Brighton & Hove’s road safety team is running a campaign to remind all road users of the consequences of “failing to look properly”.
“Share the Roads, Share the Responsibility” warns pedestrians, drivers, cyclists and riders that the biggest cause of collisions on Brighton’s roads is people failing to look properly.
The campaign suggests that the reason for this is because “often we are thinking about other parts of our lives when using the roads and are unaware of what is happening around us, so don’t judge risks effectively”.
The campaign also says that physical distractions, such as phones, headphones and sat navs, can also take people’s focus away from the road.
The campaign goes on to say that the majority of collisions happen within five miles from home or work, and that the “roads are the most risky environment most of us will be in each day”.
For more information contact Keith Baldock, Brighton & Hove’s road safety officer, on 01273 292258.
I agree with Bob Craven, so much money and time has been spent on segregating traffic on what once were roads for all, that I do believe some sort of refund is due to motorised road users funded by the non-motorised road users such as cyclists and public transport users. Do I hear the sound of tortured passengers? Probably – the penny tram is no more.
Since central London (as just one example) has been subjected to a plethora of “mine” by TfL, congestion has increased despite the fact that since 1991 vehicle numbers remained static in the years leading up to the ‘congestion charge’ and little changed after – as have journey times – it’s reported to be the same or more after CC than before. Reduce available road space, and congestion will increase. Worse – antipathy between road users increases. We are all the same people, using the same roads, by different means but segregation has created conflicts of ‘interest’.
In War, the first casualty is truth. Keep the population at each others throats in any way at all, and truth will become hidden. Smoke and mirrors.
Derek Reynolds, Shropshire
0
I agree with Hugh – those who click ‘Dislike’ about statements of plain fact are suffering from the “My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with the evidence” syndrome, a preference for belief over evidence, for wishful thinking over progress, for fantasy over fact, long known by psychologists as “cognitive dissonance” in that they “…engage in a process termed “dissonance reduction” which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behaviour.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Pardon me for being cynical but this sharing of roads and accepting responsibilities is a myth.
This government and local authorities are about to spend another £144,000,000 on making life easier and safer for cyclists, and by that I mean special treatments and segregation of roads and pavements specifically for their usage and special dispensations regards to use of cycles on pavements, walkways, pedestrian area, one way streets etc. Something for which there is still legislation preventing but no longer actioned on by the police.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
On this forum, I can understand readers clicking on ‘Disagree’ with respect to what is clearly an opinion, view-point or idea expressed by others, but when it comes to what appears to be just a statement of fact, such as that contained in Neil Hopkins’ posting for example, I don’t understand what people find to disagree with. Are they implying that they know what the person is saying is not actually true? Or is it force of habit to automatically disagree with certain individuals on principle?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
On the other hand, less cynical readers would hopefully see this for what it actually is….an honest campaign to encourage road users to look out for each other – a fundamental road safety message, valid at any time.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Eric – in actual fact, this campaign has been run for some time, prior to the introduction of the 20mph areas.
Neil Hopkins, Sussex
0
Hmm. As the first phase of the Brighton & Hove 20mph limits were in January 2013, its rather amazing that Eric’s research seems to have made a causal link between these and the 2012 casualty statistics that the Argus article referred to.
Rod King – 20’s Plenty for Us, Cheshire
0
Isn’t it wonderful how we can all read the same words yet each take such a different interpretation from them!
This campaign is specifically aimed at ALL road users and asks them ALL to share the road and share the responsibility. The images also show ALL the major road user groups in the city.
As a matter of fact, this is a refresh of an approach that both Brighton & Hove and Transport for London have been using for at least the last 9 years. We use a similar theme here in North Yorkshire to counter the “them and us” stances that people take up, often when it is easier to blame someone else rather than take responsibility for your own actions as part of the overall road using community (i.e. virtually all of us).
So in response to Eric’s suspicion that this is intended to mitigate against 20 mph zones; no, it isn’t.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
This looks like an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of the introduction of schemes, including 20mph, that have led to increased deaths and serious injuries, as recently reported by The Argus …
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10563115.Brighton_and_Hove_road_casualties_exceed_council_forecast/
If you encourage pedestrians to feel safe, they take less care. Imploring them to take more care will never be as effective as removing the schemes that led to them dropping their guard in the first place.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0