Posted By Brett Day
There's been a few threads here lately related to driving, I post on another forum regarding road safety issues, other posters include those with an interest in road safety, those actively involved in road safety, and serving and ex traffic officers. I tried explaining the hierachy of controls (ERICPD) and they applied it to what they see and do in official policy, this is what they came up with:


"My initial reflection on this is that road safety is largely addressed using an entirely (or largely) INVERTED hierarchy to this!

Discipline - main thrust of road safety policy is on ENFORCEMENT and PUNISHMENT

PPE - not sure of the equivalent here unless it is a negative one - make people drive small underpowered vehicles etc??? (My comment, air bags, seat belts & crash helmets etc were later discussed as being a PPE item)

Control - it could be argued that much of current policy focus, with its emphasis on AUTOMATED TECHNOLOGY (not just cameras remember) is control oriented

Isolate - neglect of effective road engineering shows a lack of emphasis on this

Reduce - it could be argued that much current policy has actually INCREASED exposure rather than reduced it?

Eliminate - probably impossible, but reductions in traffic policing and the ineffectiveness of current policy at removing lunatic drivers, drunks, unregistered cars and uninsured drivers has failed to ELIMINATE these hazards.

So is current policy a*se over t*t in safety terms?"

Any thoughts, comments or critiques ?

Posted By Richard Davis
The explosion of car ownership numbers has not been shadowed by investment into the road network IMO. How much of the £180 or so for a years road tax is used to fund development and improvement of our roads?? Perhaps 10-15%?

By-passes are not popular when they cut unsightly grey swathes through the countryside, but atleast they do eliminate the risk of car meeting kids at school times.

I agree that we are lead into a false sense of security by the presence of air bags/curtains, safety cells and the like. I drove my old sports car into work today, which made a nice change..... but I am aware that any "dings" in it will result in a much higher risk of injury due to the relative lack of in-built protection in 1978.

Posted By J Knight
Hi Brett,

I think you are spot on, and to an extent your idea explains why the Clarksons et al of this world are so paranoid and aggressive about H&S.

How would an appropriate hierarchy of control work in practice? Well, for one thnig it would mean some real controls on cars and their drivers. For example, given electronic engine control systems there is no need for a car to be able to move at 100+ mph in order to be efficient at 25 (this was once an argument used to justify over-powered cars). Real controls would mean reductions in top speed. Why is it possible to buy a car which will do 150mph more than the legal limit? The answer is vanity and advertising; and three people paid a very high price for a Sheffield boxer's vanity two years ago when he wrote off his merc mclaren and two other cars in the process. More to the point, indulging the psycho-sexual side of motoring in this way bolsters an aggressive, 'fun' oriented idea of driving. I'm sorry to be a BOF, but a car is a tool, and needs to be designed to do its job, not to answer some deep seated need in the human psyche.

In most cities the average speed is less than 10mph, but you try explaining to most city people that a 20mph speed limit is a good idea and they will tell that nobody would ever get anywhere at that speed; well its twice the speed that people do get anywhere at. So why do people drive souped up Novas in town? Again, its advertising vanity and 'self-image'.

Now I'm not opposed to people having fun, I think its a good thing, and there are loads of ways people can enjoy themselves with the thrill of real or perceived speed that don't endanger others who just want to do their shopping. Myself I ride my pushbike, and believe me 40 on a pushbike feels like well over 100 in a car, ansd since its always downhill at that speed anybody can do it. OK, if I hit somebody on my bike they would be hurt (though rarely killed), but in busy urban areas its just not possible for me to cycle too fast, I need country roads to really get up to speed.

Paragliding's a good way to experinec thrills while limiting the risk mostly to one-self, as is parachuting, parascending, gliding, skateboarding, even water ski-ing and driving a jet-ski. None of these activities (except perhaps the latter) need to happen in places where other people are just trying to earn a crust, the way I am on the A14. So yes, we need to have fun, even high-speed fun, but i submit, milud, that the days of motoring fun on are really past, the roads are far too crowded nowadays, and we need to acknowledge this.

So, apply the hierarchy of control, design excessive speed out of the car,

John

Posted By J Knight
Hi ST,

No problem with fast cars in controlled environments such as circuits, but why on public roads?

You can easily add other adrenalin type activities; horse riding, go-kart racing, even off-roading if its on legal tracks and byeways or private land.

Emergency vehicles, likewise, need to go fast, but how fast? Does an ambulance need to do more than say 50 in an urban area? And police cars often need to travel quickly purely to catch people in fast cars; if the suspects weren't going more than 25 why would the police car need to do 100+? In any event, as you say, it would still be possible for specially licensed vehicles to have a higher maximum speed. And as for 'speeding up' in built up areas, acceleration could easily be dealt with in the same way as top speed.

Yes, it might still be possible for a few back-street operators to over-ride electronic controls (but much harder to over-ride physical controls, much of what I propose could be done by various combinations of much smaller engines and gearing); this might mean a few rogue drivers driving too fast, but this would be a massive improvement on a high proportion drivers driving too fast most of the time.

I repeat, the days of the motor car as a victimless object of pleasure are practically over; society just needs to acknowledge this,

John

Posted By Brett Day

Raymond, one of the points raised by a contributer was as they put it 'the psychology of driving' I mentioned behavioural safety and they agreed that it was similar to thier thinking, would behavioural safety be in addition to the hierachy or part of ?

As an aside did anyone get the evening standard friday? The evening edition shows a coach driver reading a newspaper whilst driving, he also had a phone conversation (not hands free), but looking at the bright side he was within the speed limit, about the only thing he was doing right, the picture was taken by a passnger. The driver was so unaware that he didn't notice.

Posted By Mark Mace
speed seems to be one of the prevalent reasons for controlling vehicles, i have a much better idea if the government taxes fuel high enough, we will not be able to afford the fuel, therefore we will not require a car, nil risks from cars as there would not be any, problem solved.

More seriously i own a 200mph motorcycle, its average speed over the last 20000 miles probably somewhere around 30- 40 mph, its called being responsible with the throttle, anyone caught not capable of this should be banned PERMANENTLY.

The car manufacturers like most other companies wish to sell there product; it has to be better than the competitions in every respect including speed, and acceleration, safety items fitted, looks, colour, comfort, and percieved image. They do this very well.

How many of us drive cars far more powerfull than we really require?

regards

Posted By steve e ashton
My take on this:

ERIC
Eliminate: Legislate cars off the road. Environmentally, its the only way forward. Provide suitable alternatives and heavily penalise unnecessary use. (Listen to the outcry when this is proposed!)

Reduce: Technology exists to limit speeds by using roadside electronics with in-car implants. (Why are so many opposed to this?)

Isolate: improve car/pedestrian segregation (Higher kerbs, more over/underbridges. (we've got some of this, but much more could be done...)

Control - basically what we already have - NCAP tests, seat belts, airbags, ABS, EDL, speed cameras, police enforcement etc.

I agree with the first post - we've got the priorities upside down!

Steve

Posted By Brett Day

John IIRC it was Montana that removed all roads signs, markings and most of teh limits, funnily enough instead of the predicted road carnage, it was found that average speeds reduced and that the accident rate started to shows signs of dropping, however, this experiment came to an abrupt end and was never fully followed through, to many complaints and too much lost revenue from speeding tickets.

Posted By Ian Mitchell
Have to say I agree with Richard, but didn't want to compromise my safety reputation on a professional forum! As a classic and performance car enthusiast, I love driving for the pleasure of it, and summer is the ideal time to get up at first light on a sunday and remember what an open road feels like! (Agree - No need to break the limit to enjoy it though!).
As a safety professional, I really do have to agree with JK's statement with my head. However, I think with my heart on this matter and I am certainly not alone!
I do disagree with the high and mighty philosophising though about what society 'needs' to do, and I think it was this tone that got our backs up rather than the safety argument.

PS JK and anybody else - if you want to avoid the M62 snarl-up in the rush hour take the lovely Denby Dale - Holmfirth - Mossley route from Manchester - Wakefield. It's only about 10-15 minutes quicker despite saving 15 miles, but is a real driver's road mixing windy lanes, long straights and nice villages including a view of Nora Batty's cafe!!

Posted By Tabs
John, some of your points are valid for those who want to feel like they are at work every minute of their life. My turn for a rant, please read the following in a happy tone though - this is not any type of attack, just an alternative viewpoint.

I am a citizen and whilst I appreciate that enforcement has devolved to the government, police and the road makers, I will continue to insist on my rights to enjoy my spare time as I choose - so long as I don't infringe on anyone else's life too much.

Your travelling on a comparitively flimsy construction at 40 MPH presumably with a cyclist's helmet on does not make me feel good about your survival chances should you have a spill. As an ex advanced motorcycle instructor, I happen to know what can happen to the human framework at 20 MPH, let alone 40. Accidents even happen on roads with good views (but you already know that, I am sure).

I am not a car fanatic, much prefer motorbikes, but my age and statistics mean I am probably better off on 4 wheels now. I still want to be able to get in my car (NOT a tool by the way, I do no work with it) and drive at will around the countryside.

I do this on a very regular basis and hardly EVER find myself in snarl-ups. Maybe that is because I use the train to go to work?

You cannot seriously tell those of us that get out in our cars for fun, that the days of enjoyment are over. Why should we want it to be?

Sorry John, but the way you are talking makes me a little scared that at some point in the future (were you to be in charge) all of my personal choices would be made by others. No thanks.

Happy to admit that cars with the ability to go much beyond the speed limit are not really needed - but I wouldn't like to force evryone to drive a Fiat 126 ! There has to be a way to retain power but cap speed. Start today and in a few years time we would be most the way there.

With regards to hierarchy try:

Ellimination: Make public transport so good we all use it, make sure everywhere we want to visit stays open long enough for us to get there

Substitution: Make public transport so good...

Separation: The UK have just said that they (we) won't insist that new cars have the new auto-dial emergeny number feature - what chance have we that they (we) will introduce automatic radar-controlled separation?

Information and Training: Make it easier for people to access high-quality training, continuously reinforce it through proper use of TV papers etc., instead of reality TV.

Protection: This is the safety cell that F1 has developed - easy enough to fit to all cars if we really wanted to try.

Posted By Ian Mitchell
JK - don't worry, we all have our pet subjects (me included), so will just agree to disagree on this one!

Richard, enjoy the run out at the weekend. PS, I have just bought a new BMW 3 series and if you so much as sneeze on the indicators it sets them off, followed by 5-6 cycles of alternate left and right indications as the driver frantically tries to cancel them. It is safer not to bother!!

Posted By Richard Davis
Ian - I've driven cars with over sensitive indicators like yours (Vectras are the same IIRC), so appreciate your prediciment!

Brett - The unmarked/disc/fine idea seems a little harsh on reflection, and I agree with your point that if someone is driving below an acceptable standard they should be stopped. In the "olden days", the copper would pull you over, say you've been riding/driving like a moron..... tell you they were going to let you off this time, then you were on your way. IMO, the sense of relief was enough of a shot across the bows to make you change your ways.

We respected and feared police in equal measures as young road users, but that seems not to be the case now.

Posted By J Knight
eyup,

Thanks for your concern about my safety when I'm on my pushbike; but I think you've missed my point. Pushbikes are, by and large, about the rider's safety. The thing about cars though is that they are much more dangerous to practically everybody else than they are to the drivers of the things. Have you ever tried, in a safety session, asking delegates if safety was a factor in their choice of car? You'll get some people saying yes. Then ask them if pedestrian (or cyclist or horserider, or skateboarder or whatever) was a factor, and I guarantee you'll get blank looks.

You see, I don't care too much about people indulging in dangerous activity (except at work of course), provided they put only consenting adults at risk. Car drivers are a much bigger risk to others' lives than they are to their own, and that's my problem. in my view, everybody has the right to take risks with their own lives and property, but no right at all to take risks with others' lives without explicit consent. So, btw, I don't ride my pushbike on pavements, I cycle slowly in towns, and so on,

John

Posted By J Knight
Ray,

Most fatalities and serious injuries (of cars drivers and passengers) occur on extra-urban single carriageway roads, a high proportion of these being due to ovetaking, with over 100,000 rtc's per annum according to a figure I read in the Road Safety Forum (though that seems incredibly high to me). Most pedestrian injuries occur on 30 mph urban roads.

Speed is the most significant risk factor in all road traffic injuries/fatalities, and could be said to be the cause. Do we care about non-injury rtcs?

Agree entirely about the obstacles in the way of improving driver behaviour; I don't see any way for that to happen the way things are at the moment. Something like 60% of all drivers think they are better than average, so most people don't even consider that their driving needs to change in any way,

John

Posted By J Knight
Hi raymond,

I think you're right about speed as the cause of accidents; it is often a contributor rather than a principle cause; where speed is implicated is in the cause of injuries/fatalities, here in my view it is always a principle factor. Have a look at www.brake.org.uk and RoSPA for info about this sort of stuff, they have loads of useful info.

The original title of this thread was about the appliaction of the hierarchy of controls; a large number of respondents have discussed training and the provision of information. This sort of approach is at the bottom of the hierarchy, even below PPE such as seatbelts and airbags.

So for those who reject engineering controls on the vehicle (further up the hierarchy than training), what robust measures would you propose? I would agree that engineering the roads can be effective, the evidence being that motorways are safer than single-carriageway country roads. But motorways protect only drivers and their passengers; they are so dangerous to the unprotected that they are largely banned; the exception being (fast)motorbikes. So this kind of safety engineering clearly isn't an option on a large part of the UKs road network, unless we want the whole extra-urban road network to be off limits to anything other than cars,

John

Posted By J Knight
Hi Brett,

It depends on who is defining excessive, if you ask me. I think I do regard collisions as inevitable, given the volume of traffic on the roads, and the fact that since driver skill will always folow a poisson distribution there will always be drivers who just aren't up to it on a given day, and I am therefore mainly concerned with limiting their severity; its not RTCs as such but injury/fatality RTCs that cause the grief,

John

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Checked out Montana road safety and I agree with the previous comments, in that the empirical research looks very dubious.

Obviously road side controls are an important safety measure and therefore need to be properly considered and monitored for their desired effect. That said, there is the 'migrant' principle, which dictates that by removing the causes of say an accident blackspot, it sometimes migrates it further along the road. Hence the problem is not really solved at all. An analogy would be widening a road to remove a bottle neck, only achies moving the bottle neck further up the road!

Regards

Posted By Brett Day

The problem with the Montana experiment is that it seemed to show an improvement but was not followed up with and as you say John other parties such as pedestrians were not included.

Excessive speed is an emotive term but as is often not defined is vague, given that speed can be excessive and over the legal limit, and it can be excessive whislt within the limit but inapprpriate for the road, weather and traffic conditions.

The definition of excessive seems to have altered over the years (looking at TRL reports over the years).


In terms of Raymond's suggestion re: behavioural safety, not being a great deal of knowledge on this subject, how would we implement it?