UK roads no longer the safest
More cameras, but no longer the safest roads
We no longer occupy the top spot in the European road safety league as progress on reducing the number of road deaths has been slower than in other countries.
We now have a higher number of road deaths per million population than the Netherlands and Sweden.
The findings of the report were released at a conference on UK road safety organised by the ETSC and Loughborough University's Vehicle Safety Research Centre (VSRC).
The report shows that between 2001 and 2005 there was a 7 per cent reduction in the number of road deaths in the UK compared to a 25 per cent reduction in Sweden and the Netherlands and a 35 per cent drop in France.
The report arrives at a time when the latest figures confirming Britain as having the highest number of speed cameras in Europe was revealed in a Parliamentary written answer to Tory transport spokesman Owen Paterson.
Apparently, there are now 5,562 roadside speed cameras in Britain compared to 1,935 back in 2000. Over the same period, mobile speed traps have increased from just 173 to 2,373.
In spite of this, the most worrying statistic in the ETSC report is the two per cent rise in the UK of drink driving, which many see as the result of a lack of police presence on our roads.
The report goes on to say that the average British driving speed has dropped by 9 per cent on urban roads. There has been a 3 per cent reduction in the average speed on roads with a 70mph speed-limit, but roads where the top speed is 60mph have seen an 9 per cent increase in the average speed of vehicles.
Only in France, Belgium and Switzerland have speeds been cut on all types of road in recent years, notes the report.
Professor Richard Allsop, ETSC Board Member and Chairman of the PIN Programme, said: "Much road safety policy and practice in the UK is good, but these comparisons with our fellow-Europeans come as a wake-up call to anyone tempted to acquiesce in present levels of death and injury on our roads - perhaps especially those concerned with priorities for law-enforcement."
Professor Pete Thomas, from VSRC, said: "The UK has been a leader in road and vehicle safety for many years helping to set the standard for Europe."
"Progress in reducing road deaths has slowed and the UK has to develop more innovative solutions and apply them."
Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: "This objective analysis of the performance of the UK reminds us of how much more progress we need to make."
"We used to claim that we had the safest roads in Europe. That claim is no longer matched in reality. The UK clearly needs to do much more to reclaim its position at the top of the EU road safety league."
Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman said Britain has some of the safest roads in the world.
He said: "Indeed when assessed on the basis of fatalities per passenger kilometre, which I believe is the best indicator to use when drawing a comparison as it takes into account both the number of fatalities and level of passenger mobility, Britain is second only to Sweden.”
"We have been congratulated by the ETSC for reducing overall speeds on urban roads and continually improving seatbelt wearing rates.”
Yesterday it was revealed that the minister had written a letter to Police chief constables reprimanding them for not policing our roads enough.
Commenting on the news, Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "After 28 years of having the safest roads in Europe we have finally lost our crown."
"There's one reason and one reason only. We have had bad road safety policy since the early 1990s. At the centre of the bad policy are speed cameras and the oversimplified notion that 'slower is safer' - if only things were so simple!"
"An obsession with vehicle speeds has caused a gross neglect of road user quality - and road user quality is the true foundation of all road safety."
"Department for Transport policies have been based on dodgy statistics and false assumptions. No wonder they haven't worked. We need to scrap speed cameras to 'wash away' the layers of oversimplified thinking. Department for Transport must admit their mistakes and take full responsibility."
"Safe Speed's Scrap Speed Cameras Week will highlight the issues starting 24th June 2007."
Sweden is cited as much safer roads per million of population and having made big improvements.
Some general observations.
Sweden population density is very low compared to UK. Likewise the roads have a low traffic density. It's possible to drive for extended times at night on main beam simply because there is no other traffic. Likewise cruise control can be engaged for long periods and not disengaged simply because there is nobody about.
On the other hand the adverse weather must have a negative effect, so all in all I'm not sure to what extent the two countries are directly comparable.
What is noticeable is the different attitude to road safety from the authorities.
eg Speed limits are by and large quite similar to UK, Sweden is in the process of reviewing the limits and actually is going to raise them.
Re. Blackspots or roads with high collision rates, the attitude is to engineer the problem out. eg SC road with high risk due to inappropriate overtaking then they build the EU project 2+1 DC with alternating central reserve. This would be a perfect solution for the infamous Stocksbridge bypass in S Yorks for example.
If the engineering solution involves a bypass or a new motorway then, blood and stomach pills, they build it. They do have the benefit of land and density of development on their side admittedly.
Yes they have scameras, not many mobiles though I watched a major operation a few weeks back on the motorway out from Stockholm towards the archipelago which was nicely positioned just after a change in the limit from 110 to 90. However they were not nabbing the 110'ers who had just failed to peg back to the lower limit, but those who were well illegal at 140 plus, and not that safe actually considering traffic density and hazards. But essentially, at least as I see it, there is not the out and out war on the motorist that there is here.
Just to repeat, if the limit is wroong and too low, they have the balls to say so and up the limit.
However I do note an increase in the lentilist speed kills lobby creeping into their media.
FiF
It's all about the money and jobs in my view. Saves £££ on proper policing, makes £££ from fines, and employs loads of people who might otherwise be dolers and adding to the unemployed list, much like alot of Labours jobsworth army!
Dave
How safe is that?
How safe is that?
. NSL doesn't mean it's safe to drive at 60, it just means the limit is 60. Remember that the derestriction sign used to mean that there was no limit, so that it was up to the driver to chose the appropriate speed. The only thing that's changed is that the government tells you 60 is the maximum speed now, not that 60 is safe.Unfortunately your reasoning is becoming commonplace now. I suggest it's because we all see limits being used to define safety, such that we now "know" that 30 is safe in towns, 20 is safe in 20 zones, 50 is safe across most of Oxfordshire, etc. In reality, safety is not defined by the speed limit. But because the government has focused on speed to the exclusion of almost all other matters in trying to reduce KSIs, it has given the message that only speed kills -- and by extension that sticking to the limit is the only thing you need to do to be safe.
- just thinking outside the box - just thinking outside the box Anyone think I have lost site of that box????
- just thinking outside the box - growth of mobile phone driving
- growth of 4x4 ownership
- growth of 'boy racer' behaviour
- growth of drink drive
- growth of born again bikers
- growth of foreign drivers
Taken together, with high estimates, it's virtually impossible to get this lot to add up to more than about 300 lives per year.
but these factors have to be considered against a background of:
- we're putting safer cars on the roads every year
- we're continuing to improve road engineering (black spots and upgrades)
- we're continuing to improve at post-crash care and rescue
- pedestrian activity continues to decline
- traffic growth has never been slower
And taking these factors, with estimates based on past performance, road deaths should be at least 1,200 lives per year lower by now.
So even with these factors, we're still ~1,000 lives per year adrift. TRL studied road death trends and concluded that drivers must be getting worse.
It's policy that making them worse - I'm certain of it.
As long as this lowest common denominator thinking carries on, we will make no real progress on road safety............Now I'm depressed.
... I was going to say "when will the authorities learn?..." but what's the point? I think they already know they're catching the wrong people by concentrating on speed, but they're raking in £millions while they're pretending to worry about safety - I'm sure that's all that matters to them...Yes camera's are a money making institution raking in some 225 million per year in revenues whilst the Traffic Officer has been replaced by the aforementioned machines.
However, the traffic officer is capable well sometimes
of detecting other crimes such as dangerous driving, drink driving and other variants against road traffic law. Yes the standard of driving as dropped over recent years is that, because they can get away with it. Cameras cannot detect the type of crimes mentioned therefore, the police and authorities are guilty of professional neglect and not affording a duty of care. Who is going to charge the police and authorities for the offence.We may very well see a positive responce to speed detection cameras at the end of this month whereupon the Grand Chamber in Strasburg are due to announce their verdict with O'Halloran v UK.
Maybe the loss of cameras or the lesser effect they will have will bring the traffic officer back to our roads.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff