relates to the US around 10 years ago, it comes across as remarkably fresh thinking, and certainly worthy of proper assessment rather than being dismissed out of hand.


    Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    As no such paper exists might it not be a good idea for RoadsafetyGB to commission Mr Hauer to undertake a study and write one specifically for the UK? Surely the industry would have nothing to fear from this?


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan – my final post on this one.

    You say:
    “It is clear that the situation in the UK today is very similar to what it was in the US when this was published.”

    That is your view, to which you are of course perfectly entitled. But it is only your view, not a fact backed by the findings of a study comparing the road safety situation in the US a decade ago with the road safety situation in the UK today.


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Nick.
    It is clear that the situation in the UK today is very similar to what it was in the US when this was published. You only have to read the various press releases that have been published on this very site to realise that most of them are based on opinion, folklore, tradition, intuition, and personal experience exactly as described in the paper. The fact that the paper is a bit old doesn’t make it any the less valid and it is to the industry’s eternal shame that it’s findings are just as appropriate today as they were then. What the paper really shows is that this industry has wasted all those years and all those valuable lives by not taking any notice of the very important concepts, ideas and solutions contained within it.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan:
    I’ve read the intro to this paper. The paper itself was published in 2007 and the intro says that much of the “content is based on an earlier paper (Hauer 2005). Essentially, the content of the paper was compiled at least a decade ago, and relates to the situation at that time in the US.

    Are you able to provide us with a reference that is more up to date, and describes the position here in the UK?


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    For a useful insight to the situation we find ourselves in there is a very interesting paper from an American organisation that states the problem very clearly. I suggest that everybody reads this, especially Hugh, Rod, Honor and Nick and takes on board the concepts and ideas that it promotes.

    https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/Hauer.pdf


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Yep… I’ll stick with poor driving – specifically the speeders, the tailgaters, the impatient, the careless, the reckless, the aggressive, the ‘what rules?’, the ‘no time to wait’, etc. and, to bring us back to this news item, those who, for want of a better description ‘treat country roads like racetracks’ – sensationalist perhaps, but not far from the truth.
    (No questionnaires were used in the making of this comment.)


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    This is a very interesting and useful discussion thread with a diverse range of contributions. How about the following comment for some further discussion?

    ‘A collision occurs when somebody or something invades somebody else’s space and is the result of a poor choice or choices by one or more of the parties involved.’

    This could be any road users involved or as a result on an action or inaction by a road user not directly involved, however, that action or inaction could be a trigger event that preceded the crash. Taking this a bit further, the collision could be related to a poor choice or choices by those involved in the design of the road layout or the type of material used – this could also apply to those involved in the design and maintenance of the vehicle or vehicles involved in, or in the immediate vicinity of, the collision. I find Duncan’s comments to be very illuminating in this respect.
    One of the great things about this forum is the incredible variety of ideas and expertise that can be brought to bear to stimulate discussion and the development of ideas that may one day contribute to saving people’s lives.


    Mark – Wiltshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Dealing with a problem is only a problem if you don’t fully understand the problem you’re dealing with. Does ‘poor driving’ give us a full and comprehensive understanding of what is an extremely complex problem, or is it a satisficing label that actually explains nothing?


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I don’t think a definition is useful or necessary – we all know what it is – it’s just that Honor quoted one, so I thought others were being invited. The ‘why?’ is easy enough – it’s dealing with them that is the problem.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    No. Poor driving/riding is the problem. End of.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Honor, it’s now clear where the fundamental problem lies if the accepted description is so woolly. Such a poor definition leaves plenty of scope for misinterpretation as the statements are capable of being further deconstructed.

    Road accidents are neither rare nor random but are constantly occuring and always under a specific set of failure modes. The statement also assumes that it is only the road users that are involved when it is clear that it may well be the design of the environment that plays a significant role. It is the understanding of these failure modes and the contribution of distal as well as proximal actors that lies at the heart of solving the road accident problem once and for all.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    It seems that Honor and Hugh are describing “what” an accident is but Duncan is closer to the “why?”. If we know the “why” we have a better chance of preventing them. Otherwise we are mere spectators.


    Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Maybe one problem is the variance in this “accepted definition”.

    Devon & Cornwall police say:-
    By definition, a road traffic collision is where a mechanically propelled vehicle (eg a car, lorry or motorbike) on a public road or other public place (e.g. a car park open to the public) causes damage to someone else’s property or vehicle, or any other person or animal is injured. (animal is limited to: horse, cattle, ass, mule, pig, sheep, goat or dog).”

    http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/Traffic/CollisionUnit/Pages/default.aspx

    Norfolk Constabulary goes further and says :-
    The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:

    Injury or damage to anybody – other than the driver of that vehicle,
    Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classes as a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
    Damage to a vehicle – other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
    Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.

    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/safetyadvice/roadsafety/advicetoroadusers/roadtrafficcollisions.aspx

    Meanwhile Lancashire County Council cite the DfT definition as :-

    Road traffic collisions are defined by the Department for Transport as “All road accidents involving human death or personal injury occurring on the Highway (‘road’ in Scotland) and notified to the police within 30 days of occurrence, and in which one or more vehicles are involved. This is a wider definition of road accidents than that used in Road Traffic Acts.”

    http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?Transport/35512

    Discuss!


    Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    A more prosaic definition might be: “An incident on the highway, when a wheeled road user unintentionally makes contact with something or someone else”. I suppose it depends on how general or specific one wants to be.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Poor driving Hugh? Surely you can come up with something better than that!


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I understand the accepted definition of a road traffic collision is:
    “a rare, random, multi-factor event which is always preceded by a situation in which one or more road users have failed to cope with their environment.”
    Discuss


    Honor Byford, Chair, Road Safety GB
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I had in mind poor driving/riding.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    At last!! The billion dollar question! “What causes road accidents”?

    “Road and indeed all accidents are caused when the human brain fails to predict the correct sequence of future movements in the world”.

    That’s about as basic and jargon free an explanation as it’s possible to get Hugh, but as you might expect that simple statement hides an awful lot of knowledge about human factors, psychology and neuroscience, but in 2014 it’s as close as you’re going to get to the ultimate answer.

    Of course this statement begs many questions on the subject of how the brain makes predictions of future movement sequences, but I will be happy to answer as many as I can.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan:
    How do you think road accidents happen then? Real-world please, not theoretical.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh
    The complete system comprises of vehicles and road users as well as the roads themselves. The safe mode of which you speak therefore does not actually exist. The combination of roads, vehicles and users certainly does not fail safe so your idea that it was safe in the first place is profoundly wrong.


    Duncan macKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan:
    Firstly, picture a road or junction with no traffic on it i.e. in ‘safe’ mode and then picture or, even better, go and observe road user behaviour on it when, due to the careless, risky actions of some, the road/junction is always then teetering on the brink of becoming unsafe. It’s a safe system jeopardised by the unsafe user.

    You can look it from another perspective if you like i.e. the safe actions of the majority make it safe but it was already safe in the first place but occasionally and unfortunately, made unsafe by the ‘bad apples’.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh
    You have forgotten to consider the tens of millions of interactions between vehicles, people and the environment that happen every day, each of which is fraught with great danger. We often refer to these interactions as ‘negotiating our way through traffic’ which is a very good description of what is actually happening. Each negotiation has the potential to fail to an unsafe state, yet the negotiaters manage in the most part to strike a deal between them that avoids that situation. The key fact here is that the system and all those little negotiations within it do not ‘fail safe’. This is why people doing these negotiations are making the system much safer than it has any right to be. The simple fact is that people cause safety and it is only when for some reason they fail at that task that the fundamentally unsafe nature of the system is exposed. If the system failed safe then there might well be a place for bad-apple theory, but it doesn’t fail safe so there isn’t room for that theory any more.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan:
    If “the system is basically unsafe and it is only made safe by the people operating within it”, then logically, everyday on UK roads, several thousand people, “fail to make it safe”! So the system is inherently safe apart from those you would call the ‘bad apples’ of which there does appear to be quite a lot!


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Sorry Honor, but nobody has reckless or risky attitudes! What we humans have are a set of beliefs which guide our actions and interactions. Often these beliefs clash with the beliefs of others and the result is that a believer in one set of ideologies sees a person with a belief in another as having a ‘bad attitude’. The lack of understanding of this simple fact is what causes the continued volume of accidents on Britain’s roads.

    There are essentially two contrasting systems at work here, the first is the bad-apple (bad attitude) theory which states that the road transport system would be safe were it not for the unreliable people within it. The second is that the system is basically unsafe and it is only made safe by the people operating within it. Of the two positions only the second is borne out by facts and evidence. This evidence comes unsurprisingly from activites outside of road transport such as aviation, nuclear and engineering where much time, money and effort is expended on finding the actual why’s and wherefore’s of accidents and incidents.

    Transitional situations like this always appear ‘tribal’ in nature whilst the proponents of the non-established view make their case. As Schopenhauer once famously said “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”. We are currently at the first stage and we look forward with some trepidation to the second stage where things will get really ugly. Eventually though we will reach the third stage when we all will be able to start making a serious dent in the road safety problem.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan:
    I did not say “drive at the maximum speed you can see to be clear”. The “rule” I offered allowed for a degree of interpretation and not unreasonably for further clarification. Although frankly I think even observing the “rule” slavishly might be an improvement on the current situation. I really must challenge the comparison between pilots and drivers in testing the margins of error though. Maintaining the necessary speed, carrying the right amount of fuel to land safely, and landing in an appropriate place are all matters which make a critical difference between success and disaster in flying. Yes, you train to know where the margins are, but I doubt that you plan to fly routinely at the margins, I imagine you only do so when circumstances dictate. When you drive however, running out of fuel is not critical in the same way. Finding a place to stop likewise. And in almost all circumstances it is not necessary to maintain a minimum speed to avoid catastrophe. If driving can be condensed to “getting where you’re going without hitting anything” no disaster-avoiding purpose is served by practising going round bends at the maximum speed possible.


    Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan

    It may be perfectly acceptable for airline pilots to push that envelope in order to understand their limits. And then to apply margins to those limits.

    However they do so in a simulator or under specific conditions where consequences are minimised. eg they don’t take a full payload of passengers on their first test flight, or make their first landing at a commercial airport at peak times.

    What many would object to is drivers who push that envelope on public roads and streets where that public has every right to expect those places to be used in a responsible and controllable manner and with appropriate margins of error.

    Unfortunately your driver “pushing his/her boundaries” to identify the limits of his/her skill or experience is often another road users hooligan, and unfortunately sometimes their executioner.


    Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    As Tim rightly says, a significant proportion of crashes on rural roads are either single vehicle or involve one person making a poor or reckless decision e.g. overtaking a queue of traffic approaching a junction and hitting the vehicle at the head of the queue that is turning right.

    More important than one or another physical driving skills are the attitudes and thinking within the drivers brain. Plenty of research has shown that up-skilling a driver who has reckless or risky attitudes will increase their likelihood to have and to cause collisions. Safer use and sharing of our roads is an educational and a cultural issue. The numbers of confrontational, tribal attitudes that are expressed on this newsfeed demonstrate the problem – a conviction that “I am right and the others are wrong” and little or no recognition that our roads are simply a shared facility for us all to use together. A little tolerance and patience would go such a long way.


    Honor Byford, Chair, Road Safety GB
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Once again Tim let’s reiterate the problem. You say that “If you take the view that the distance you can see to be clear includes an allowance for emergence from visible cover of obstacles (like a child running out) this is reasonable advice”. It is indeed reasonable advice now that you have included the caveats (an allowance), but that’s NOT what the rule says! This was the point I was driving at, the rules often contain caveats that are not part of the rule so people slavishly follow the rule even though the rule is not complete. It’s not surprising therefore when they can’t understand why they’ve crashed when they were following the rules to the letter.

    Safety is about whittling down the margin for error until it is as thin as can be got away with, otherwise how do you know how big your margins actually are? In the world of aviation pilots spend hours and hours in the simulator being taken to the edge of disaster so that they can learn where the edge is and how to recover the situation if they ever get anywhere near it. You say that nowhere else is this acceptable, but it is acceptable in all safety critical industries apart from in road transport!


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Experience and intuition should tell us when we might have to expect to stop from a given speed depending on the road environment and the position and actions of other road users. Someone describing their accident will invariably use the word “suddenly”.. in other words, they were unprepared for what happened next. Following on from “drive at a speed from which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear” we should add “..and which will remain clear”, which covers the scenario of the hitherto concealed child emerging from between parked vehicles, as an example, or wildlife – not unknown in rural areas – wandering unexpectedly onto the c/way. Anticipation is the key.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    What would worry me is if we didn’t adopt any principles for safe driving because none were perfect. Let’s consider “drive at a speed from which you can’t stop in the distance you can see to be clear”. This is manifestly a bad idea so the former is better. Now let’s try and make it meet Duncan’s standard. Drive at a speed where if anything happens you can stop instantly. Fine if you just want to sit and admire the view, but then you are in the countryside after all. If you take the view that the distance you can see to be clear includes an allowance for emergence from visible cover of obstacles (like a child running out) this is reasonable advice. And I would contest the notion that most collisions involve unexpected intrusions into your clear distance, in the light of the high number of lone vehicle crashes on rural roads.

    But Duncan side-steps my main point: people who think safety is about whittling down the margin for error until it is as thin as can be got away with have the wrong idea. Nowhere else is this considered acceptable, so why should it be on the roads? When you “push your envelope” it overlaps someone else’s safety zone. This is just not right.


    Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I have never heard of any organisation promoting riding or driving on country roads as ‘having fun’ as intimated. It’s the ‘Having Fun ‘bit that usually leads to disaster. As regards pushing the envelope for the sake of learning more about ones machines and ones own ability, that has to be controlled by the driver/rider and the law that is there to keep oneself and others safe on our roads.

    Its like an advanced rider saying unless we drive or ride at 90mph we will not know how to control the vehicle at 70mph. or doing 120mph just to see how the vehicle handles should we need to brake or swerve at 40mph.

    Pushing the envelope is all well and good in a controlled environment such as a race track but continually pushing the envelope on public roads eventually ends in disaster… when we push it just that little bit to far, it’s to late. The argument that we need to push that envelope further and further is to my mind an erroneous one.


    bob craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Isn’t “drive at a speed from which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear” just the worst piece of advice ever dreamed up? It’s beguiling because it seems to make perfect sense, but it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. If you do follow the rule then you will be guaranteed to have a collision should something unexpected impinge on your ‘clear distance’. Given that just about every accident involves someone or something impinging on your clear distance then the advice is totally worthless.

    Tim asks which skills really contribute to safety? This of course is the $64,000 question and the road safety industry should know exactly which skills do contribute and which do not. The fact that the industry doesn’t actually know what a skill is to begin with (they are actions without calling criteria) let alone which are critical should worry us a great deal.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Wishful thinking, I fear, that people drive out into the countryside to practice their emergency stops. There’s an undeniable truth that skills diminish without practice, but which skills really contribute to safety? It would be nice to believe that all those people who appear to be seeking to attain maximum speed without leaving the carriageway are actually also observing the maxim “drive at a speed from which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear”. But I am confident many are not, and to ignore what is such an obvious piece of common sense guidance speaks volumes about the motivations of motorists.


    Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I would certainly hope that promoting roads as “fun” places where drivers can exercise their skills would be the perfect thing to do. As it’s driver’s skills that keep as many people alive as possible, then practicing those skills is essential. In the absence of driving simulators where else is anybody to practice?

    The dividing line between being in control and out of control depends on regularly pushing the envelope because unused skills rapidly decay. If a driver needs to do a -1’G’ emergency stop to avoid hitting a child running out into the road, but hasn’t practiced them then they will be unable to call on that ability and will hit the child.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I took Rod’s comment on ‘recreational risk taking’ to refer to those who, for their own pleasure – but not others – ride and drive at too high a speed on these roads to be safe and not neccesarily the other, more innocent recreational activities mentioned by others.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Brake uses questionnaire results to support its own views because (a) they have no valid evidence to do so and (b) they skew the questions to get the answers they want.

    Nothing Brake has ever stated seems based on evidence or rational analysis, only a preference for slowing down roads to the point that our economy would be severely damaged – and very large numbers of people would die for lack of GDP and tax revenue that could have saved them. 2,000 people die every day in this country, 200 of them in hospitals due to errors and neglect of all kinds, 5 die on the roads of whom 1 dies every 2 days in an accident partly caused by speed. Does no one at Brake understand cost-effectiveness and tackling major problems, not relatively trivial problems?


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan
    I haven’t made comment on “banning anything” but merely suggested a debate would be worthwhile. I was really hoping for a more intelligent debate than your response suggests. As you will know there are degrees of risk to oneself and degrees of risk to others. Should we be promoting roads as “fun” places where drivers can exercise their skills to push the envelope between being “in-control” and “out of control”?


    Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Define: Recreational risk taking on public roads?

    Walking? Speed walking? Jogging? Timed cycle racing? All are recreational just as is riding or driving to visit a location, or to meet friends. Fun and thrills – something else to be banned or controlled at all costs. “Normalised” or anaesthetised?


    Derek Reynolds, Salop.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    “What place does recreational risk taking have on our public roads?” Assuming that the use of the roads is ‘risky’ no matter what you are doing, it seems that Rod has an issue with road use for recreation.

    That would be recreation as in a touring holiday in the west country or a cycle trip round the local area or perhaps a motorcycle ride just for the sake of it? All these are recreational uses so would Rod ban all these perfectly valid and beneficial activities?


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I guess the question we should debate as s society is “What place does recreational risk taking have on our public roads?” Is it time to agree that the pursuit of fun and thrills on public spaces using devices that can kill and maim so easily should no longer be tolerated. Maybe that would be the beginning of us “normalising” our relationship with the motor vehicle.


    Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    A blanket speed limit of 50 mph for all country roads is both inappropriate and pointless. Inappropriate because there are many sections of rural roads where a speed of 60 mph is safe if the driver or rider is in proper control of their vehicle and pointless if it is not regularly enforced; given the current state of the public purse that’s unlikely to happen any time soon. A new blanket speed limit which is widely perceived as not needed and not enforced will generally be ignored by a considerable number of drivers and lose credibility.

    Highways authorities need to rigorously target those sections of rural roads where there is an issue of road traffic collisions and where it can be shown by hard evidence that reducing the current speed limit would contribute to improving the safety of all the users of a given stretch of road. A blanket speed limit reduction costs money – so if a speed limit is to be reduced let’s do it where it’s really needed. Vehicles can be driven in an incredibly selfish manner while obeying the speed limit on a road with a 50mph or 40 mph limit or one that is even lower. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to the problem of collisions on rural roads.


    Mark – Wiltshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Brake’s sentiment and urge for lower speeds and more respectful driving is fine, but they – and sometimes other organisations – don’t really help themselves by resorting to the results of questionnaires to justify their mission. Public opinion via questionnaires can harm credibilty and they should be robust enough not to have to do this.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close