RE: Care urged on rural roads
Wednesday 6th October 2004
Care urged on rural roads
New government safety campaign launched
A new advertising campaign to remind motorists to drive carefully on rural roads - even though they may be quieter than urban roads - is being launched this week by the Department for Transport. According to the DoT, most fatalities (63 per cent) occur on rural roads (DfT 2003), and over 16,000 people were killed or seriously injured last year on these kinds of roads.
Government statistics (link below) suggest that drivers on rural roads are driving with less care than on urban roads. In particular:
- Younger (17-28 year olds) and inexperienced drivers (driving for less than a year) are taking the most risks with almost one in ten of those surveyed admitting they think it's safer to break the speed limit on rural roads due to the lack of cars around.
One-third (33 per cent) of all younger drivers are also confident that fewer crashes take place on rural roads because they are quieter.
The new campaign is the first to be aimed at rural drivers. The Highways Agency says that it seeks to remind drivers to drive sensibly for the conditions on all roads, and to highlight that rural roads can present unforeseen hazards, such as blind bends or animals in the road.
A radio advert highlights the potentially fatal consequences of driving too fast and is aimed primarily at younger drivers.
Road Safety Minister, David Jamieson said, "We are committed to improving road safety on every road in the country - but too many accidents are happening on quiet country roads. It's only right we highlight the dangers and urge motorists to take the same care as they do when driving in urban areas to avoid crashes."
Other findings from the research include:
- 13 per cent of men questioned agreed that it was safer to break the speed limit on rural roads due to the lack of cars around as opposed to only 2 per cent of women
- Almost double (40 per cent) the amount of men than women (24 per cent) thought that fewer crashes take place on rural roads because they are quieter.
- Over twice (21 per cent) as many men as women (10 per cent) think it's safe to drive faster on rural roads late at night because they believe you'll see headlights coming the other way as well as almost a quarter (22 per cent) of younger drivers.
Advice from the THINK! road safety campaign on rural driving includes:
- Don't think it's safe to break the speed limit on rural roads just because there is less traffic. There are unforeseen hazards, such as blind bends or animals in the road, that could lead to crashes. At slower speeds, you would be able to react to these unforeseen hazards more quickly.
- Take special care when driving at night on rural roads as other drivers' headlights could blind you.
- You need to adjust your speed and driving according to the weather and road conditions on rural roads, as rain and other hazards are often contributory factors in rural crashes.
- With a clear road ahead you may be tempted to put your foot down. But THINK! before you start to speed on rural roads -- speed is the biggest single contributory factor in single vehicle crashes in the UK.
Survey results here.
Discussion
I can see where they're coming from, but all the statistics here are a load of bollox. You think people are going to tell you if they speed or not? Don't give me the old one third lie again, and as for 63% of fatalities occurring on rural roads, sheer probability and weight of numbers makes that impossible.
I read an article by Andrew Marr the other week about how to read between the lines of press releases. Basically, unless a statistic or quotation can be traced in print to one single qualified individual involved in a specific survey, it's been made up.
I read an article by Andrew Marr the other week about how to read between the lines of press releases. Basically, unless a statistic or quotation can be traced in print to one single qualified individual involved in a specific survey, it's been made up.
Having looked at the statistics, then yes accident rates are high on rural roads, so why not target this weak spot with driver education.
More interesting though, are the accident and fatality statistics for the past fifty years. A graph of the data shows that for the past thirty years the total number of road accidents has been gently decreasing with, no sign of change in this pattern for the past ten years. fatalities however have fallen rapidly for the past 25-30 years. I would suggets that this significant improvement is down to car design.
Steve.
More interesting though, are the accident and fatality statistics for the past fifty years. A graph of the data shows that for the past thirty years the total number of road accidents has been gently decreasing with, no sign of change in this pattern for the past ten years. fatalities however have fallen rapidly for the past 25-30 years. I would suggets that this significant improvement is down to car design.
Steve.
Perhaps they should look at the reasons young drivers speed on rural roads. Now, the reason I speed on rural roads is because they are not patrolled. It's far too easy to get caught speeding on wide, straight, flat, safe highways, whereas it's nearly impossible to get caught on rural roads. That's the reason why I speed on rural roads. If the government wants to consider this a problem, they should realize that it's a problem they have caused themselves.
Also, looking at the statistics, and viewing them in light of the one-third lie, maybe the problem isn't that people speed on rural roads; the problem is that the gov't can't catch them.
Also, looking at the statistics, and viewing them in light of the one-third lie, maybe the problem isn't that people speed on rural roads; the problem is that the gov't can't catch them.
"One-third (33 per cent) of all younger drivers are also confident that fewer crashes take place on rural roads because they are quieter."
"Almost double (40 per cent) the amount of men than women (24 per cent) thought that fewer crashes take place on rural roads because they are quieter."
And, contrary to what this release implies, I suspect that they are correct in thinking so.
Total killed or seriously injured in 2003: 37,215
Killed or seriously injured on rural roads in 2003 (from above): 16,000
Kinda suggests that you are a little less likely to have an incident on a rural road.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you are more likely to end up a fatality if you do...
>> Edited by Ev_ on Wednesday 6th October 12:33
"Almost double (40 per cent) the amount of men than women (24 per cent) thought that fewer crashes take place on rural roads because they are quieter."
And, contrary to what this release implies, I suspect that they are correct in thinking so.
Total killed or seriously injured in 2003: 37,215
Killed or seriously injured on rural roads in 2003 (from above): 16,000
Kinda suggests that you are a little less likely to have an incident on a rural road.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you are more likely to end up a fatality if you do...
>> Edited by Ev_ on Wednesday 6th October 12:33
And what about all the people going unnecessarily slow on the rural roads that temps those of us who maintain an appropriate speed to make risky overtaking?!
It's good, however, that they are attempting to raise public awareness of what the acutal safety issues are. I see plenty of people driving slow and fast of rural roads that clearly don't understand the concept of blind corners, junctions and other areas of danger.
As for stats in reports, I suspect a lot of them are somewhat true in that if you looked at how they were gathered you will find problems such as sample size, estimation and leading questions in surveys.
It's good, however, that they are attempting to raise public awareness of what the acutal safety issues are. I see plenty of people driving slow and fast of rural roads that clearly don't understand the concept of blind corners, junctions and other areas of danger.
As for stats in reports, I suspect a lot of them are somewhat true in that if you looked at how they were gathered you will find problems such as sample size, estimation and leading questions in surveys.
Is it just me or is this another load of politically correct claptrap aimed at the lowest possible denominator. Maybe the Islingtonites have just noticed that there is a countryside with roads in it and feel the need to interfere. You don't have to be Einstein to realise that the lights of oncoming cars can dazzle you for heavens sake...
Hazards are animals (usually just best not panicking and running them over, or doing the "moose test" if you can, and swerve around them)
Blind crests (should be signed in all cases, road signs are there for a reson)
Both these "supposed" hazards should be obvious to anyone who has passed their UK driving test, or anyone with a brain for that matter.
After driving for many many hours on rural roads at high speeds in all kinds of conditions, I can safely say I drive better on an empty rural road. There are no cars, so I can drive at my own pace, and not have to worry about other people being stupid or driving badly.
ALL what is warned of above is up to the driver. If he or she can't make a proper decision about what is reasonable speed, and crashes, it is only their own fault.
Main accident causes on what used to be my local rural road were motorbikes crashing into cars or lorries. Usually saw five bike crashes for every one car crash I saw!
So, I think they should maybe looking more towards the bikers with this message since it's them who can get caught out more seriously if something goes a bit wrong
Typical government department shite for a change...
Dave
Blind crests (should be signed in all cases, road signs are there for a reson)
Both these "supposed" hazards should be obvious to anyone who has passed their UK driving test, or anyone with a brain for that matter.
After driving for many many hours on rural roads at high speeds in all kinds of conditions, I can safely say I drive better on an empty rural road. There are no cars, so I can drive at my own pace, and not have to worry about other people being stupid or driving badly.
ALL what is warned of above is up to the driver. If he or she can't make a proper decision about what is reasonable speed, and crashes, it is only their own fault.
Main accident causes on what used to be my local rural road were motorbikes crashing into cars or lorries. Usually saw five bike crashes for every one car crash I saw!
So, I think they should maybe looking more towards the bikers with this message since it's them who can get caught out more seriously if something goes a bit wrong
Typical government department shite for a change...
Dave
Dunno about the statistics but I can say with some confidence that drivers coming to the IAM to do their Advanced Test find rural roads the hardest part.
Why?
Well because the speed limit is usually 60mph and you have to make up your own mind how fast is safe for the various hazards.
I've been told things like "I don't like roads without white lines in the middle"
Once taught how to judge corner entry speed using "limit point analysis" they start to gain confidence - but a good few find they actually have to slow down...
That and there is no doubt that people go out to *play* on unpatrolled rural roads. Some play safely. Some play like idiots and die..
Why?
Well because the speed limit is usually 60mph and you have to make up your own mind how fast is safe for the various hazards.
I've been told things like "I don't like roads without white lines in the middle"
Once taught how to judge corner entry speed using "limit point analysis" they start to gain confidence - but a good few find they actually have to slow down...
That and there is no doubt that people go out to *play* on unpatrolled rural roads. Some play safely. Some play like idiots and die..
When people are taught to drive they do so in the towns and citys. On the test routes. There is almost no teaching on country driving and it doesn't form part of the test.
How often have you been stuck behind somebody doing 35-40mph down the lanes who then travels around that bind bend (where most of us would be doing 20) without slowing down at all? Most of you I guess.
Speed has to be matched to conditions. Unfortunately with our limit and control obsessed government (and culture) the indivual's decision making process is being continuously eroded. Learning to drive should be as much about techniques and judgement as it is performing tricks on a known test route.
How often have you been stuck behind somebody doing 35-40mph down the lanes who then travels around that bind bend (where most of us would be doing 20) without slowing down at all? Most of you I guess.
Speed has to be matched to conditions. Unfortunately with our limit and control obsessed government (and culture) the indivual's decision making process is being continuously eroded. Learning to drive should be as much about techniques and judgement as it is performing tricks on a known test route.
What a negative load of old f***s you all are! We go on and on (rightly) about education being the way forward; we point out that cameras are placed entirely on safe A roads - except on the unsafe bits, 'cos cameras don't work on unsafe bits (can't see round blind corners). We know that most accidents occur on narrow, windy roads. Now, when the Government actually tries to do a bit of driver education, with a targeted campaign at those at most risk, you all moan your b*****ks off! Come on, this is what the Government SHOULD be doing - not camera-ing, not legislating, but HELPING. More of this, I say.
Rural roads are dangerous? No shit sherlock!
Just have a brief think about some of the hazards you may encounter on rural roads: All manner of stupid livestock, rabid car-chasing farm dogs, blind bends/hills, obscured gateways/entrances, Colin McRae wannabes, single lane roads, tractors, milk lorries, unlicensed trial/quad-bikes, mud, shit, cavernous potholes, standing water (depths measured in fathoms), no road markings, 40ft hedges restricting vision, Sunday drivers, mountain bikers, the whole pelathon of the local bike club, the school bus, the local village idiot, ramblers, blackberry pickers, I could go on......
I consider it a minor miracle that I ever make it to work
What makes me laugh are the pointless signs littering the countyside. E.g the signs on our local roads specifically telling bikers to slow down. Or the ones with the leaping stag on them warning of impending herds of deer bounding accross the road. Do they think deer all queue up to cross at a certain place? I've passed one of these signs 4 times every working day for 10 years and I've never seen a deer anywhere near it. On the other hand, I've had a deer jump out in front of me elsewhere and there wasnt a deer sign for miles. Typical, I get the reckless one who couldnt be bothered to trot 5 miles up the road to the nearest designated deer crossing.....
>> Edited by jam1et on Wednesday 6th October 15:17
Just have a brief think about some of the hazards you may encounter on rural roads: All manner of stupid livestock, rabid car-chasing farm dogs, blind bends/hills, obscured gateways/entrances, Colin McRae wannabes, single lane roads, tractors, milk lorries, unlicensed trial/quad-bikes, mud, shit, cavernous potholes, standing water (depths measured in fathoms), no road markings, 40ft hedges restricting vision, Sunday drivers, mountain bikers, the whole pelathon of the local bike club, the school bus, the local village idiot, ramblers, blackberry pickers, I could go on......
I consider it a minor miracle that I ever make it to work
What makes me laugh are the pointless signs littering the countyside. E.g the signs on our local roads specifically telling bikers to slow down. Or the ones with the leaping stag on them warning of impending herds of deer bounding accross the road. Do they think deer all queue up to cross at a certain place? I've passed one of these signs 4 times every working day for 10 years and I've never seen a deer anywhere near it. On the other hand, I've had a deer jump out in front of me elsewhere and there wasnt a deer sign for miles. Typical, I get the reckless one who couldnt be bothered to trot 5 miles up the road to the nearest designated deer crossing.....
>> Edited by jam1et on Wednesday 6th October 15:17
jatrichardson said:
What a negative load of old f***s you all are! We go on and on (rightly) about education being the way forward; we point out that cameras are placed entirely on safe A roads - except on the unsafe bits, 'cos cameras don't work on unsafe bits (can't see round blind corners). We know that most accidents occur on narrow, windy roads. Now, when the Government actually tries to do a bit of driver education, with a targeted campaign at those at most risk, you all moan your b*****ks off! Come on, this is what the Government SHOULD be doing - not camera-ing, not legislating, but HELPING. More of this, I say.
I don't think the points are particularly negative, I just think that everyone is coming to the smae conclusion...
...revenue dropping through Speed Cameras in towns, okay so where do they go now? make a big noise about country lanes being dangerous and hey presto lost of new cameras to make the lanes 'safer'.
I would, as most people would, like to see driver education being the biggest issue, it's the idiot in the Saxo trying to be Colin Mcrae, meeting the octagenarian or horse box that are where the problems start.
The countryside is being eroded from every quarter be it banning of country sports to the greenbelt land being covered in rabbit hutch housing, I speak as a resident of a village just outside Ashford, a town that two jags has decided needs 31,000 more houses over the next 20yrs. So please don't let them ruin all our roads too.
Tim
One consideration on rural roads as opposed to dual-carriageways is the impact speed.
On dual-carriageways and the like the speeds tend to be lower as most traffic is moving in the same direction. The worst case (excluding the nutter driving the wrong way) is hitting a stationary object. However, on single carriageways the impact speed can be double (two vehicles at 60mph travelling in opposite directions = 120mph impact speed).
However, I do prefer rural roads to boring flat motorways.
>> Edited by Renny on Wednesday 6th October 15:50
On dual-carriageways and the like the speeds tend to be lower as most traffic is moving in the same direction. The worst case (excluding the nutter driving the wrong way) is hitting a stationary object. However, on single carriageways the impact speed can be double (two vehicles at 60mph travelling in opposite directions = 120mph impact speed).
However, I do prefer rural roads to boring flat motorways.
>> Edited by Renny on Wednesday 6th October 15:50
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff