michael769 wrote:...
EDIT: Actually it is available free - though you need to register on TRL's website:
http://www.trl.co.uk/reports-publicatio ... ortid=2542
Thanks for the link. I have only had time so far to read the Executive Summary and Introduction alongside my day job, but so far it seems up to par for this type of document, produced from the vested interests of proponents of current 'road safety' convention.
My initial reactions:
Road Casualty reduction targets obviously measure casualties (however defined*); they do not measure hoe safe the roads are to use by other than 'traffic' (which by implication and most measurements, means motor traffic). This is the problem with "a casualty reduction target": The simplest and most effective means of achieving this is to give vast areas of public space over to motor vehicles (suitably protecting their occupants) and keep everyone else away behind fences and walls. This ignores the actual damage to communities which this (commonly practised) method incurs.
*Defined here as Killed, seriously Injured and slightly injured. There are problems with all of these casualties. Being based on Police reports, the difference between Serious and Slight is made by unqualified personnel with (usually) no real medical training. 'Slight' bruising can mask deadly injury, slight cuts appear serious to untrained people, there is no standardisation in the data. Killed on the roads seems clear enough, but only applies to those who die of their injuries within 30 days of the incident. Improvements in trauma care have huge and un-accounted effects on this. Statistical analysis of such uncontrolled inputs risks GIGO effects.
"It identified factors which would influence the number of casualties, such as an increase in the elderly population and rising levels of car ownership. There were three priority concerns: protection of vulnerable road users, reconciling the demand for movement with the need for safety and reducing the chances of human error leading to accidents."
No mention of demand for space other than for "movement": People legitimately (used to) use streets for social interaction.
"a method which has proved successful in forecasting casualties in Great Britain. This is based on the long-term relation between the annual volume of motor traffic in the country and the number of casualties"
Assuming other human behaviour remains constant and people don't simply learn ("There is education even in the lower animals" said MOORE-BRABAZON opposing licences for motor drivers) to keep out of the way of the motorised user.; although it does acknowledge "for the outcome will depend upon the future behaviour of travellers and the growth of road travel as well as the means used to promote safe travel" - again the assumption of road=travel. In effect, "promote safe travel" means "promote car use"(don't walk, it's dangerous; don't cycle here, it's dangerous) which is (perhaps counter-intuitively) bad for driving enthusiasts such as the members here, as it promotes congestion.
Edit to add: "The casualty rate is defined as the number of casualties of a specific severity per billion vehicle-km of motor traffic." speaks for itself (hopefully).