Let's be careful out there

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Jan 26, 2003.

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

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2668659.stm

    The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays, while for pedestrians it is 1800 on Fridays

    The bloke from the RAC suggests that speeding is not the best way to increase road safety, which
    will come as a shock to some.

    -- text of article --

    Friday evenings are the most dangerous time to be driving on the roads in Britain, research
    has shown.

    Fatalities and serious injuries peak at more than 250 at 1700 on Fridays, according to the RAC's
    campaigning arm, the RAC Foundation.

    This compares to an average of 180 deaths and serious injuries on weekday evenings at 1700. The
    "fatal Friday" syndrome is thought to be associated with drivers switching off after a long
    week at work.

    The RAC Foundation's executive director Edmund King said: "These figures suggest that motorists,
    pedestrians and cyclists are more at risk on early Friday evenings.

    "The fatal Friday phenomenon is probably caused by motorists switching off early, fatigue after a
    long week and the 'thank God it's Friday' effect.

    "The majority of injury accidents happen in urban and residential areas, close to junctions and
    close to home.

    "We are asking all motorists to concentrate on the road ahead rather than the weekend ahead this and
    every Friday."

    People are most at risk when they are close to home on roads they know well, the research suggests.

    Mr King added: "Mentally, many motorists will be rushing home with too many things on their minds.

    "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception.

    "For the Friday driver, the car in front is often an obstacle to the fabulous weekend. Tragically,
    many motorists never get there."

    Friday road deaths and serious injuries

    85 at 0900 256 at 1700 197 at 1800 (Average for 2001)

    Statistics also show the peak time for accidents on Saturdays in the UK is 1600, while on Sundays
    it is 1500.

    The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays, while for pedestrians it is 1800 on Fridays.

    According to the Office for National Statistics, there were 313,046 casualties on Britain's
    roads in 2001.

    Of these, 3,443 people were killed, 37,094 were seriously injured and 272,509 were slightly hurt.

    During 2001, there were 218 children killed in road accidents, with another 4,986 seriously injured.

    Last week, the government revealed provisional figures showing road casualties for the 12 months
    ending June 2002 were 3% down compared with the previous 12 months.

    They also showed the number of people killed and seriously injured was 1% down.

    This represented a 16% dip in the numbers of deaths and serious injuries compared with an average
    for 1994 to 1998.

    The government has set a target of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured in road
    accidents by 40% from the 1994-98 average by 2010.

    --
    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.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
    Tags:


  2. Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in the
    article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room with
    padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  3. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays.....

    Great! This is *just* what I want to hear as I put on my bicycle clips in preparation for my
    commute home!
     
  4. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote: ( The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on
    Fridays, while for pedestrians it is ) 1800 on Fridays ( ... ) Fatalities and serious injuries peak
    at more than 250 at 1700 on Fridays, ( according to the RAC's campaigning arm, the RAC Foundation.

    Presumably one should pull well off the road at 1659 and wait until 1701 before resuming
    one's journey.

    I wonder whether those were hours leading up to the hour, or hours centred on the hour, or hours
    after the hour. I think we should be told.
     
  5. > The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays, while for pedestrians it is 1800 on Fridays

    If that is when most accidents happen, could it be, perhaps, that there are more accidents merely
    because there are more people around? Perhaps there are more cyclists/pedestrians who don't have
    accidents as well.

    For cyclists, Fri at 1700 might be the best time to ride, because cycling tends to be safer when
    there are more bikes on the road.

    If the RAC hasn't realised that the most accidents doesn't prove the situation is necessarily the
    most dangerous, that reflects badly on them. If the RAC did realise it, and sent out the press
    release anyway, that would be an even worse reflection.

    Jeremy Parker
     
  6. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:21:45 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays, while for pedestrians it is 1800 on Fridays

    >The bloke from the RAC suggests that speeding is not the best way to increase road safety, which
    >will come as a shock to some.

    >-- text of article --

    >"This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception.

    Oh, VERY good. You're completely distorting the very sensible RAC statement, from "increased speeds"
    to "speeding".

    When you see "increased speeds" and "hazard perception" in the same sentence, it would be an
    excellent bet that the sort of "increased speeds" being discussed are those which are inappropriate
    for the conditions.

    I quote from my own web site:

    "Inappropriate speed is usually defined as "going to fast for the conditions". This could be over
    or under the speed limit. 69mph on a motorway in thick fog could be a suicidal example. We abhor
    inappropriate speed because it is dangerous. Of course the opposite of inappropriate speed is
    safe speed."

    and:

    We need drivers who slow down where the danger is greatest, not where the danger is smallest. This
    is where emphasis on speed limits misses the point, such emphasis tends to affect areas where the
    danger is least. On the other hand publicity about using speed wisely and safely would emphasis
    reducing speed where danger is greatest.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  7. W K

    W K Guest

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of
    hazard
    > perception." in the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to
    go
    > have a lie down in a quiet room with padded wall and bars on the window?
    ;-)

    No, He'll say they lack attention because they aren't driving fast enough.
     
  8. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:
    > Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in
    > the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room with
    > padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)

    I would guess at "no"... He does, after all, Know It All Already (and anything he doesn't (sic) he
    can work out from a "thought" experiment rendered 100% perfect by his Advanced Driving instruction).

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  9. "Geraint Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Presumably one should pull well off the road at 1659 and wait until 1701 before resuming one's
    > journey.

    No! You will almost certainly be run over by someone trying to park on the pavement!
     
  10. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Adrian Boliston wrote:

    >> The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays.....

    > Great! This is *just* what I want to hear as I put on my bicycle clips in preparation for my
    > commute home!

    Either leave early or have a cup of tea first :)

    --
    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.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
  11. "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > For cyclists, Fri at 1700 might be the best time to ride, because cycling tends to be safer when
    > there are more bikes on the road.

    Depends *what* type of cyclists! Many of the ones round here are a safety *hazard* rather than a
    safety enhancer!
     
  12. "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote > Oh, VERY good. You're completely distorting the
    very sensible RAC
    > statement, from "increased speeds" to "speeding".
    >
    > When you see "increased speeds" and "hazard perception" in the same sentence, it would be an
    > excellent bet that the sort of "increased speeds" being discussed are those which are
    > inappropriate for the conditions.

    No, I think the RAC man was equating higher speeds with higher danger. Seems sensible to me. There
    was a BBC programme during the week that made this point too.

    And 'speeding' does not necessarily mean breaking the speed limit. Your interpretation is
    too narrow.
     
  13. W K

    W K Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    <blahblahblah>

    The word speed was mentioned once in the whole damn thing, and the silly genie pops out of
    his bottle.

    Surely according to you its not possible for them to go faster AND pay less attention.
     
  14. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:36:29 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Oh, VERY good. You're completely distorting the very sensible RAC statement, from "increased
    >speeds" to "speeding".

    My comment was entirely appropriate in context. The RAC bloke was clearly equating higher speeds
    with greater hazard, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it. And neither would I. How many miles
    have you ridden on your bike this week?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  15. John B

    John B Guest

    Peter Clinch wrote:

    > wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:
    > > Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in
    > > the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room
    > > with padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)
    >
    > I would guess at "no"... He does, after all, Know It All Already (and anything he doesn't (sic) he
    > can work out from a "thought" experiment rendered 100% perfect by his Advanced Driving
    > instruction).

    Don't forget there will be a number of graphs to back it all up.

    JohnB
     
  16. Peter Clinch wrote:
    > wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:
    >
    >> Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in
    >> the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room
    >> with padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)
    >
    >
    > I would guess at "no"... He does, after all, Know It All Already (and anything he doesn't (sic) he
    > can work out from a "thought" experiment rendered 100% perfect by his Advanced Driving
    > instruction).
    >
    > Pete.

    Don't forget there will be a graph, done in paint brush no doubt, as supporting evidence of some
    spurious claim.

    Daniel.
     
  17. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:33:22 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...

    ><blahblahblah>

    >The word speed was mentioned once in the whole damn thing, and the silly genie pops out of
    >his bottle.

    You really are a complete WanKer aren't you?

    I posted a basic clarification since some of the sillier posters in here had started a pathetic
    little rain dance at my expense.

    >Surely according to you its not possible for them to go faster AND pay less attention.

    Like the nice RAC man said, poor hazard perception frequently results in drivers failing to reduce
    speed when necessary. This is entirely compatible with the important concept that drivers forced to
    travel at lower than normal speeds tends to exhibit poor concentration.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  18. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    John B wrote:

    > Don't forget there will be a number of graphs to back it all up.

    And no data grouped by stupid arbitrary criteria like "class of road" or "speed limit," either.

    --
    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.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:57:41 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >ike the nice RAC man said, poor hazard perception frequently results in drivers failing to reduce
    >speed when necessary.

    Actually what the nice RAC man said was "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard
    perception." That's verbatim. He quite clearly equates both with increased danger, or they would not
    have been combined in a single sentence in that way.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  20. Paul [email protected] Smith of Scotland, UK wrote, and I sincerely hope in this order:
    > Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving You really are a complete WanKer
    > aren't you?

    I suppose that is not as bad-tempered as "bugger off", so it must be some sort of an improvement.
    How would "High blood pressure kills" do for a road safety slogan?

    I know it is not as catchy, but "Half mass times the square of speed kills."
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...