2011 01 Common Myths In Road Safety | Road Traffic Accidents

Common myths in ‘road safety’.

Aren’t UK’s roads – the ‘safest’ in Europe?

It is true that casualty figures in the UK are falling and compare favourably with other European countries, although nine people killed, and around 100 seriously injured, on our roads every day is not a record to be proud of.

Even so, levels of casualties are not an adequate measure of road safety. One of the reasons why casualty rates fell in general in the UK is that people stopped using the streets as they once did. In recent decades, the number of pedestrians and cyclists on the roads has fallen dramatically.

Casualty figures fall because people walk and cycle less

The number of journeys we do on foot has fallen dramatically. From 1989 to 1992, there was a 16% drop in annual distance walked by British people.

Children don’t play in the streets in the way they did in days of old due to perceived increased danger from motor traffic. In 1971, 80% of seven and eight-year-olds went to school on their own; by 1991 it was 9% – and the main reason parents gave for ferrying their children to school by car was fear of motor traffic. The chances of being killed on the roads for 10-14 year olds doubled between 1955 and 1999. What it boils down to is this: the roads appear to be getting safer, simply because they are becoming more dangerous.

This is borne out by casualty rates that are not declining at the same rate for all road users. Pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist casualties are not declining as fast as car user casualties.

Child pedestrian casualty rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe

Unfortunately, casualty rates for children in the UK, especially child pedestrians, are among the worst in Europe. 141 children were killed on our streets in 2006, a 20% rise from 2005. 80 of these were killed while on foot, 20 on bicycle, and a further 2,700 seriously injured. The UK rates 11th for child pedestrian deaths among 19 EU countries, and a child pedestrian is three times more likely to die in UK than in Italy and twice as likely as in France.

Isn’t road danger reduction the same as ‘road safety’?

Not necessarily – it depends on how safety is measured. You can have lower casualty numbers, but at the same time have more dangerous roads. You can do this by forcing certain road users off the roads, such as by making them intimidating and inconvenient for elderly and disabled people, children, pedestrians and cyclists to use.

A road danger reduction approach differs from a traditional road safety approach by targeting dangerous road users and not blaming victims.

We want real road safety – to reduce the causes of danger on our roads, particularly for vulnerable road users, at source. As motor vehicles are the principal source of danger on the roads, controlling the number and speeds of motor vehicles is the best way to reduce road danger.

We believe that vulnerable road users should have equitable access to streets, (and not just the pavements), making their travel safe, convenient and pleasant.

Aren’t roads meant for traffic?

For many decades since the start of mass motorisation, existing streets and roads in the UK have been adapted exclusively for the convenience of motor vehicles, and new roads have been designed to prioritise motor vehicle movement over any other road users.

However, ‘traffic’ is also pedestrians and cyclists who make up the bulk of road users, and who are often restricted to narrow pavements and cycle lanes at the edges of streets. Motor traffic is only a small part of the traffic in built-up areas, where most people live. Roads should be designed to accommodate all types of traffic, particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

How have cyclists and pedestrians been forced off the roads?

Vulnerable road users have been advised and forced to adapt to a hostile motor traffic environment, rather than making the environment safer and more convenient for them to use. An emphasis on reducing casualty numbers at the cost of freedom of movement of pedestrians and cyclists places prohibitions on and barriers to their movement. This allows motor traffic to move faster and more freely at their expense. The barriers include

• Segregation of cyclists and pedestrians from motor traffic through guard rails and other restrictive measures;
• Crossings that are restricted in numbers, not on desire lines, and dangerous and difficult to use such as staggered and guard-railed pedestrian crossings, over-bridges and underground crossings;
• Engineering measures such as wide curves at street junctions, long sight lines, one-way systems, dual carriageways, anti-skid surfacing, large roundabouts, traffic signals all of which make streets more difficult to cross and negotiate, and encourage motor vehicles to go faster

Prohibitions include advice to vulnerable road users to wear protective and high visibility clothing, carry torches, and behave in a highly defensive way on the road. Many of these comments are enshrined in the Highway Code, which though amended as recently as 2007 still contains pointed advice to vulnerable road users to take extraordinary measures to protect themselves. This makes them liable to contributory negligence if they do not follow the restrictive advice given.

What is wrong with insisting on the use of cycle helmets and high visibility clothing for cyclists and pedestrians?

Walking and cycling are not dangerous activities. They are very healthy, socially and environmentally beneficial. They only become unsafe because of the behaviour of drivers, and the way motor vehicles are designed.

We believe that, since the principal source of danger is the motor vehicle, it is up to the motor-manufacturers and car drivers to eliminate danger. It is the wrong way round to insist that cyclists wear helmets, or that cyclists and pedestrians put on bright clothing.

Cycle helmets are designed to protect from injury at low impact speeds (13 mph or less), when a cyclist falls from a bike with no other vehicles involved. However 90% of cycling serious injuries and fatalities involve collisions with a motor vehicle at speeds for which helmets are not designed. In countries where cycle helmet wearing is mandatory, while head injury rates have fallen, this has been at the expense of cycling levels.

Are the answers ‘home zones’ and ‘shared spaces’?

‘Home zones’, ‘shared spaces’ and ’20 mph zones’ are engineering concepts that apply the principles of ‘road danger reduction’ to specific (mainly residential) streets or areas, and have proved to reduce road traffic collisions in the isolated areas where they have been implemented. These are expensive measures (a typical 20 mph street costs £250,000) that require costly exemptions from national legislation and regulations, and are not likely to be replicated on a large scale.

We believe that we need more than a piecemeal approach. A lower national speed limit of 20mph and a national review of speed limits elsewhere, traffic law and priorities on the streets is needed in order to tackle the source of road danger at its root.

Shouldn’t children be educated to avoid collisions?

Traditional ‘road safety’ focuses on advising people – particularly children –to be very careful when fast-moving traffic is around. A lot of money is spent on ‘travel awareness’ in schools, poster campaigns targeting children to look before they cross the road, and campaigns targeting ‘errant’ cyclists. Children and their parents, pedestrians and cyclists are taught to expect speeding motor vehicles on their streets – in fact to accept this danger rather than challenge it, and to keep out of the way.

This ‘education’ does a lot to intimidate children and other vulnerable road users off the streets and is not even effective in its own terms. UK’s child pedestrian safety record is one of the worst in Europe. Elderly pedestrians are disproportionately likely to be killed in urban areas, which indicates that quick reactions are more likely to save your life than being ‘educated’ about road danger.

We would rather that adult drivers were educated to avoid collisions with children. After all, they are the ones that pose the danger, and being mature and experienced, should be easier to educate.

A road danger reduction approach would focus on making sure that motor traffic does not speed in the first place, and places responsibility for avoiding collisions on those that pose the danger. It favours lower speed limits and effective enforcement and engineering, including installation of speed limiting technology in motor vehicles and tougher penalties against speeding motorists.

Aren’t most collisions just ‘accidents’?

The term road ‘accident’ when used to describe the serious and sometimes fatal result of people driving recklessly or irresponsibly, fosters the notion that violence is somehow unavoidable or excusable when performed with a motor vehicle. We believe that the use of the word ‘accident’ is not accurate, constructive or appropriate in the context of a road crash, which is in most cases predictable and preventable.

What is ‘risk compensation’ in the context of driving?

Risk compensation is a theory that all people continually adapt their behaviour in accordance with their perception of risk, taking less or more care based on their perception of risk to their safety. Thus drivers take more risks when they feel that their vehicle and/or the street environment is more forgiving of errors. This happens in all walks of life: the Davy Lamp, for example, killed more miners than it saved because its ‘safety’ encouraged risk-taking in the mines. On the roads, when drivers feel ‘safer’ because of seat-belts, airbags, electronic stability control (ESC), ABS brakes, side impact bars etc in their vehicles, the extra risks they then (often unconsciously) take can mean that other road users – notably pedestrians and cyclists – are put in more danger.

From the early 1990s, some researchers in the UK transport and planning professions started to question the culture of motoring ‘freedom’ in the context of social disbenefit and harm to others; John Adams was notable for developing the theory – now generally acknowledged as fact – of ‘risk compensation’. He illustrated this in his exposure of car seatbelt legislation as the archetypal example of an officially-unquestioned ‘safety’ measure, which provides leeway for risk-taking and results in a net increase in road danger. Others, in particular John Whitelegg, Mayer Hillman and Robert Davis, developed these ideas to show how vehicle design, road engineering and ‘road safety’ wisdom have colluded to increase danger, and restrict mobility and access – especially of the young, the old and the unmotorised one-third of the population – all in the name of ‘safety’.

Wouldn’t ‘strict liability’ be unfair to drivers?

A road danger reduction approach favours ‘strict driver liability’. This is where compulsory motor insurance would cover personal injuries suffered by pedestrians and cyclists as a consequence of a collision with a motor vehicle, irrespective of who was at fault. More often that not, the driver is a fault in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian, but this can take years to legally establish, causing further financial stress and anguish to the injured and bereaved.

Most European countries have some form of driver liability, which could be 50-50 for an adult pedestrian or cyclist, but goes up to 90% driver liability if the collision is with a child or an elderly person. This is a way of protecting the most vulnerable in society from those who pose the most harm to them.

Aren’t speed cameras just an easy way to make money for the government? Do they actually reduce road danger?

Speed is the biggest single contributory factor in all road crashes and aggravates the outcome of crashes. A measure to reduce speeding would have the biggest effect in reducing casualties.

Speed cameras are a very effective way of discouraging drivers from breaking the speed limit, and so reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. Cameras are a proven success in saving lives – they reduce the numbers of people or seriously injured at camera sites by 40% on an average.

The criteria for installation of a speed camera used to require four or more people killed or seriously injured in a one km stretch within three years, however, this requirement is no longer necessary and authorities can install cameras where there is potential.

Speed cameras would be even more effective if they were allowed to be inconspicuous.

Automated speed limit enforcement frees police for other road traffic duties. By enforcing the speed limit the government saves much more from avoided death and injury than it receives in fines.
Aren’t most motorists law abiding?

Unfortunately not; nearly half of drivers admit to breaking the 30 mph speed limit, and 54% admit to breaking the limit on motorways. Inappropriate speed is a factor in one-third of all collisions.

Drink driving still accounts for 17% of all fatalities in road crashes. Mobile phone use and red light jumping still occurs too often.

Uninsured and unlicensed driving is a significant and increasing issue. The proportion of collisions involving hit-and-run drivers in London has risen from 6.5% in 1985 to 14.4% in 2005.

Unfortunately, this has been unaccompanied by a 30% drop in traffic police over the last twenty years, which means drivers are aware that the chances of being detected of breaking the law are minimal.

Aren’t young drivers the biggest problem on our roads?

Young drivers (17 to 25 years) cause 25% of all fatal and serious collisions. This is high compared to the proportion of their numbers on the roads and they are indeed more likely to have and cause a collision. We believe that a Graduated Driving Licensing system is needed, along with a minimum of 12 months of experience for learner drivers.

However, 75% of all collisions are caused by drivers who are experienced. Wider policy changes are needed so that all drivers, and not just novice drivers, are aware and held accountable for the risk they pose to others, especially those walking and cycling. Other countries, including the US, have relied on black boxes to improve driver accountability and safety, especially among the young.