Opinion: Casualty reduction – are we at the end of the golden era?

12.00 | 16 October 2014 | | 39 comments

Tanya Fosdick, senior analyst at Road Safety Analysis, examines the DfT’s 2013 casualty data and looks for reasons why casualty reduction rates have levelled out.

As ever, the publication of Reported Road Casualties Great Britain, (RRCGB 2013) is an important event in the road safety calendar.

For the past few years, casualty reduction appears to have stagnated in Great Britain, with various possible explanations provided. With every passing year where the casualty figures do not return to the general trend, the question must be asked: is this the end of the golden era of casualty reduction in Great Britain?

The key findings of RRCGB 2013 include a 2% reduction in road deaths in 2013 compared to 2012, representing the lowest number of deaths since national records began in 1926. This sounds like positive news – deaths down to the lowest figure since the early decades of the 20th century and reductions of 6% in serious and all casualties.

However, as can be seen by the chart above, there has been a definite slowing down in casualty rates in recent years. Compared to the 2005-09 average, there were clear downward trends in serious and slight casualties from 2000 to 2010, since when the numbers of casualties have plateaued. With fatal casualties, the trend was less consistent with other periods where numbers of deaths didn’t reduce (2000-2003 and 2004-2006) but there had been a period of clear reductions from 2006 to 2010.

The rates have stagnated across road user groups: the chart below shows the four largest casualty groups against per billion miles travelled, indexed against the 2005-09 average. While the largest gains in casualty reduction have been made among car occupants (43% compared to 2005-09), reductions have slowed significantly since 2010. For the more vulnerable road users of pedal cyclists motorcyclists and pedestrians, casualty rates per billion miles have not reduced as much as car users since 2005-09 and reductions have also slowed since 2010.

So, since 2010, why have casualty numbers remained roughly the same? Have all the large gains in casualty reduction been made? While one year could be considered a ‘statistical blip’, after four years what could be preventing further casualty reduction? And lastly, and most importantly, as the flat-lining trend continues, is there anything we can do to get casualty reduction back on track?

What affects the casualty trends?

RRCGB 2013 examines the various factors which can affect casualty trends in an attempt to shed light on why some periods in time experience greater reductions than others:

It is very difficult to isolate the impact of a single factor in the casualty trends, but broadly, the long-term decrease is likely to have been driven by a combination of:

• Road safety education and training
• Improved vehicle and highway technology/engineering
• Reduction in speeds (there is evidence that speed limit compliance has improved over the last decade and average free-flow speeds have decreased)
• Improved post-accident care to improve outcomes (e.g. the creation of major trauma centres in England)

These factors will have both reduced the likelihood of an accident in the first place, as well as reducing the severity and number of casualties when they do occur.

Shorter-term trends can also be driven by economic factors. There is evidence that economic recessions have accelerated decreases in road deaths, although the relationship between GDP and fatalities is neither simple nor linear.

Another important factor in understanding year-on-year trends is the weather. There is evidence that particularly cold or wet weather can affect both road user exposure and driver behaviours, both of which will affect the number of casualties.”[2]

Weather

RRCGB 2013 includes a separate article entitled ‘Understanding short term casualty trends; the impact of the weather.’ The article explains that “as the number of road casualties gets smaller, understanding the reasons behind year-on-year changes becomes more important. Weather patterns provide useful context to explain year-on-year changes in road casualty statistics.”

The article explains the various effects that extreme weather can have on road casualties:

• Extreme winter weather can lead to a reduction in traffic levels.
• This, in turn, results in reductions in collisions.
• In extreme conditions, such as heavy snow or ice, road users can often not access roads at all. 
• People may become reluctant to travel in such conditions and only travel when it is essential.
• This is particularly true for vulnerable road users where travelling on motorcycles and pedal cycles becomes more dangerous (slippery roads) and less desirable (low temperatures), thus discouraging travel.
• Traffic speeds reduce in periods of extreme winter weather, possibly due to poor visibility or that road users are aware that driving at speeds in adverse conditions is dangerous.
• Lower speeds will reduce the probability of injury if a collision does occur or will reduce the severity of the casualty.

In 2010, there was a 17% reduction in road deaths compared to 2009 and 2010 was also the coldest year since 1986, with widespread snowfall and frosts in January, February, November and December. In comparison, whilst 2009 had rainfall 8% over the UK average for 1971 to 2000, it was also slightly warmer than average. The adverse weather in 2010 could have played a major part in the high casualty reduction experienced that year.

Given that 2010 saw unusual weather, perhaps it is not unexpected that 2011 saw a 3% increase in road deaths when UK rainfall was close to average and it was the second warmest year since Met Office records began in 1910.

The effect of the weather on casualty figures in 2012 and 2013 is less clear. 2012 was the second wettest year since Met Office records began in 1910 and there was an 8% reduction in road deaths in 2012 compared to 2011. Much of the high levels of rainfall in 2012 were during the summer period, which is the traditional peak period for motorcycle and cycle activity and these two road user groups experienced larger reductions in KSI casualties than car users, presumably because the rain deterred motorcyclists and cyclists from using the roads.

While adverse weather can explain the large casualty reduction seen in 2010, and the smaller reduction in 2012, the ‘normal’ weather patterns for 2011 and 2013 suggest that the previous downward trend of casualties has slowed for some other reason.

Economic recession

RRCGB 2012 examined the link between reductions in road deaths and recessions (1990-92 and 2008-09). Both of these periods experienced strong falls in the number of deaths.

Road deaths, however, have also been falling in periods when both GDP and traffic were growing and so the relationship between the economy and road deaths is definitely not clear. It can be concluded, though, that economic recessions have accelerated reductions in road deaths.

Economic recovery has been slow since 2010 and therefore it might be expected that casualty reduction might have continued to be strong. It is not clear how the relationship between the economy and road deaths can explain the slow progress in casualty reduction since 2010.

Reductions in road safety interventions

The list of factors which can affect casualty trends included a combination of road safety interventions and behavioural changes:

• Road safety education and training.
• Improved vehicle and highway technology/engineering.
• Reduction in speeds (there is evidence that speed limit compliance has improved over the last decade and average free-flow speeds have decreased)
• Improved post-accident care to improve outcomes (e.g. the creation of major trauma centres in England)

Improvements in post-accident care over time will have had a profound effect on survivability of road collisions. The creation of major trauma centres in England in 2012 should also improve survivability. There have been major improvements in vehicle safety systems over the last few decades and these will also have played a part in the long-term casualty reduction trends.

There have also been major changes in highway technology and engineering. Many of the large scale engineering schemes identified to improve safety have been completed and it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify appropriate cost-effect solutions at sites. Furthermore, many ‘hotspots’ have been treated and collisions are occurring across the network, where engineering solutions are not appropriate.

All of the above might mean that it will become increasingly difficult to achieve the casualty reduction rates previously experienced while these changes were being implemented.

Reductions in vehicle speeds over time will also have affected casualty rates. The chart below shows that since 2003, the percentages of motorcycles, cars and LGVs exceeding the speed limit on motorways has reduced. It shows that for cars and motorcycles the greatest reduction in the percentages exceeding the limit were seen between 2005 and 2008 (after the formation of the National Safety Camera Programme) and while reductions have continued since 2011, they are lower. Perhaps the reductions in the percentage exceeding the speed limit have slowed because levels of speed enforcement have reduced. Alternatively, it could be that as the percentages of motorists willing to exceed the limit become lower, it becomes harder to change the behaviour of the minority.

Proving the effectiveness of road safety education and training is incredibly difficult. Evaluating education, training and publicity (ETP) interventions can be expensive and hard to do – it involves contacting the target audience and identifying a methodology for measuring change in attitudes, behaviour and/or knowledge. Any observed change does not necessarily equate with a change in road casualty rates. However, it is a fact that the level of road safety ETP has dramatically reduced since 2010, with budget cuts affecting the quality and quantity of activity and with many road safety teams dismantled altogether. With some areas of the country receiving little or no road safety education and training, it is likely that adverse effects on road user behaviour will start to be experienced.

It could be that a combination of the biggest gains having already been made (through medical and engineering changes) and that reductions in enforcement and ETP activity are playing a part in the stagnation of casualty reduction.

Drink-drive legislation – tougher limits, tougher enforcement

One area where road safety activity has reduced has been in drink-drive publicity.

A Freedom of Information request from March 2014 asked questions about how much the Department for Transport had spent on drink drive campaigns over the previous decade. There was a peak in THINK! drink drive advertising media expenditure of £2,962,763 in the financial year of 2008-09 which was reduced to £363,917 in 2010-11. Data for the financial year 2006-07 was not available.

Between 2006 and 2010, there was a general downward trend in the number of road deaths in drink drive collisions, coinciding with high levels of road safety advertising spend. Since 2010, there has been little change in the number of people killed in drink drive collisions at a time when advertising spend has been substantially lower than in other time periods.

The general standard blood alcohol limit in Europe is 0.5mg per ml (with some countries having a 0.2mg per ml limit) while the UK has the highest limit of 0.8mg per ml. A strong message that drink driving will not be tolerated, through increased ETP activity and the implementation of a lower limit, could have a significant effect on the number of road deaths in the UK.

Q1 2014………

It seems that the publication of RRCGB 2013 brings many questions about the position of casualty reduction in Great Britain in recent years and it appears that there are a variety of factors which could be contributing to the flat-lining of rates.

It could be that the biggest gains have been made and that from now on, it will become increasingly hard to achieve high levels of casualty reduction. There are external influences such as the weather and the economic situation which play a part.

However, there are activities, ranging from increasing levels of enforcement and ETP interventions, to changes in legislation (for example, changes to the drink-drive limit and the introduction of Graduated Driving Licensing, which has the potential to lead to significant reductions in road casualties in Great Britain) which could have a positive effect on numbers of road deaths.

Whilst data for one quarter should not be considered statistically significant, and figures are currently provisional, it is concerning to see that the trend of poor casualty reduction appears to be continuing, with increases in the numbers of pedal cyclists and motorcyclists killed or seriously injured (KSI) in the year ending at Quarter 1 of 2014. There has also been little change in pedestrian or car user KSIs.

So, once again: is this the end of the golden era of casualty reduction in Great Britain?

Read the original article on the Road Safety Analysis website.

 

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

    Steve
    LGV’s in this case are light goods vehicles. The DfT still use HGV for Large Goods Vehicles.


    Chris Harrison Gloucestershire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I may be misreading the avg speed/% of speeders graph, but I see a problem with it.

    It seems for the 11 years graphed, The average speed of LGVs has been around the 70mph limit.

    Since ’96 all LGVs over 7.5tonne have been limited physically to 56, often much lower, and legally to 60. Yet only half LGVs are travelling above limit, despite an average speed of 70?

    I’m missing something, I must be, as LGVs on average travel faster on the motorways than cars or bikes.

    Does not compute!


    Steve, Watford
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I often wonder why so many people in the road safety industry say that any crash reductions are not measurable because there are far too many variables involved. The question I would immediately ask is how many variables? Ten? Twenty, Two thousand? This is an indication of just how badly we are approaching the problem because everybody finds an excuse to give up before they even start. The number of variables is not infinite and they are all knowable, so how much of a problem is that? In industrial quality control (same job) the four planks of fixing problems are:- An appreciation of a system, an understanding of variation, an understanding of psychology and a theory of knowledge. Variation itself can be attributed to either common causes or special causes and it’s with the special causes that 98% of the problems actually lie. By understanding variation within systems you can begin to knock out common cause variation and eventually arrive with a list of all the special causes. In riding and driving it is unlikeley that these special causes number any more than half a dozen or so which means that the job is nowhere near as difficult as might first be imagined.


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

    This is the essence of the claim that “20’s plenty” persist with. There is no evidence that such a speed limit does or can save lives, it is based upon an opinion that it does or can. Like speed cameras, the beneficial effects are incalculable because the evidence for same does not exist. Only theory and opinion hold sway, and as such appeal to the emotive senses only, as they have no factual or statistical basis apart from a result of impact at 20mph vs 30mph. Such can be claimed of 5mph vs 10mph – what next?

    To return to the data as shown in the article; I do believe we have reached a zenith of sorts with regard to accident rates. We have one of the densest traffic volumes of the Western World, yet are close to top of the list of safest roads with regard to accident rates per vehicle xxmillion miles. To attain zero we would have to forcibly be prevented from using the roads at all. I have often thought, and said as much on these pages, that modern vehicles make traveling faster than is safe, an easy thing to accomplish. Too much comfort; too much isolation from the natural elements; too much power. Not enough education through skid pans and emergency braking at a range of speeds and road conditions.


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

    I see what you mean now Derek. A better way for me to put it would have been to say that speed cameras have prevented many accidents, but it is impossible to know or measure the actual number.


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

    My first sentence is actually based upon your comment: – “The number of accidents prevented by speed cameras is actually incalcuable so it is wrong to say it doesn’t have any effect on accident rates.”

    So, if the number of accidents prevented is incalculable, it cannot be proven they have prevented any accident. “Feeling sure” is not evidence.

    The camera cannot cause an accident – true, but it can be the trigger which sets in motion a series of events which ends up in an accident. Those events leading to such an accident may well not have happened if a camera had not been present – and one does not have to be exceeding a speed limit for those reactions such as sudden braking to be seen, the results of which can run against a safe environment. They are a hazard.


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

    Derek:
    I didn’t understand your first sentence. What I was getting at was that I am sure that many accidents have not happened, that otherwise would have done, had it not been for speed limit enforcement (commmonly via speed cameras) at some point leading up to the ‘non-event’ and obviously there is no way this can be measured with out time-travel and parallel universes to see ‘what would have happened had ‘x’ not been done’. It’s not exclusive to enforcement – the same could be said of most road safety interventions.
    PS: it’s drivers who cause accidents not roadside equipment.


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

    Hugh:
    If any effects of reducing accident rates is incalculable, then clearly they cannot have any effect on accident rates. Yet it has been observed and recorded that the presence of speed cameras has been a causal factor in some accidents.


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

    Idris:
    A video camera and operator in a stationary van is a very good way of recording evidence of poor driving and motoring offences. It obviously can’t detect whether a driver is over the drink-drive limit – that woud have to be via a breathalyser for roadside measurement purposes. The number of accidents prevented by speed cameras is actually incalcuable so it is wrong to say it doesn’t have any effect on accident rates.


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

    Hugh – It seems to me that what matters is not the relative efficiency of cameras or officers in detecting breaches of speed limits but whether doing so (a) has any effect on accident rates (it doesn’t) and (b) even if does, whether the benefits remotely cover costs (not remotely).

    I might also point out that police patrols also detect tailgating, drink driving, careless driving, dangerous vehicles, failed lights, “undertaking”, dangerous overtaking, sudden braking, road rage and many other problems which no camera yet devised detects at all.


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

    Cameras are considerably more efficient at detecting, recording and processing speeding offenders than an individual police officer could be – also leaves more time for the police to chat to motorists in M-way service areas apparently.


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

    Sorry John, wrong on all counts. Apart from a blip until Acpo’s scheme organised funding from awareness course profits, the number of speed cameras has continued to rise, not fall.

    My earlier comment here on Al Gulon’s findings on the clear relationship here and across the western world between economic condidence, a leading indicator of GDP to come, confirms the steep falls from 2007 to 2009 as being due to the severe economic crisis (just as in 1988-91 in the ERM-induced one) and the flatlining in 2010 (and more recent rise) as being due to the recovery (as happened from 1992 to 2007).

    Yes indeed something else does cause these deviations from trend, and, primarily, “It’s the economy, stupid” as Clinton often reminded himself.


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

    How right David is to point out how few police patrols there now are. And (sorry Nick, to bring this up again) one clear reason for this is that by using speed cameras to pretend to police roads (to no effect) they can use drivers’ money instead of their own. As two patrol riders told me at a M6 service area “Every time they put up another camera they cut our patrols.”


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

    Duncan:
    I would have left it at that, except to point out that your first sentence seems to be a deliberate misquote/misunderstanding of part of last comment. Either that, or you’ve done an about turn and now accept that errors behind the wheel are indeed faults (human error) and are therefore correctable and what the authorities should be addressing more and more.


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

    I’m sure Hugh would love to ‘leave it at that’, but he is quite wrong to think that because these errors are nobody’s fault that they are uncorrectable. You can correct/eliminate errors by designing the opportunity for error out of the system or by teaching the system users how to trap errors before they become critical. Both of these methods do require that system designers and users have a much better understanding of error than they do at the moment. We can safely say that the current level of understanding is practically non-existent (otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation) so we need to raise the levels of understanding and fast before too many more people die.

    Sadly though the bad-apple theorists cannot help in this matter as they have already made up their mind about the problem and so have no desire to learn anything new. We need then people who are open minded about the problems we face and who are willing to learn and are willing to take on the challenge. Now we’ll leave it at that.


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

    I think we may have different driving/riding standards Duncan – not just our own but what we expect from others. What I might regard as unsafe/risky/unthinking, you appear to regard as the norm and nobody’s fault and therefore somehow ‘uncorrectable’ for want of a better expression, so we’ll leave it at that.


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

    Sadly Hugh my question was the least flippant one you will ever hear being asked in any safety forum. The correct answer of course is (c) Hundreds. That’s right hundreds if not thousands of driving mistakes every one of which forms the seed of an accident. Most of these mistakes are handled quite well by our subconcious, but occasionally they are of sufficient severity that they are brought to the attention of our concious brain in the form of a surprise. This is why most people will answer (b) A few, to the question. Those mistakes that do make it through to our concious represent an accident that we would have had were the surrounding circumstances only a tiny bit different.

    Crashing therefore is nothing whatsoever to do with carelessness or bad attitudes to safety or any other such labels, but simply the number of mistakes that make it through to our conscious brain. Some of us are very fortunate that only a very few errors actually make it through, but none of us (even the world’s greatest bad-apple theorists) is ever in a situation where nothing makes it through.


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

    I take it that was a flippant question to round things off Duncan? I’m happy to provide a flippant answer, although the editor may feel it is not in keeping with the serious nature of the subject. All I would say is that it wouldn’t do, if I did not practice what I preach.


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

    Obviously getting nowhere with this so I will re-phrase things slightly. A question for you Hugh. How many driving mistakes did you make on your last journey? (a) None, (b) A few, (c) Hundreds.

    If you could also give reasons for your answer then that would help a great deal.


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

    Talking of applying simple labels Duncan, it was you who used the phrase ‘responsible, law-abiding’ as an overall character reference for just about everyone on the road. Most probably are, but too many aren’t – that’s the problem. I would expect bad-apple theorists not to crash at all because they can spot typical bad-apple behaviour out on the roads and have learnt how to compensate for them – does defensive driving/riding ring any bells?


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

    In the vast majority of cases Hugh, yes I can. Applying simple labels like ‘careless’ or ‘irresponsible’ etc simply sweeps difficult questions about accident causation under the carpet. Bad-apple theory is a belief system not a knowledge system and that’s why progress in accident reduction is coming to a grinding halt. Bad-apple theorists insist that people should concentrate more when they don’t understand the limits of concentration, they insist that people should pay more attention when they don’t understand the limits of attention, and they insist that people should comply with the rules when they don’t understand the limits of rules and rulemaking. This would be quite funny were it not for the fact that the bad-apple theorists suffer from exactly the same limitations as those people that they are so desperatly trying to eradicate or control.

    I have often wondered what would be the outcome if two bad-apple theorists crashed into each other out on the roads? I would certainly like to be a fly on the wall for that little encounter!


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

    As I’ve pointed out before Duncan, you can’t possibly know the background of everyone who’s ever been involved in an accident, nor the actual circumstances of each one, so you can’t actually say that those involved, leading up to any accident, were not in some way behaving carelessly or irresponsibly and contrary to the Highway Code. People may well be responsible and law-abiding away from their vehicles, but think nothing of breaking a few traffic laws now and again, when behind the wheel – speeding being the most common. Can you categorically say that in ‘the vast majority of accidents’ at least one party was not ‘driving without due care and attention’ or not abiding by some other traffic law, or simply not being responsible?


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

    Yet the vast majority of accidents happen to responsible, law-abiding people Hugh. How can you explain that?


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

    Making a ‘mistake’ is one thing – blatant law-breaking and irresponsible, anti-social behaviour on the roads, which is very likely to lead to an accident, is something else.


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

    All I see when I’m out and about is ordinary people doing ordinary things. Yes they make mistakes and yes they get things wrong, but these ordinary people are collectively making the roads far safer than they have any right to be.

    It’s how these ordinary people make mistakes that end up with an incident or accident that we should be looking at rather than just blaming them for being careless or reckless.


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

    It’s all down to experience Duncan! Knowing what to look out for and recognizing the signs. You must see it yourself everytime you’re out and about surely?


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

    Are these observations of one person performing many unsafe acts or are they of many individuals performing one unsafe act? If the former then Hugh may well have a point, but if the latter how is he so sure these are just not momentary slips, lapses or mistakes from otherwise exemplary drivers? I’m sure even Hugh will make driving mistakes from time to time so would anybody observing him make them consider him to be careless or reckless as well?


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

    Boundary Duncan? Well..not actually being careless or reckless.
    I presume you are neither careless or reckless and drive/ride to a fairly high standard, so when you see some road behaviour that falls well below your standard, that’s probably something you might consider careless or reckless. e.g. someone accelerating up to an amber signal and ending up going through on a red when they could have stopped; tailgating; cutting up or passing a cyclist/horserider too close; going around a blind bend too fast to stop if necessary; shunting into the rear of another vehicle waiting at a roundabout; going too fast to stop generally; there’s lots more examples all covered in the Highway Code funnily enough. I’m sure you see them as much as I do and perhaps your own critical eye will have determined a boundary not disimilar to mine or anyone else concerned with road safety.


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

    I think the phrase “I am as well aquainted with most people involved in accidents as anybody else” rather means that I am not aquainted with them at all!

    Because Hugh seems to see so much of it perhaps he might like to provide us with an accurate definition of “careless and reckless behaviour”. It would also be of interest to learn where he considers the position of the boundary between normal behaviours and these behaviours actually lies.


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

    “I am as well aquainted with most people involved in accidents as anybody else” what a bizarre thing to say Duncan. Are you omnipotent?

    Anyway, back in the real world, I see careless and reckless behaviour on the roads every day and which I know if left unchecked will be very likely to lead to an accident at some point. Why some people are more predisposed to do this more than others is down to individual personalities, character, behaviour, intelligence etc.and no doubt other factors which are a matters for the psychologists to analyse. Unfortunately we can’t wait for them, so in the meantime, when someone does something that ‘made perfect sense’ at the time but was foolhardy, we try education to correct them (if possible) and then detection and penalties.


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

    I am as well aquainted with most people involved in accidents as anybody else. To know that they are all careless and reckless rather suggests however that Hugh has an intimate knowledge of each and every one of them otherwise how else could he attest to their character?

    I may well be at odds with a lot of people in the road safety industry on this subject, but I find that I’m aligned with the scientists, researchers and experts in fields outside of road safety such as aviation etc. In their view nobody actually does anything ‘wrong’, but instead they do what made sense to them given the situation that surrounded them at the time. The fact that what they did turned out to be wrong can only be determined after the event. One of the standard motorcycle crashes is the ‘nightmare overtake’, but it is not called that because it gives the riders doing them nightmares, but because it gives the person watching them do it nightmares. It is all too easy to label our nightmare overtaker as careless or reckless, but applying these simplistic labels does not help us find out why they did what they did when they did it. Finding out why things make perfect sense to one person and no sense at all to another is one of the key drivers of casualty reduction in most fields outside of road safety, but strangely lacking within the road safety industry.


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

    I think Duncan, you’re completely at odds with most people on this subject. You must view life on the roads through rose-tinted glasses, where nobody does anything wrong! The people we need to ‘harness’are not ‘bad’, as you put it, just careless and reckless. Incidentally, are you personally acquainted with ‘most people involved in accidents’ to know that they have just the ‘same attitudes and behaviours’ as those who don’t (including me apparently)?


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

    Apart from a few exceptional cases, none of the people are the problem Hugh and understanding that simple fact is the key to solving it. The biggest barrier to finding real and workable solutions is the mistaken idea that only ‘bad’ people cause bad accidents. Most of the people involved in accidents have just the same attitudes and behaviours as you and me, so how would fixing your own attitudes and behaviours solve the problem?


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

    Obviously those people who are currently the problem, should be ‘harnessed’ to start becoming the solution Duncan. Question is: how? The 20:80 ratio may be at play here i.e 20% of the people (on the roads) are causing 80% of the problems.


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

    Without anyone making the roads safer, KSI figures should be expected to fall every year simply because of better vehicle safety. Drivers and passengers now emerge with barely a scratch from crashes that would once have been fatal. Death rates will also fall because of better NHS treatment saving lives. So if the figures are stagnating, something else must be going on to make the roads less safe. I think it is no accident that the flatlining figures began in 2010 when the incoming transport secretary announced an ‘end to the war on the motorists’ and funding for safety cameras was withdrawn. Enforcement on motorways has held up but lack of cameras and lack of police enforcement mean that drivers can now break the limit with impunity on many roads, knowing they will not get penalised. That is certainly true in Kent.


    John Morrison Sevenoaks
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Some very good points made, but one point that seems to have been missed is the continued reduction in the strength of Roads Policing units across the country as a whole. At any one time in my county, there is now a maximum of five Police officers engaged on such duties. Their low numbers mean that they run from incident to incident and have no time for roads policing.


    David, Suffolk
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    When the accident curve goes asymptotic then the reason is because of the incorrect belief that people are the problem to control and they should be controlled by intervening at the level of their behaviour.

    To keep the curve going in a beneficial direction the industry should be aware that rather than seeing people as a problem to control, people are a resource to harness. They are the solution, without them we won’t get anywhere.


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

    Every time there is a pause in a long term trend, in this case one that has been going on at least since 1950, someone thinks it was too good to last. But it never is.

    By far the worst change of trend was from 1993 to 2007 when fatalities all-but stopped falling, and according to hospital data SI did too but was not noticed because (as the DfT later admitted) reporting levels fell. It was no coincidence that this corresponded with the longest boom we have ever experienced, from recovering from the ERM fiasco to the banking crisis. Both effects were much greater than could be explained simply by changes in traffic volume, and as Al Gullon has reported for years, were due to changing driver attitudes – gung-ho in a boom, cautious in a slump. He finds that his has held true across many countries and many decades. He also forecast the slowdown in safety as the economic picture brightened. http://www.alsaces.ca/ contains a great deal of his work with full contact details. Incidentally, this is not “a relationship with GDP” but a relationship with economic confidence, with the important difference that confidence is a leading indicator of GDP improvement to come. Understanting that time difference can be helpful.


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

    It seems common sense to me that if one encourages more cyclists or indeed more motorcyclists on our so called overcrowded roads and for whatever reason, be it economy oo climate change then you are going to get more incidents involving these road users and so it is going to be inevitable that stats will increase year on year.

    It is believed by some that this death and injury increase will continue until both forms of transport become something in the region of 10% of traffic when due to sheer volume of numbers they become recognised and accepted on our roads.


    bob craven Lancs
    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