2014 road casualty figures

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby sussex2 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:33 am


I took the following quote from The Argus a local paper in the Brighton area of Sussex.
The quote is from the IAM and I am amazed, and saddened, that the institute still seems to have the 1970s attitude of blaming the weakest and most vulnerable on our roads:

' The IAM also calls for better pedestrian facilities to segregate traffic and vulnerable users where speeds are high, and campaigns to educate pedestrians themselves as they are most often at fault in crashes'

The article in total can be read here:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13774891 ... _per_cent/
I'm not bothered about the old Romanians and Bulgarians but the Old Etonians scare me rigid.
sussex2
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:01 am

Postby jont » Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:47 am


"Ms Sillars called on the government to reintroduce road safety targets, which she said were the “only clear way” of ensuring reductions in casualties."
Yes, yes, targets are well proven at not at all having unintended consequences :evil:

I'd say stopping people crashing would be the only clear way of reducing casualties, but I guess I'm a naive simpleton.
User avatar
jont
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Postby sussex2 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:54 am


'as they are most often at fault in crashes'

I wonder where they got that from?
How often I wonder do pedestrians suddenly appear in front of a vehicle? I would imagine it to be extremely rare.

I suspect, but don't know until I read the full report that it is based on the off crossing casualty rates; something we excel at in this country.
The following article though dated is I believe still relevant:

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/new ... urvey.html
I'm not bothered about the old Romanians and Bulgarians but the Old Etonians scare me rigid.
sussex2
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:01 am

Postby sussex2 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:50 am


You may be aware that in many of our neighbouring countries pedestrians have the priority at road junctions and must be given way to; this applies even when the vehicle has a green light to turn.
The prevailing attitude in the UK is that the pedestrians should always wait yet we provide very few safe places for them to do so.
I remain surprised and saddened that such a statement should come from an institution some regard as responsible.
I'm not bothered about the old Romanians and Bulgarians but the Old Etonians scare me rigid.
sussex2
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:01 am

Postby revian » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:11 am


sussex2 wrote:'?How often I wonder do pedestrians suddenly appear in front of a vehicle? I would imagine it to be extremely rare.

I know what you mean but put the other way round...
"How often do cars suddenly appear in front of a pedestrian?" might be equally true.

It might be interesting to ask; 'why in a 50/50 scenario are we likely to view the car as at fault?'
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby jont » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:13 am


Can't help but wonder if an increase in pedestrian casualties is due to the increase of people with their head down busy face-twatting on their smartphones, and/or with headphones stuck in their ears.
User avatar
jont
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Postby revian » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:23 am


jont wrote:Can't help but wonder if an increase in pedestrian casualties is due to the increase of people with their head down busy face-twatting on their smartphones, and/or with headphones stuck in their ears.

It'd be funny if it wasn't true. I saw a cyclist ride into a bush while attending to his phone :D
But I've seen too many drivers doing the same thing (not witnessed the 'bush bit' thankfully). Even A large articulated lorry driver on his phone whilst negotiating a tight roundabout in a town setting...
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby Horse » Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:45 am


revian wrote: It might be interesting to ask; 'why in a 50/50 scenario are we likely to view the car as at fault?'


Because the driver (not the car) is [supposedly] in control of a ton or two of metal?

When driving where there is an opportunity to be surprised*, isn't it the driver's responsibility to identify the likelihood and make adjustments to speed & position to suit?

* I'm presuming those pedestrians don't just beam down from space :)

Also: recent research suggests that kids up to about 10 or 12 are simply unable to accurately determine the speed of an approaching vehicle.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 00917.full
Almost all locomotor animals respond to visual looming or to discrete changes in optical size. The need to detect and process looming remains critically important for humans in everyday life. Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian casualties. We demonstrate that, for a given pedestrian crossing time, vehicles traveling faster loom less than slower vehicles, which creates a dangerous illusion in which faster vehicles may be perceived as not approaching. Our results from perceptual tests of looming thresholds show strong developmental trends in sensitivity, such that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph. This creates a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph. The risk is exacerbated because vehicles moving faster than this speed are more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.

http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/ARL/rese ... ssing.html 'activity' web page - try some research videos
Anything posted by 'Horse' may be (C) Malcolm Palmer. Please ask for permission before considering any copying or re-use outside of forum posting.
User avatar
Horse
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:40 pm
Location: Darkest Berkshoire

Postby revian » Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:54 pm


Horse wrote:
revian wrote: It might be interesting to ask; 'why in a 50/50 scenario are we likely to view the car as at fault?'


Because the driver (not the car) is [supposedly] in control of a ton or two of metal?

* I'm presuming those pedestrians don't just beam down from space :)

Also: recent research suggests that kids up to about 10 or 12 are simply unable to accurately determine the speed of an approaching vehicle.

I accept all that and it should lead to a greater awareness of one's responsibility in being in charge of a ton or two of metal.

But how does that turn into the driver being, by mental default, (which is my theme) to blame? "I didn't/couldn't see it coming" may totally absolve the pedestrian but any blame doesn't automatically transfer to the driver. Pedestrians are not always predictable in their movements (are we :D ) even to the perfect driver...whoever she/he is... Any takers :wink:
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby MGF » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:20 pm


revian wrote:It might be interesting to ask; 'why in a 50/50 scenario are we likely to view the car as at fault?'


What is a 50/50 scenario if not one in which we believe the driver to be 50% at fault? Sussex appears to have a different view to you of what constitutes a 50/50 scenario.
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby revian » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:26 pm


MGF wrote:
revian wrote:It might be interesting to ask; 'why in a 50/50 scenario are we likely to view the car as at fault?'


What is a 50/50 scenario if not one in which we believe the driver to be 50% at fault? Sussex appears to have a different view to you of what constitutes a 50/50 scenario.


I might not be clear enough... I meant simply that when two parties (A & B) are involved why, when either could be at fault, did we assume it was always A?
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby revian » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:29 pm


mefoster wrote:Perhaps these need to be far more prevalent?

Pavement speed bumps might work. They certainly took me by surprise when running in a crowded London marathon.... :D
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby sussex2 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:32 pm


StressedDave wrote:
sussex2 wrote:You may be aware that in many of our neighbouring countries pedestrians have the priority at road junctions and must be given way to; this applies even when the vehicle has a green light to turn.
The prevailing attitude in the UK is that the pedestrians should always wait yet we provide very few safe places for them to do so.
I remain surprised and saddened that such a statement should come from an institution some regard as responsible.

We already have the same rules, but if you can't stop in time it's futile. Most of the casualty figures are not for the scenario you describe.


We do not have the same rules as it is not beholden upon wheeled traffic to give way to pedestrians at (pretty much) all road junctions and whether the vehicle is entering or leaving.
It never ceases to amaze, and annoy me, that you can be crossing the road here and a vehicle will quite literally pull in front of you as if you did not exist. It really is a peculiarly local thing.
I once again feel saddened that the IAM has sought to prolong an outdated method of looking at road safety and am very pleased indeed that I parted any kind of company with it a long time ago.
I wonder how they have the cheek to promote an 'advanced driving' mentality.
I'm not bothered about the old Romanians and Bulgarians but the Old Etonians scare me rigid.
sussex2
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:01 am

Postby sussex2 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:36 pm


revian wrote:
sussex2 wrote:'?How often I wonder do pedestrians suddenly appear in front of a vehicle? I would imagine it to be extremely rare.

I know what you mean but put the other way round...
"How often do cars suddenly appear in front of a pedestrian?" might be equally true.

It might be interesting to ask; 'why in a 50/50 scenario are we likely to view the car as at fault?'


I take your point but surely there are not that many situations in which things can not reasonably be planned for and foreseen.
I'm not bothered about the old Romanians and Bulgarians but the Old Etonians scare me rigid.
sussex2
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:01 am

Postby revian » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:42 pm


Thank you sussex2.... That's all my point was in essence...and that it's not right to make an automatic assumption ....often without any evidence other than the Daily Mail type.

..though I seem to see rather a lot of careless pedestrians. I guess it becomes a matter of personal experiences not wide statistical accuracy.
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Next

Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests