BBC Story

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Jun 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3013424.stm>

    Complete with a proposal for motorist helmets!

    =============================================

    Tens of thousands of people die in road traffic accidents every year, including more than 3,000
    in the UK.

    Mobile phones banned With an estimated 30 million people killed in crashes world-wide since the
    invention of the motor vehicle, debate is always raging about how to save lives. In the latest move,
    the UK Government announced this week it would be banning the use of mobile phones while driving.
    Below is a selection of other suggestions to improve road safety, drawn from various sources. BBC
    News Online would also like to hear your views by filling out the form below.

    HEAD BANDS

    Would drivers wear these? Many of the most serious road crashes result in head injuries. They may
    not look too fashionable, but these head bands have been identified as one way of reducing the human
    impact of car accidents. Leading research in this area is the Road Accident Research Unit at the
    University of Adelaide, in Australia. Its tests have already shown headbands would reduce injuries
    from frontal car crashes, and research is continuing on other types of crash. Essentially the bands
    are crash helmets which have been scaled down to look less bulky. It may be hard to imagine people
    wearing them - but many people opposed wearing seat belts when they were introduced.

    GO-SLOW CARS

    Cars could stop their own drivers from speeding Experts at the University of Leeds are working on a
    car equipped with a speed limiter which makes it impossible to break the legal limit. Professor of
    transport safety, Oliver Carsten, said: "We believe this kind of technology can contribute to road
    safety. "If all drivers kept to the speed limit, deaths on the road (in the UK) would fall by 37%,
    over 1,200 each year." The system has been dubbed Intelligent Speed Adaptation.

    DEATH MARKERS

    Black markers signify deaths and red indicate serious injuries An idea used in various countries
    where the risk of crashes increases on long stretches of road. Black markers (usually small wooden
    posts) are installed at locations where fatal accidents have occurred. They may be slightly morbid,
    but these markers, which feature small crosses at the top, are sobering reminder of how dangerous
    driving can be. They also serve to highlight corners or stretches of road which may be more
    hazardous than they appear. Additional red markers indicate sites of crashes which resulted in
    serious injuries.

    DESIGN AND ROADSIDE OBJECTS

    Road design is crucial Many vehicle deaths would be avoided if authorities paid closer attention to
    removing or fencing off roadside objects, such as dangerous trees and posts. Collisions with trees
    kill 1,600 people a year in Germany, 800 in France and more than 200 in Britain. General design of
    roads is also important, with some research suggesting poor design contributes to 33% of crashes.

    REFRESHER COURSES

    Middle-aged men are getting back on the road A concern raised by the AA is the number of middle-aged
    men "rediscovering their youth" by getting back on their motorcycles. It can sometimes be too late
    when they discover the road environment has changed over the last 20 to 30 years. Many would benefit
    from refresher courses to hone their skills, which may have diminished over the years and must be
    adapted to modern road conditions.

    HITTING HOME

    Cars can be fragile machines Many people do not fully comprehend the horror of car crashes, and thus
    do not drive accordingly. Numerous advertisements have used shocking images of accidents in the hope
    of reforming attitudes. Some say this could be taken a step further by occasionally putting badly
    damaged and burnt out vehicles at the roadside. It would surely be a stark reminder of how fragile a
    car can be when travelling at speed.

    LOWER SPEED LIMITS

    Is 40mph too fast? It seems obvious, but few people realise the difference made by slower driving.
    Not only are you less likely to suffer serious injuries, but there is less chance of the accident
    happening in the first place. Research in areas where the speed limit is 60km/h (just under 40mph)
    has shown the chance of crashing could be reduced by as much as 40% if the limit was lowered by just
    10km/h. However suggestions of lowering speed limits often encounter resistance from motorists who
    are in a hurry to get where they are going.

    DRINK DRIVING

    Drunk drivers can be lethal Alcohol is still a major cause of car crashes. The Royal Society for the
    Prevention of Accidents says the allowable amount of alcohol should be lowered from 80mg to 50mg.
    Furthermore, it wants police empowered to test drivers randomly. "They should be able to test
    anywhere at any time," a spokesman said.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
     
    Tags:


  2. My thoughts on all this:

    >
    > Mobile phones banned
    >

    Good

    >
    > HEAD BANDS
    >

    Oh really! That and they fail to address the fact its better not to crash in the first place.

    >
    >
    > GO-SLOW CARS
    >

    Not convinced - I fear people would just push the loud pedal and go at the limit if not safe. I
    thinks its important that drivers should be in full control of their cars. Perhaps a compromise
    would a limiter preventing drivers from going X mph over the limit, and another system to penalise
    drivers (with points/fines) if they exceed the limit.

    >
    > DEATH MARKERS
    >

    If the funny red and white triangles aren't doing the trick, I don't see why these should.

    >
    > DESIGN AND ROADSIDE OBJECTS
    >

    Often forgotten about in road safety. Many roads need improving for safety - in the case of some
    long distance routes this may mean up to motorway standard.

    But it's important that drivers are capable of dealing with substandard local roads - this too is
    often forgotten.

    >
    > REFRESHER COURSES
    >

    Absolutely a good idea. Should be compulsary.

    >
    > HITTING HOME
    >

    1) Such wrecks would be very ugly
    2) If the funny red and white triangles aren't doing the trick, I don't see why these should.

    >
    > LOWER SPEED LIMITS
    >

    Speed limits in this country need reviewing. For example - why not a 20 mph limit on rural side
    streets? It's not like its really safe to do 30, or it's certainly necessary (emergency vehicles
    excepted). Why not 80 on motorways? It's often safe to do 80mph in modern vehicles on such roads.

    Basically, we need to assess what the maximum speed that is safe and necessary on different roads,
    whilst remaining balenced

    >
    > DRINK DRIVING
    >

    Very tricky - people react diferently to alcohol. Needs more thought as too how enforcement could be
    tightened up.

    All just MHO, of course.

    :)
     
  3. Jim Price

    Jim Price Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    > Some say this could be taken a step further by occasionally putting badly damaged and burnt out
    > vehicles at the roadside. It would surely be a stark reminder of how fragile a car can be when
    > travelling at speed.

    I used to use this as a reminder that I'm getting close to Harlow!

    --
    Jim Price

    http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

    Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

    Aye!.
     
  4. "Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > I used to use this as a reminder that I'm getting close to Harlow!

    We may have lots of burnt out cars but we also have a decent cycle network all with separate
    footpaths by the side. Mind you the school children and mothers with pushchairs still choose to use
    the cycle lane.

    --
    David Brown :eek:) http://kitemap.co.uk
     
  5. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    [snippety]
    > > GO-SLOW CARS
    > Not convinced - I fear people would just push the loud pedal and go at the limit if not safe.

    Inclined to agree.

    > > DEATH MARKERS
    > If the funny red and white triangles aren't doing the trick, I don't see
    why
    > these should.

    But the red triangles don't apply to Road Owners ;-)

    > > DESIGN AND ROADSIDE OBJECTS
    > Often forgotten about in road safety. Many roads need improving for
    safety -
    > in the case of some long distance routes this may mean up to motorway standard.

    God no! That would make them utterly deadly for cyclists! What's needed is not to make the roads
    safer for speeding cagers, but to make speeding cagers safer on all roads. As for barriers to
    protect "dangerous" trees - well, I don't see the trees jumping out in front of the cars...

    > > HITTING HOME
    > 1) Such wrecks would be very ugly
    > 2) If the funny red and white triangles aren't doing the trick, I don't
    see
    > why these should.

    Because the red triangles don't apply to Road Owners - on the other hand they would probably assume
    the wreck was a joyrider and that their Superior Driving Skills render them immune from crashing.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
     
  6. "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote: ( My thoughts on all this: ) > Mobile
    phones banned ( Good ) > HEADS BANNED ( Oh really!

    No, really. Completely eliminates head injuries.
     
  7. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > > DESIGN AND ROADSIDE OBJECTS
    > > Often forgotten about in road safety. Many roads need improving for
    > safety -
    > > in the case of some long distance routes this may mean up to motorway standard.
    >
    > God no! That would make them utterly deadly for cyclists!
    >

    Which is why cyclists are banned from motorways ;-)

    Of course, alternative routes would have to be provided for non-motorway traffic - these would be
    largely empty, as most traffic would use the m'way. This way cyclists won't be relegated to poorly
    designed cycle paths, yet are given routes largely free of traffic.

    > What's needed is not to make the roads safer for speeding cagers,

    Some roads are dangerous at any speed - see some bits of the A1. These need altering.

    > but to make speeding cagers safer on all roads.

    Which is a combination of providing roads which allow motorists to go fast, and measures to prevent
    & punish those who go too fast on all roads (amongst other things)

    > As for barriers to protect "dangerous" trees - well, I
    > don't see the trees jumping out in front of the cars...
    >

    I certainly agree with this.
     
  8. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    >
    > DEATH MARKERS
    >
    > Black markers signify deaths and red indicate serious injuries An idea used in various countries
    > where the risk of crashes increases on long stretches of road.

    We have "death markers" which consist of bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts. One such marker has
    been tended to for 4 years.

    --
    Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
     
  9. Not Me

    Not Me Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

    > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3013424.stm>

    > HEAD BANDS

    Heheheh .. yeah, right .. ;)

    > GO-SLOW CARS

    Have to disagree with this. While I agree that many drivers may not be in total control, to forcibly
    take that control away from drivers is akin to inviting an accident to happen. There have been times
    (personal observation) when a judicial burst of power has helped negate potential problems ..

    > DEATH MARKERS

    You mean like the flowers which seem to adorn almost every crash site these days. Why would the
    majority of drivers, it seems, take note of what they are and what they mean, when they're already
    not taking note of the speed restrictions or other signs already in existence ? (And I *do* speak as
    a driver as well as a cyclist)

    > DESIGN AND ROADSIDE OBJECTS

    I've never seen a tree step into the road. If people are dying by hitting trees with their vehicles
    I would suggest that road design, while probably crucial in many ways to road safety, has absolutely
    nothing, or an absolutely minor amount, to do with this phenomena.

    > REFRESHER COURSES

    Totally agree. I would also suggest that this should apply to *all* road users, including
    cyclists .. ;)

    > HITTING HOME

    Isn't there enough rubbish and shite on the roads already ? Again, as most drivers (apparently)
    ignore limits and other signs, how is this expected to be effective ?

    > LOWER SPEED LIMITS

    Again, as most drivers (apparently) ignore limits and other signs, how is this expected to be
    effective ?

    > DRINK DRIVING

    Agreed.

    (Sent to BBC too .. ;))

    --
    Digweed
     
  10. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Of course, alternative routes would have to be provided for non-motorway traffic - these would be
    > largely empty, as most traffic would use the m'way. This way cyclists won't be relegated to
    > poorly designed cycle paths, yet are given routes largely free of traffic.

    So, these paths are going to be designed by the same people that designed the "poorly designed
    cycle paths", but these ones will be good and useful and largely free of traffic. How will that
    work, exactly?

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Some roads are dangerous at any speed - see some bits of the A1. These need altering.

    *any* speed? I don't think so. The are merely dangerous at the speed which cagers decide they ought
    to be able to drive them. Making the roads less dangeorus merely allows the cagers to push their
    luck a little further. There's some quite well-reviewed research which suggests that the appearance
    (or reality) of danger can help reduce accident rates[1].

    [1] That looks as if it should have "as part of a speed-controlled diet" at the end ;-)

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  12. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > We have "death markers" which consist of bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts. One such marker
    > has been tended to for 4 years.
    >

    Now this may be just me (not unusual), but these annoy me. What is the logic behind them? I can sort
    of understand placing flowers there after any accident, but to tend them for any period of time
    afterwards? Just seems very strange to me. Yes, somebody's loved one died there, but you rarely get
    the equivalent in other deaths. Most people die in bed but how many people tie bunches of fresh
    flowers to the bed every week? This phenomenon is fairly common in Western Australia and they tried
    to stop people from doing it as it was causing other accidents (the "rubber-necking" period now
    drawn out over weeks/months).

    Without getting too spritual, they aren't there. It may be where they lost their life, but they
    should live on in your memory of their life, not in a constant reminder of where and how they
    were killed.

    Sorry, that got a bit serious towards the end. To bring it back to something more relevant to
    cycling, my dad has just taken my old unicycle away to fix the seatpost so I can give it to my
    nephew. He's been dropping very unsubtle hints about getting one. He seems to think that if he gets
    one on Thursday he should be able to ride it to school on Friday. I'm more than happy to teach him,
    but he'll have to be a phenomenally fast learner and I don't rate my teaching skills that high!

    Have fun!

    Graeme
     
  13. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:33:00 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3013424.stm>

    >Black markers signify deaths and red indicate serious injuries An idea used in various countries

    Including the UK, where it took the form of a sign with a black spot on it. Now there are signs on
    roads like the A9 and A1 indicating the current number of deaths.

    >Many vehicle deaths would be avoided if authorities paid closer attention to removing or fencing
    >off roadside objects, such as dangerous trees and posts.

    "Dangerous" trees? Really? It would be very funny if it wasn't so serious. These "dangerous" trees
    presumably suddenly jump out into the road, causing poor, unsuspecting, put-upon motorists to be
    unable to avoid them. See also "dangerous" bus stops, which the road "safety" lobby have also been
    busy removing.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  14. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +0100 someone who may be "Nathaniel Porter"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Of course, alternative routes would have to be provided for non-motorway traffic - these would be
    >largely empty, as most traffic would use the m'way.

    That was the claim when motorways were built. Experience shows that the claim was generally false.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  15. >> Some say this could be taken a step further by occasionally putting badly damaged and burnt out
    >> vehicles at the roadside. It would surely be a stark reminder of how fragile a car can be when
    >> travelling at speed.
    >
    >I used to use this as a reminder that I'm getting close to Harlow!
    >
    >--
    >Jim Price
    >

    On the A11 tonight, between Norwich & Wymondham were a couple of burnt out cars at the side of the
    road. They are a frequent sight on the A47 too. Quite a common topic of concern in the local press
    too - the number of burnt out and abandoned vehicles at the edges of roads.

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
    h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$**o$l.c$$*o$*m*$ by getting rid of the
    overdependence on money and fame
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  16. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:15:29 -0000 someone who may be Graeme <[email protected]>
    wrote this:-

    >> We have "death markers" which consist of bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts. One such marker
    >> has been tended to for 4 years.
    >
    >Now this may be just me (not unusual), but these annoy me. What is the logic behind them?

    Why should there be logic behind them? I suspect there is emotion.

    >Most people die in bed but how many people tie bunches of fresh flowers to the bed every week?

    Dying in bed is usually rather more natural than a life cut short in a road crash that was probably
    avoidable.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:33:00 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    > ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3013424.stm>
    >
    > >Black markers signify deaths and red indicate serious injuries An idea used in various countries
    >
    > Including the UK, where it took the form of a sign with a black spot on it. Now there are signs on
    > roads like the A9 and A1 indicating the current number of deaths.

    The A68 in Northumberland has signs stating the number of 'accidents' in the last 3 years. I think
    the figure is 75 which I find meaningless without some qualification as to the severity of those
    accidents or the road extent to which the figure applies (though I accept that that might present a
    signage problem.)

    Colin
     
  18. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    >>Now this may be just me (not unusual), but these annoy me. What is the logic behind them?
    >
    > Why should there be logic behind them? I suspect there is emotion.

    I phrased that badly, probably as it's an expression I use regularly (left handed, engineer, male =
    everything must be logical, Captain).

    I realise there is emotion behind them, but surely after a certain period of time (a week, a month,
    a year?) it would be more healthy to remember the person who died by concentrating on their life
    rather than how they died? I know if I was killed in an accident somehow, I would rather be
    remembered for what I've done in my life (no major achievements, just a normal life with good bits
    and not so good bits) rather than the fact I was splatted by a car/fell off a cliff/etc.

    >>Most people die in bed but how many people tie bunches of fresh flowers to the bed every week?
    >
    > Dying in bed is usually rather more natural than a life cut short in a road crash that was
    > probably avoidable.

    True, it was a poor example. For every other one I thought of, e.g. death in climbing accidents,
    kayaking fatalities or falling dead of a heart attack in the freezer aisle of Safeway, I could think
    either of an instance where I had seen well tended mini-memorials or realised that building one
    would be seriously frowned on (the manager of your local supermarket would take a dim view of you
    placing a fresh wreath in front of the frozen peas every week).

    Graeme
     
  19. "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    > >
    > > Of course, alternative routes would have to be provided for
    non-motorway
    > > traffic - these would be largely empty, as most traffic would use the
    m'way.
    > > This way cyclists won't be relegated to poorly designed cycle paths,
    yet are
    > > given routes largely free of traffic.
    >
    > So, these paths are going to be designed by the same people that designed the "poorly designed
    > cycle paths", but these ones will be good and useful and largely free of traffic. How will that
    > work, exactly?
    >

    Non motorway traffic includes cyclists, cars driven by learners, slow vehicles, farm vehicles etc. A
    road would be needed, so a road would be provided.
     
  20. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Some roads are dangerous at any speed - see some bits of the A1. These
    need
    > >altering.
    >
    > *any* speed? I don't think so.
    >

    OK, some exagerration

    >
    > The are merely dangerous at the speed which cagers decide they ought to be able to drive them.
    >

    To a point. The really bad junctions (i.e. ones which allow right turns accross dual carriageways)
    are still very dangerous, and when traffic is heavy turning traffic tends to do daft things.

    > Making the roads less dangeorus merely allows the cagers to push their luck a little further.
    > There's some quite well-reviewed research which suggests that the appearance (or reality) of
    > danger can help reduce accident rates[1].
    >

    True to a point, but I do think that having crossroads etc. on long distance, dual carriageway
    routes is asking for trouble. Any speeding that is caused by the improvements could simply be
    rectified by cameras.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...