Road Deaths 36% Higher On Rural Roads
Discussion
The number of BVKs (Billion Vehicle Kilometres) travelled on Urban Roads in 2005 was 194.2, and on Rural Roads it was 208.1 (Source DfT), a difference of 7%. But the number of road deaths on Urban Roads was 1,255, compared to 1,742 on Rural Roads, a difference of 39%, or around 36% allowing for the difference in BVKs.
The question is of course: Why are there some 36% more fatalities on Rural Roads? Is it the generally higher speeds do you think, or could it be the increasing amount of congestion on Urban Roads, or a combination of both?
And it's interesting to note that despite there only being a 7% difference in BVKs, car driver and passenger fatalities are nearly 3 times higher on Rural Roads compared to Urban Roads - ie 1,112 compared to 429 (Source DfT). In actual fact it's 2.6 times as many.
But what is also interesting is that whereas the number of fatalities for car occupants - mile for mile - is around 2½ times greater on Rural Roads, it's almost the complete opposite when it comes to minor injuries. On Urban Roads there were 105,774 minor injuries in 2005, whereas on Rural Roads there were 59,573.
I think it's mostly down to the difference in average speeds on Urban and Rural Roads. In other words, Speed Kills. Or to be more precise, the faster the speed the more likely it is that the injuries sustained will be fatal in the event of a serious collision. And the faster the speed the more likely it is that a collision will occur in the first place. The unexpected is bound to happen sooner or later, and the faster you're going.......
The question is of course: Why are there some 36% more fatalities on Rural Roads? Is it the generally higher speeds do you think, or could it be the increasing amount of congestion on Urban Roads, or a combination of both?
And it's interesting to note that despite there only being a 7% difference in BVKs, car driver and passenger fatalities are nearly 3 times higher on Rural Roads compared to Urban Roads - ie 1,112 compared to 429 (Source DfT). In actual fact it's 2.6 times as many.
But what is also interesting is that whereas the number of fatalities for car occupants - mile for mile - is around 2½ times greater on Rural Roads, it's almost the complete opposite when it comes to minor injuries. On Urban Roads there were 105,774 minor injuries in 2005, whereas on Rural Roads there were 59,573.
I think it's mostly down to the difference in average speeds on Urban and Rural Roads. In other words, Speed Kills. Or to be more precise, the faster the speed the more likely it is that the injuries sustained will be fatal in the event of a serious collision. And the faster the speed the more likely it is that a collision will occur in the first place. The unexpected is bound to happen sooner or later, and the faster you're going.......
Edited by slowcoach39 on Wednesday 20th June 22:31
Are you sure speeds are higher on rural roads though?
Perhaps we must also consider that drivers who have an accident on rural roads are more likely to hit something solid (trees) and the response time of rescue may be much longer.
Also if we look at fatal accidents on rural roads they are often single vehicle, multiple occupant accidents involving young drivers.
A lack of good training, poor attitude and cultural issues is of far greater concern than actual speed.
Perhaps we must also consider that drivers who have an accident on rural roads are more likely to hit something solid (trees) and the response time of rescue may be much longer.
Also if we look at fatal accidents on rural roads they are often single vehicle, multiple occupant accidents involving young drivers.
A lack of good training, poor attitude and cultural issues is of far greater concern than actual speed.
I think it is time that Slowcoach came clean.
What is your interest in this site? Are you genuinely interested in developing road safety or are you just on the fish for a wind up?
You seem keen to try and push a very simplistic view on us all that if we drive at walking pace we will be safe yet you do not seem interested in the possibility of gaining benefits through improved driver training or road design.
What is your interest in this site? Are you genuinely interested in developing road safety or are you just on the fish for a wind up?
You seem keen to try and push a very simplistic view on us all that if we drive at walking pace we will be safe yet you do not seem interested in the possibility of gaining benefits through improved driver training or road design.
would have thought it fairly obvious as per my comments on another thread,
There is no divide between the carriageways, potential closing speed of 120mph, cars made out of recylced crap of no real strength, occupants held in loosley with a belt most of the time.
Not one to over analyse i think
There is no divide between the carriageways, potential closing speed of 120mph, cars made out of recylced crap of no real strength, occupants held in loosley with a belt most of the time.
Not one to over analyse i think
Pork_n_Beem said:
would have thought it fairly obvious as per my comments on another thread,
There is no divide between the carriageways, potential closing speed of 120mph, cars made out of recylced crap of no real strength, occupants held in loosley with a belt most of the time.
Not one to over analyse i think
Could you direct me to your comments? Cheers.There is no divide between the carriageways, potential closing speed of 120mph, cars made out of recylced crap of no real strength, occupants held in loosley with a belt most of the time.
Not one to over analyse i think
s2art said:
I understand that intervention in the first 30 minutes after a bad injury is critical to survival rates. So compared to urban roads I would expect a much higher ratio of killed to seriously injured.
Interesting point. What about congestion though in built-up areas. In the final analysis we would need to know what percentage of 'Rural' fatalities were still alive after the crash. And also the average response times for 'Rural' and 'Urban' crashes. And if it DOES apply to serious 'Rural' crashes - ie it DOES take longer for ambulances to arrive at 'Rural' crashes - then I would imagine the same applies to 'Motorway' crashes.I use some very narrow rural roads and my experience is simple. Too many drivers driving to the limit and having no idea of COAST. Yes it is possible to travel some of the roads at the limit. However on the parts where you should be careful because of blind bends and brows or the road "nips", I and most good drivers slow down and look to give room to other drivers. Too many Sunday and inexperienced keep travelling at an inappropriate speed. Paradoxically, mostly these drivers are still below the limit. But the constant droning of the "Speed Kills" mantra means they do not take any notice of real hazards until they come across them.
Edited by telecat on Thursday 21st June 00:53
slowcoach39 said:
The number of BVKs (Billion Vehicle Kilometres) travelled on Urban Roads in 2005 was 194.2, and on Rural Roads it was 208.1 (Source DfT), a difference of 7%. But the number of road deaths on Urban Roads was 1,255, compared to 1,742 on Rural Roads, a difference of 39%, or around 36% allowing for the difference in BVKs.
The question is of course: Why are there some 36% more fatalities on Rural Roads? Is it the generally higher speeds do you think, or could it be the increasing amount of congestion on Urban Roads, or a combination of both?
And it's interesting to note that despite there only being a 7% difference in BVKs, car driver and passenger fatalities are nearly 3 times higher on Rural Roads compared to Urban Roads - ie 1,112 compared to 429 (Source DfT). In actual fact it's 2.6 times as many.
But what is also interesting is that whereas the number of fatalities for car occupants - mile for mile - is around 2½ times greater on Rural Roads, it's almost the complete opposite when it comes to minor injuries. On Urban Roads there were 105,774 minor injuries in 2005, whereas on Rural Roads there were 59,573.
I think it's mostly down to the difference in average speeds on Urban and Rural Roads. In other words, Speed Kills. Or to be more precise, the faster the speed the more likely it is that the injuries sustained will be fatal in the event of a serious collision. And the faster the speed the more likely it is that a collision will occur in the first place. The unexpected is bound to happen sooner or later, and the faster you're going.......
Its quite simple really, I'll use the diagnosis of rural Dorset my local patch which sees countless off's into the hedgerows on a weekly basis, spotted just from driving about. I also live almost opposite N Dorset's finest Fire & Rescue service which I guarantee will be out within 20 mins of a new bout of rain after a dry spell.The question is of course: Why are there some 36% more fatalities on Rural Roads? Is it the generally higher speeds do you think, or could it be the increasing amount of congestion on Urban Roads, or a combination of both?
And it's interesting to note that despite there only being a 7% difference in BVKs, car driver and passenger fatalities are nearly 3 times higher on Rural Roads compared to Urban Roads - ie 1,112 compared to 429 (Source DfT). In actual fact it's 2.6 times as many.
But what is also interesting is that whereas the number of fatalities for car occupants - mile for mile - is around 2½ times greater on Rural Roads, it's almost the complete opposite when it comes to minor injuries. On Urban Roads there were 105,774 minor injuries in 2005, whereas on Rural Roads there were 59,573.
I think it's mostly down to the difference in average speeds on Urban and Rural Roads. In other words, Speed Kills. Or to be more precise, the faster the speed the more likely it is that the injuries sustained will be fatal in the event of a serious collision. And the faster the speed the more likely it is that a collision will occur in the first place. The unexpected is bound to happen sooner or later, and the faster you're going.......
99% of mishaps are simply down to driver error, notably drivers being completely unprepared for the varying conditions & it appears to be getting worse. Young drivers especially are simply not taught what is safe & what is not, who gets taught it? no-one does you have to find out & for yourself for the younger its usually the hard way.
On busy city roads, if your new or unsure just do what everyone else does, its simple, you learn by other drivers gradually. However just them on a cold wet night & they've no idea, about road surface changes, headlights dipped or main beam?, animals jumping out, drivers are no longer expected to do emergency stops as part of the L test & training! WTF!!!! They are not taught about limit points (correct speed assessment for bends) they just drive from A to B & round our way B means the hedge.
IMHO its poor driver training simple as
Edited by cptsideways on Thursday 21st June 01:11
Parrot of Doom said:
So many statistics Spindrift, tell us where are the statistics that also show the cause of these accidents? Because without those, you can't realistically claim that speed was the cause of any.
Yes, but what we DO know is that speed limits on Rural Roads are significantly higher than they are on Urban Roads.PS Just out of interest, when was this Spindrift you refer to posting on this website, and can you direct me to any comments he/she made. The point being that I would just like to understand why you should think we are one and the same. We're not, but as you know of course, I can't actually prove it. But I guess it's a good tactic if you want to try and undermine everything anyone says - ie claim someone - in this case me - is an unsavoury character.
slowcoach39 said:
s2art said:
I understand that intervention in the first 30 minutes after a bad injury is critical to survival rates. So compared to urban roads I would expect a much higher ratio of killed to seriously injured.
Interesting point. What about congestion though in built-up areas. In the final analysis we would need to know what percentage of 'Rural' fatalities were still alive after the crash. And also the average response times for 'Rural' and 'Urban' crashes. And if it DOES apply to serious 'Rural' crashes - ie it DOES take longer for ambulances to arrive at 'Rural' crashes - then I would imagine the same applies to 'Motorway' crashes.slowcoach39 said:
Parrot of Doom said:
So many statistics Spindrift, tell us where are the statistics that also show the cause of these accidents? Because without those, you can't realistically claim that speed was the cause of any.
Yes, but what we DO know is that speed limits on Rural Roads are significantly higher than they are on Urban Roads.PS Just out of interest, when was this Spindrift you refer to posting on this website, and can you direct me to any comments he/she made. The point being that I would just like to understand why you should think we are one and the same. We're not, but as you know of course, I can't actually prove it. But I guess it's a good tactic if you want to try and undermine everything anyone says - ie claim someone - in this case me - is an unsavoury character.
So unless you can demonstrate which statistics you quote contain references to the cause of these deaths (which will have been recorded on every occasion), your thread is basically meaningless and a waste of time.
Spindrift was someone like yourself, indeed VERY much like yourself, who came on here with the exact same posts, the same google searches, and the same opinions, before being banned for being a t
t. He posts on Cycling+ constantly about Paul Smith and 'dangerous speedophiles', hes basically a complete idiot.s2art said:
slowcoach39 said:
s2art said:
I understand that intervention in the first 30 minutes after a bad injury is critical to survival rates. So compared to urban roads I would expect a much higher ratio of killed to seriously injured.
Interesting point. What about congestion though in built-up areas. In the final analysis we would need to know what percentage of 'Rural' fatalities were still alive after the crash. And also the average response times for 'Rural' and 'Urban' crashes. And if it DOES apply to serious 'Rural' crashes - ie it DOES take longer for ambulances to arrive at 'Rural' crashes - then I would imagine the same applies to 'Motorway' crashes.I could hardly NOT know that motorways have hard shoulders etc, but in the final analysis we are dealing with imponderables. The point is that none of us know what the average response times are re 'Urban' and 'Rural' crashes, or 'Motorway' crashes, for that matter. One 'Rural' crash may be just 3 or 4 miles from a hospital, whilst a 'Motorway' crash may be 25 miles from the nearest hospital. And vice-versa of course.
If you, or anyone else, makes a valid point, I have no problem taking that on board, so there really is no need to be so belligerent and bellicose. But you - and so many other people I have encountered on this forum - seem determined to dismiss what all rational people can figure out for themselves - ie that the faster the speed the more likely it is the injuries will be fatal or very serious in the event of a collision. Even young kids can figure it out.
Regarding response times to serious 'Urban' crashes, I pointed out in one of my earlier posts that congestion could play a part in delaying the arrival of ambulances, but of course that would usually only apply in the day-time - ie 7.00am-7.00pm-ish. In other words I acknowledge that at other times response times will be generally quicker for 'Urban' crashes than for 'Rural' crashes. I also acknowledge that in the event of a 'Rural' crash in the day-time, the ambulance could be delayed also to some extent or other by congestion depending on where the crash happened in relation to the location of the hospital.
It's far too late/early now for my brain to start working out the numbers involved, but what you are in effect saying is that several hundred fatal 'Rural' crashes WOULDN'T have been fatal, and would have only been serious, but for the response times. And maybe you're right, but I very much doubt it. A few dozen people may have been saved, but to claim that the difference in response times between 'Urban' and 'Rural' crashes accounts for the additional 36% of fatalities in 'Rural' crashes is just not plausible.
Anyway, the longest day of the year is just starting and I've got to hit the sack, but I'll leave you with some additional stats to peruse and ponder.
CAR OCCUPANTS
Urban Total Injuries
112,001
429 Fatalities = 0.4% (of total)
5,798 Serious = 5.15% (of total)
105,774 Minor = 94.5% (of total)
Rural Total Injuries
68,560
1,112 Fatalities = 1.6% (of total)
7.875 Serious = 11.5% (of total)
59,573 Minor = 86.9% (of total)
As you can see, car occupants are four times more likely to be killed in a serious collision on a Rural Road than on an Urban Road, and just over twice as likely to be seriously injured.
But as regards to the point you made, how does that fit with the fact that there are double the amount of KSIs on Rural Roads (allowing - more-or-less - for the 7% difference in BVKs) compared to Urban Roads.
Edited by slowcoach39 on Thursday 21st June 05:40
Edited by slowcoach39 on Thursday 21st June 05:49
I don't like being patronised in this way.
I know that rural roads are more dangerous. The brutal reality is that there are less places that people would wish to stop on rural roads. For this reason when people want to go to the shops they asses the risks for themselves, and drive accordingly. Overall nobody wants to spend any more time travelling than they have to, unless in the minority of cases they are just out for a nice drive.
I'd be quite happy for you to build a nice motorway for everybody, but then that's called urban sprawl. I'd wager that when city types drive in the country they are at much greater chance of having an accident that endangers country folks, because they just don't have the experience. They just say...... Ahhh a nice bit of open road, I'll open up a bit and take advantage of it.
What they don't realise is that they have to contend with bends, manure, tractors, and so on. The psychology is completely different. When you drive in an urban area, there are so many people about you have to expect some nutter is going to cut you up. Since country roads are so much more dangerous (maybe 4-500%), I am quite comforted to find that the statistics are as close as they are to those of urban areas. It shows how good most people really are at assesing the risks for themselves.
Since I would imagine that country roads are perhaps 4-5 times more dangerous, maybe country speed limits should be set at one fifth that of the city. That would make 6mph. So even if you set the limit at 30, it's not going to impact the situation.
In the country, where you are going for a short journey (to the shops) as most are, you might be going 30 miles. Like many people I don't expect that journey to take a whole hour. Looking at it differently it's an eighth of a day, and then I've got to come home, that makes a quarter.
Added to this, everybody knows that an obstacle like a building is going to be pain if you hit it. In the city, you can get away with parking on the pavement if you're lucky. In the country, that hedge may look pretty soft, by by god if you hit it, and theres a ditch lurking unseen beneath, you're a gonner.
Your assumption is that people cannot be responsible for assesing the risks of their own actions. I feel that I am quite capable of this, and I take my chances against those who are less capable. I assume that you see things that way because you come from the city. I would imagine that you ask for these constraints on country folk because you forget when you venture out of the city.
Even if you are from the country, to those who make such policy, and are essentially city dwellers....... $od Off!
Edit;
Road deaths, Road deaths, get your Road deaths here. Road deaths, 50% extra free! One cheap price only. Come on now ladies......
I know that rural roads are more dangerous. The brutal reality is that there are less places that people would wish to stop on rural roads. For this reason when people want to go to the shops they asses the risks for themselves, and drive accordingly. Overall nobody wants to spend any more time travelling than they have to, unless in the minority of cases they are just out for a nice drive.
I'd be quite happy for you to build a nice motorway for everybody, but then that's called urban sprawl. I'd wager that when city types drive in the country they are at much greater chance of having an accident that endangers country folks, because they just don't have the experience. They just say...... Ahhh a nice bit of open road, I'll open up a bit and take advantage of it.
What they don't realise is that they have to contend with bends, manure, tractors, and so on. The psychology is completely different. When you drive in an urban area, there are so many people about you have to expect some nutter is going to cut you up. Since country roads are so much more dangerous (maybe 4-500%), I am quite comforted to find that the statistics are as close as they are to those of urban areas. It shows how good most people really are at assesing the risks for themselves.
Since I would imagine that country roads are perhaps 4-5 times more dangerous, maybe country speed limits should be set at one fifth that of the city. That would make 6mph. So even if you set the limit at 30, it's not going to impact the situation.
In the country, where you are going for a short journey (to the shops) as most are, you might be going 30 miles. Like many people I don't expect that journey to take a whole hour. Looking at it differently it's an eighth of a day, and then I've got to come home, that makes a quarter.
Added to this, everybody knows that an obstacle like a building is going to be pain if you hit it. In the city, you can get away with parking on the pavement if you're lucky. In the country, that hedge may look pretty soft, by by god if you hit it, and theres a ditch lurking unseen beneath, you're a gonner.
Your assumption is that people cannot be responsible for assesing the risks of their own actions. I feel that I am quite capable of this, and I take my chances against those who are less capable. I assume that you see things that way because you come from the city. I would imagine that you ask for these constraints on country folk because you forget when you venture out of the city.
Even if you are from the country, to those who make such policy, and are essentially city dwellers....... $od Off!
Edit;
Road deaths, Road deaths, get your Road deaths here. Road deaths, 50% extra free! One cheap price only. Come on now ladies......
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 21st June 07:36
Ironic, isn't it though how motorways have the safest accident record, yet the highest proportion of speeders.
Perhaps rural 'A' roads would benefit more if the 'Drive at 40 everywhere' brigade looked in their rear view mirrors and let the immense queue of closely spaced traffic pass - by pulling into a layby. I see so many dangerous overtakes caused by frustration and, let's face it, few decent overtaking opportunities on many single carriageways like crawler lanes to assist. The limit is 60 - and a perfectly attainable and safe speed on many stretches - the highway code is also explicit about slow vehicles allowing faster ones pass, though anything like this takes a back seat to speed enforcement these days
How many main 'A' roads have a daft 50 limit, but the single track roads leading off the 'A' road are NSL
?
I see this every day out there. Rather than sitting behind a computer screen googling for stats, many of which contradict all I have witnessed in driving a large mileage over the years, I suggest you get out there and see for yourself, Slowcoach.
Perhaps rural 'A' roads would benefit more if the 'Drive at 40 everywhere' brigade looked in their rear view mirrors and let the immense queue of closely spaced traffic pass - by pulling into a layby. I see so many dangerous overtakes caused by frustration and, let's face it, few decent overtaking opportunities on many single carriageways like crawler lanes to assist. The limit is 60 - and a perfectly attainable and safe speed on many stretches - the highway code is also explicit about slow vehicles allowing faster ones pass, though anything like this takes a back seat to speed enforcement these days
How many main 'A' roads have a daft 50 limit, but the single track roads leading off the 'A' road are NSL
?I see this every day out there. Rather than sitting behind a computer screen googling for stats, many of which contradict all I have witnessed in driving a large mileage over the years, I suggest you get out there and see for yourself, Slowcoach.
Edited by alphadog on Thursday 21st June 07:49
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff