People always break the law - if it's not enforced then things will get worse.
The less police presence there is the worse it will get. Nothing is being done about use of mobile phones and these are now probably the biggest issue.
People always break the law - if it's not enforced then things will get worse.
The less police presence there is the worse it will get. Nothing is being done about use of mobile phones and these are now probably the biggest issue.
Well, probably not, it seems. But with one important exception.
There were 1,730 reported road deaths in 2015, a decrease of 3 per cent compared with 2014. This is the second lowest annual total on record after 2013. There were 45 per cent fewer fatalities in 2015 than a decade earlier in 2006.
There was a total of 186,189 casualties of all severities in 2015. This is around 4 per cent lower than in 2014 and the second lowest level on record.
In the last 30 years Great Britain’s population has grown by 15 per cent (8.1 million people). Despite this growth in population, road fatalities have fallen by 68 per cent (3,655 deaths).
In comparison with other countries, the UK remains one of the world leaders in terms of road safety, and its rate for child fatalities is well below the European average.
Fatalities where drink driving was involved has fallen from close to 600 in 2004 to around 240 currently.
The whole topic is extraordinarily complex and involves factors like economic activity, population increases, road maintenance, weather conditions and perhaps in terms of the falls in casualty levels noted above, the enormous strides made by manufacturers in terms of vehicle safety.
Nonetheless, the charts in the report clearly indicate that you should not walk, or use a cycle or motorbike anywhere, at any time or in any place. It is far safer being in a car, bus or truck.
Now, I understand that no one in their right mind would want to read the whole report but, in the light of your comments about mobile phones, I recommend a browse at the statistics at RAS50001 on page 303 of the report. Just a few snippets. Despite the clear focus on "speed" by the authorities, it is a factor in only 5% of all road accidents, with travelling too fast for the conditions (but within the limit) another 7%. (If anything demonstrates that speed cameras are just a means of raising revenue, it is this statistic).
But "driver error" figures in 72% of accidents with "failed to look properly" contributing a scarcely believable 44% to that total! By comparison, excess alcohol only features as a factor in 4% of accidents while "driver using a mobile phone" is such a small number that it equates to 0%!
So, I too shared your concerns about mobile use but the figures tend to suggest we are wrong. Except in one situation. KSIs involving pedestrians. "Pedestrian failed to look properly" features as a factor in 58% of accidents along with another 29% where they were "careless or reckless or in a hurry". (There's some overlap as, clearly, they could be in both categories.) But this percentage has risen hugely in recent years and I suspect that pedestrians having their face glued to their mobile phone and/or wearing headphones is having a huge impact on accident levels. It's a shame they don't get fined or banged up. They are even allowed out on the highway without insurance - how is that sensible?
People always break the law - if it's not enforced then things will get worse.
The less police presence there is the worse it will get. Nothing is being done about use of mobile phones and these are now probably the biggest issue.
Despite the clear focus on "speed" by the authorities, it is a factor in only 5% of all road accidents, with travelling too fast for the conditions (but within the limit) another 7%. (If anything demonstrates that speed cameras are just a means of raising revenue, it is this statistic).
As you say, it is a complex issue but to site a couple of observations in the report:
One of the reasons the report suggests that road casualties reduced by 42% between 1985 and 2015 is that the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit has fallen. So the small proportion of accidents involving excess speed is a result of people driving slower, not because excess speed isn't a significant danger. Presumably speed cameras have contributed to that and act as a deterrent to the trend reversing.
And
The report also says the majority of fatalities occurred on non-built-up roads because these roads have higher average speeds which more frequently result in more serious collisions. So whether speed is the cause of the accident or not, accidents at speed are more dangerous.
People always break the law - if it's not enforced then things will get worse.
The less police presence there is the worse it will get. Nothing is being done about use of mobile phones and these are now probably the biggest issue.
Well, probably not, it seems. But with one important exception.
There were 1,730 reported road deaths in 2015, a decrease of 3 per cent compared with 2014. This is the second lowest annual total on record after 2013. There were 45 per cent fewer fatalities in 2015 than a decade earlier in 2006.
There was a total of 186,189 casualties of all severities in 2015. This is around 4 per cent lower than in 2014 and the second lowest level on record.
In the last 30 years Great Britain’s population has grown by 15 per cent (8.1 million people). Despite this growth in population, road fatalities have fallen by 68 per cent (3,655 deaths).
In comparison with other countries, the UK remains one of the world leaders in terms of road safety, and its rate for child fatalities is well below the European average.
Fatalities where drink driving was involved has fallen from close to 600 in 2004 to around 240 currently.
The whole topic is extraordinarily complex and involves factors like economic activity, population increases, road maintenance, weather conditions and perhaps in terms of the falls in casualty levels noted above, the enormous strides made by manufacturers in terms of vehicle safety.
Nonetheless, the charts in the report clearly indicate that you should not walk, or use a cycle or motorbike anywhere, at any time or in any place. It is far safer being in a car, bus or truck.
Now, I understand that no one in their right mind would want to read the whole report but, in the light of your comments about mobile phones, I recommend a browse at the statistics at RAS50001 on page 303 of the report. Just a few snippets. Despite the clear focus on "speed" by the authorities, it is a factor in only 5% of all road accidents, with travelling too fast for the conditions (but within the limit) another 7%. (If anything demonstrates that speed cameras are just a means of raising revenue, it is this statistic).
But "driver error" figures in 72% of accidents with "failed to look properly" contributing a scarcely believable 44% to that total! By comparison, excess alcohol only features as a factor in 4% of accidents while "driver using a mobile phone" is such a small number that it equates to 0%!
So, I too shared your concerns about mobile use but the figures tend to suggest we are wrong. Except in one situation. KSIs involving pedestrians. "Pedestrian failed to look properly" features as a factor in 58% of accidents along with another 29% where they were "careless or reckless or in a hurry". (There's some overlap as, clearly, they could be in both categories.) But this percentage has risen hugely in recent years and I suspect that pedestrians having their face glued to their mobile phone and/or wearing headphones is having a huge impact on accident levels. It's a shame they don't get fined or banged up. They are even allowed out on the highway without insurance - how is that sensible?
I'm unclear how mobile phone stats can be kept accurately - is it always possible to ascertain if they are involved? I would question why the figure is so low but then I'm not privy to the investigations undertaken.
I regularly see people driving on a motorway whilst using a mobile phone which would perhaps contribute to the 'driver error/not looking' category. I find it pretty unbelievable that mobiles aren't a higher factor - I've been hit twice by drivers in recent years who I'm sure must have been on their mobiles. Both hit me in the rear when traffic was slowing down and there was good visibility.
People always break the law - if it's not enforced then things will get worse.
The less police presence there is the worse it will get. Nothing is being done about use of mobile phones and these are now probably the biggest issue.
Despite the clear focus on "speed" by the authorities, it is a factor in only 5% of all road accidents, with travelling too fast for the conditions (but within the limit) another 7%. (If anything demonstrates that speed cameras are just a means of raising revenue, it is this statistic).
As you say, it is a complex issue but to site a couple of observations in the report:
One of the reasons the report suggests that road casualties reduced by 42% between 1985 and 2015 is that the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit has fallen. So the small proportion of accidents involving excess speed is a result of people driving slower, not because excess speed isn't a significant danger. Presumably speed cameras have contributed to that and act as a deterrent to the trend reversing.
And
The report also says the majority of fatalities occurred on non-built-up roads because these roads have higher average speeds which more frequently result in more serious collisions. So whether speed is the cause of the accident or not, accidents at speed are more dangerous.
Statistics, eh?! On point one. Perhaps, probably certainly for sites with average speed cameras. But in the main, regular users of a road know that standard cameras are there and drive accordingly for just a very short stretch of road. The thing about this is that if a bit of road suddenly has a series of accidents well above average levels, a speed camera gets put up. Accidents then return to regular levels (the technical term is "regression to the mean") and the speed camera is hailed as the reason for the decrease. But this is bogus, accident levels have just returned to where they would have been anyway.
So an alternative explanation may be that a possibly significant reason drivers have slowed down is because the traffic volumes are now so heavy there is very little scope to make progress at an excessive speed. Or, indeed, if my recent journeys have been anything to go by, any progress at all really.
Comments
The less police presence there is the worse it will get. Nothing is being done about use of mobile phones and these are now probably the biggest issue.
If you want the full fat version it's here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/568484/rrcgb-2015.pdf
But, just to illustrate with my emphasis:
There were 1,730 reported road deaths in 2015, a decrease of 3 per cent compared with 2014. This is the second lowest annual total on record after 2013. There were 45 per cent fewer fatalities in 2015 than a decade earlier in 2006.
There was a total of 186,189 casualties of all severities in 2015. This is around 4 per cent lower than in 2014 and the second lowest level on record.
In the last 30 years Great Britain’s population has grown by 15 per cent (8.1 million people). Despite this growth in population, road fatalities have fallen by 68 per cent (3,655 deaths).
In comparison with other countries, the UK remains one of the world leaders in terms of road safety, and its rate for child fatalities is well below the European average.
Fatalities where drink driving was involved has fallen from close to 600 in 2004 to around 240 currently.
The whole topic is extraordinarily complex and involves factors like economic activity, population increases, road maintenance, weather conditions and perhaps in terms of the falls in casualty levels noted above, the enormous strides made by manufacturers in terms of vehicle safety.
Nonetheless, the charts in the report clearly indicate that you should not walk, or use a cycle or motorbike anywhere, at any time or in any place. It is far safer being in a car, bus or truck.
Now, I understand that no one in their right mind would want to read the whole report but, in the light of your comments about mobile phones, I recommend a browse at the statistics at RAS50001 on page 303 of the report. Just a few snippets. Despite the clear focus on "speed" by the authorities, it is a factor in only 5% of all road accidents, with travelling too fast for the conditions (but within the limit) another 7%. (If anything demonstrates that speed cameras are just a means of raising revenue, it is this statistic).
But "driver error" figures in 72% of accidents with "failed to look properly" contributing a scarcely believable 44% to that total! By comparison, excess alcohol only features as a factor in 4% of accidents while "driver using a mobile phone" is such a small number that it equates to 0%!
So, I too shared your concerns about mobile use but the figures tend to suggest we are wrong. Except in one situation. KSIs involving pedestrians. "Pedestrian failed to look properly" features as a factor in 58% of accidents along with another 29% where they were "careless or reckless or in a hurry". (There's some overlap as, clearly, they could be in both categories.) But this percentage has risen hugely in recent years and I suspect that pedestrians having their face glued to their mobile phone and/or wearing headphones is having a huge impact on accident levels. It's a shame they don't get fined or banged up. They are even allowed out on the highway without insurance - how is that sensible?
One of the reasons the report suggests that road casualties reduced by 42% between 1985 and 2015 is that the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit has fallen. So the small proportion of accidents involving excess speed is a result of people driving slower, not because excess speed isn't a significant danger. Presumably speed cameras have contributed to that and act as a deterrent to the trend reversing.
And
The report also says the majority of fatalities occurred on non-built-up roads because these roads have higher average speeds which more frequently result in more serious collisions. So whether speed is the cause of the accident or not, accidents at speed are more dangerous.
I regularly see people driving on a motorway whilst using a mobile phone which would perhaps contribute to the 'driver error/not looking' category. I find it pretty unbelievable that mobiles aren't a higher factor - I've been hit twice by drivers in recent years who I'm sure must have been on their mobiles. Both hit me in the rear when traffic was slowing down and there was good visibility.
So an alternative explanation may be that a possibly significant reason drivers have slowed down is because the traffic volumes are now so heavy there is very little scope to make progress at an excessive speed. Or, indeed, if my recent journeys have been anything to go by, any progress at all really.