IAM on BBC1 Breakfast this morning....doh!

[MGF]

...There was just one bright light amongst the sea of darkness and it came from a council road safety manager who made the point that it's not the roads that are dangerous but the road users that make it dangerous.

Why do you think road users make some roads more dangerous than others? If road users are totally to blame I would have thought all roads would be equally dangerous.

And Brake et al never resort to emotive arguments Doesn't seem to have taken them long to be taken far too seriously.

BRAKE's primary purpose, according to their website, is to provide support for families affected by road deaths. I have never understood why people are interested in their opinions on road safety.

[redrobo]

...There was just one bright light amongst the sea of darkness and it came from a council road safety manager who made the point that it's not the roads that are dangerous but the road users that make it dangerous.

Why do you think road users make some roads more dangerous than others? If road users are totally to blame I would have thought all roads would be equally dangerous.

And Brake et al never resort to emotive arguments Doesn't seem to have taken them long to be taken far too seriously.

BRAKE's primary purpose, according to their website, is to provide support for families affected by road deaths. I have never understood why people are interested in their opinions on road safety.

Forgetting what BRAKE stand for, no road is dangerous, it may be harder to negotiate due to bends inclines and proximity of dry stone walls, but at the end of the day it is drivers who make mistakes and crash not roads. some race tracks may be more technical than others, the TT circuit as an example, if you treat it properly you will survive going around it, all 37 odd miles. Miss read or lose concentration you will crash, nothing at all to do with the road.
Speed is generally not the issue, misreading the safe speed s, the safe speed may not be the one displayed in the circular sign

[MGF]

Miss read or lose concentration you will crash, nothing at all to do with the road.

Misreading the road or losing concentration doesn't create the same amount of risk on every road. It follows, logically, that the road and its surroundings are related to safety. I am still unsure how you can insist the road has no part to play in risk. If it did then all roads would produce similar casualties proportionate to their use.

Speed is generally not the issue, misreading the safe speed s, the safe speed may not be the one displayed in the circular sign

Misreading the safe speed may well be the issue but the capacity for such mistakes is greater on some roads than others.

Of course we could raise the level of competence needed to gain a licence to compensate for roads which are a particular problem. Or we could re-engineer the road, change sigange or introduce prohibitions such as DWLs, stopping restrictions and speed limits.

Bearing in mind most people aren't obsessed with their driving standards, would oppose significant increases in the level of competence needed to be shown before being licensed to drive, and do make mistakes it follows that people would prefer 'dangerous' roads to be made more safe.

There is no one right answer: it is achieving a balance between the level of competence required to be granted a licence to drive coupled with reasonable expectations of how much attention people will pay to the driving task subsequently and roads that are appropriate to these facts.

[TripleS]

...There was just one bright light amongst the sea of darkness and it came from a council road safety manager who made the point that it's not the roads that are dangerous but the road users that make it dangerous.

Why do you think road users make some roads more dangerous than others? If road users are totally to blame I would have thought all roads would be equally dangerous.

And Brake et al never resort to emotive arguments Doesn't seem to have taken them long to be taken far too seriously.

BRAKE's primary purpose, according to their website, is to provide support for families affected by road deaths. I have never understood why people are interested in their opinions on road safety.

They shouldn't be, but they are dominated by the emotive factor by then, so when BRAKE then go on to explain their ideas for improving road safety and having less victims in the future, people lap it up even though it is largely claptrap and a distraction from the genuine road safety policies, about which BRAKE seem to know nothing.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[kfae8959]

I've recently read about a number of great examples of roads - including Kensington High Street - that have been made safer by removing signs, markings, barriers, and so on. The suggestion is that drivers are more attentive, and therefore safer, when the hazardous nature of the environment itself presses on them, rather than being mediated to them by signs and apparently attenuated by separation of traffic types. Perhaps I'll forward the references to the IAM representative.

David

[brianhaddon]

Miss read or lose concentration you will crash, nothing at all to do with the road.

Misreading the road or losing concentration doesn't create the same amount of risk on every road. It follows, logically, that the road and its surroundings are related to safety. I am still unsure how you can insist the road has no part to play in risk. If it did then all roads would produce similar casualties proportionate to their use.

True to say the consequences of losing concentration on, say, a bend can be more severe than doing the same on a clear staight. However I would suggest it is not bend that is necessarily dangerous but the way it was negotiated putting the emphasis on the driver - which in my mind is were it should be.

It may be a play on words but I term the roads hazardous in as much risk varies from place to place and time to time. However that risk is different for different users. The driver who has the necessary tools and applies them is at less risk than the one who hasn't got the tools or doesn't apply them. The danger therefore lies with the driver not the road. That doesn't mean that we forget engineering but putting this emphasis on the roads does not help in my mind, it should be placed on each and every road user.

Regards
Brian Haddon

[zadocbrown]

It's a shame they didn't mention the Driving Skills day in Teeside yesterday. IAM members exploring the limits of their own cars (Including a GT-R ) on track with instructors to help them develop their car-control skills.

Surely that's more interesting than talking about crash barriers?

[PeterE]

On the other hand, there has to be an argument for making roads as safe as they reasonably might be. After all, we'd be up in arms if a new type of road surface (say) was unusually slippery when wet compared to the "norm" that we've come to expect.

JJ Leeming's "Road Accidents - prevent or punish?" gave many examples of roads which were unnecessarily dangerous and which were made much safer with a relatively modest expenditure.

Completely agreed. While the IAM's main mission is obviously "education", it should not ignore the "engineering" aspect of improving road safety. Roads should not be full of booby traps for the unwary.

Within reason, we must support efforts to reduce the opportunities for drivers to make errors of judgment and mitigate the consequences if they do.

[Renny]

but Mr. Greig is still pushing out the wrong message in my opinion. He mentioned poor barrier protection, the dangers of junctions etc but completely ommited 'driver education'.

Mr Greig continues to do a fine job of distancing the hard working front line members of the IAM from the IAM!

That's you off his Xmas card list then Eric!

I must admit I've not been impressed by the IAM output in recent times. Though, I was tempted by the local group's appeal for Observers.

[The Thinker]

I must admit I've not been impressed by the IAM output in recent times

I'm wondering if that is because there is output on TV from the IAM. I was surprised to see then myself.

Hopefully they will get a name for themselves so will be on the TV a bit more often, next time bringing other issues to the article rather than just the agenda the reporter wishes to speak about.