You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I should have a pretty easy commute. It's about 25 miles on dual carriageway A roads. I generally start early / finish late, so I'm not travelling at peak times. The commutes basically come in two flavours:
Without accidents - traffic moving at average 60mpg with some people trying to drive at 90.
With Accidents - Traffic at standstill because someone trying to drive at 90 has crashed into another car.
Yesterday the road was closed, because there had been a crash between two cars. It turned out, one of the cars involved was one of my neighbours. I've seen him driving like a tool many times (he often overtakes me, tailgating somebody, driving at 80+), and this time he managed to hit someone in his white 4x4 (other drivers fault, apparently). He got a 4x4 because he didn't feel safe in his previous saloon after he 'took out the bus stop' (not his fault either).
In the context of my commute, these drivers do not get to work any quicker, as the general flow of traffic won't allow it. Most of the tailgaters are tailgating the last car in a row of traffic 10 cars long. It's totally pointless.
I recon at least twice a week, I see someone driving in a way which could result in a fatal crash (to the extent it makes you feel sick to see it). If a significant number of the UK population carried dashcams which were certified by the police and admissible as evidence, wouldn't all this stop? If you see some driving badly, upload it to a police website, police have a team to review it, issue fine / points if it's warranted.
This would benefit the general public, and the 'pressing on' brigade, because they would have to clean up their driving and stop crashing into people. My neighbour probably wouldn't have crashed yesterday if he knew there was a good chance of getting prosecuted for tailgating.
Probably be legal chaos for the first year, but very soon, people would stop endangering lives by using their cars as weapons.
Good idea or not? Society turning itself into a police state? I don't care...I'm just getting really, really sick of it.
I think its a good idea, the number of people who get so offended by me filtering past on a motorbike that they try and knock me off is shocking.
I suspect a lot of people would be quite happy to film and report others, but would be up in arms at the suggestion that [i]they[/i] might be filmed 🙂
Personally I'd be all for it and I find the [i]"it's up to the police to enforce the law, not you"[/i] attitude a bit sad. It suggests that people have no morals and the only thing preventing them from robbing or murdering is the possibility of being caught by the police.
It's a sad reflection on the way we are, but I tend to agree that if you look at the numbers of KSI it is probably not a bad idea.
Hmm, doesn't seem to stop the Russians from driving like complete and utter nutters. The gauge on my "oh shit we're dead-omiter" has never gone so high as when I've been ferried around Moscow and everyone has dash cams there.
great idea. come to mention it, my neighbour has been looking a bit shifty lately, reckon he might be some sort of subversive. I've known him for 10 years but i think i'm going to call the security services.
🙄
if the road is that dangerous contact your police commissioner and request increased traffic patrols. it's ( supposedly ) what they're there for, to listen to the concerns of the public, and encourage the police to respond.
In fairness, In Russia don't think they have the police angle on it, I think they have them for insurance claims?
I've only spent 6 weeks in Russia, amd my "oh shit we're dead-omiter" was pretty high the whole time...not just driving 😉
By the way, this already happens to a degree. The Met have [url= http://content.met.police.uk/Site/roadsafelondon ]Roadsafe London[/url] which accepts video footage from dash/helmet cams, though only as corroboration to a witness statement.
Video footageOccasionally, people refer us to video footage in the public domain e.g. YouTube or similar sites. In the course of dealing with your information we may direct others to any material that has been openly posted, to raise road user awareness and to promote safety.
Some points to bear in mind regarding video submissions: Videos should be submitted within 48 hours of the event. Footage should be of high quality and include at least two minutes before and two minutes after any incident. For prosecution purposes, [b]video evidence can only act as corroboration[/b]. This means that [b]you will need to attend a police station and give a written statement and must be prepared to attend court[/b] to give evidence in person.
Videos should not be edited in any way. They must not rely on a perception of distance such as a close pass as the apparent distance will vary according to the type camera and settings. There are other issues with video evidence, such as parallax error, which makes objects appear close together when they are seen in line. In general, evidence of provocation or disproportionate reaction will mean that no action is taken.
Data shows the number of people dying on UK roads falling massively since 70s and 80's which would indicate we don't really have a problem.
But I'd like to see a study which shows what the causality is - is it people driving better or is it cars being so strong and with so many features to protect the occupants?
Anecdotal experience as a driver, pedestrian and cyclist suggests there's a generalised level of aggression, dozyness and lawlessness which is getting worse. Surveys of people who'd like to cycle but are too scared to do so provides some evidence for this.
From a cyclist's point of view in particular I'd like to see a massive clampdown on lousy driving - it's spoiling my riding and stopping cycling from becoming a mass-transit option.
But I don't think we can put in mass surveillance without some data showing a massive increase in law-breaking and injury to justify it first
The Russians also use dash-cams to prevent, or at least limit, police corruption. If you have video evidence, then there is substantially less chance of someone in blue trying to get you for something that you have not done.
Despite the recent revelations, our police force is nowhere near being that bad.
Simple "black box" journey recorder in every vehicle, bet it wouldn't be [b][u]too[/b][/u] expensive to implement - all the tech required is already in modern mobile phones (accelerometers/gps etc) and it's the kind of thing insurance companies are offering to drivers to reduce premiums. In the event of an accident, the data could be analysed and the at fault driver(s) determined & punished accordingly.
Ridiculous number of cameras watching what we do already.
What we actually need is proper human policing, pulling people over for breaking the rules, and some friendly advice for first offenders.
Then some proper penalties for subsequent offences. 3 points, speed or driving awareness course. 6 points and a one week driving ban, no excuses. 9 points and a one month ban, with employers made to keep your job open and treat it as unpaid leave if you really cannot get there any other way. 12 points and a 12 month ban and a retest.
I don't care if you lose your job and your family suffers. You have shown that you cannot and or will not drive safely, and you are too stupid and/or arrogant to learn from your mistakes.
Data shows the number of people dying on UK roads falling massively since 70s and 80's which would indicate we don't really have a problem.
Vehicle crash safety has improved a lot since the 70s with seatbelts, airbags, ABS, skid control, side impacts bars, roll bars, compulsory child seats etc etc
Roads have been made safer (and faster) with widespread installation of Armco barriers and flood lighting.
And of course less and less people are risking going near a road on foot or bicycle. Children don't play in the streets like they used to.
I think all the safety features in cars mean people have actually got much worse at driving, because there are less consequences for them if they get it wrong (the old "steering wheel spike" theory).
Never the best way. Police presence is always the best.
With the increase of speeding fines and with the normal assholes
whom can't afford the fines, then selling there cars to pay the fines.
Will keep the Dick Heads of the roads.
Why can't we just have some system of reporting poor drivers actions? Then, if someone is involved in an accident or offence, and the police see that their vehicle has been reported for shoddy driving many times in the in the past year, they might have to ask a few more probing questions about the offenders driving habits...?
The reason driving is so bad is we focus on the wrong things.
Speed is easy to measure and can be caught my a machine.
Tailgating, lane discipline and generally driving like an incompetent dick can't be captured by a camera so aren't enforced at all.
Thats why its becoming the norm.
Put more actual human police on the roads and punish bad driving not just speeding
I drive a lot and (as my friends and family tell me) I drive like an "old woman" I dont see it as failing as I am generally a very safe and courteous driver.
I am experienced and confident so am not fased by much and confident driving most things anywhere.
I am teaching my daughter to drive and as she is naturally driving more slowly and making a number of errors such as not moving off quickly at junctions/lights etc and the number of people who drive very close or overtake aggressively etc is staggering, even to me. Drop a few mph below the typical and people become very impatient, L plates or not.
Anything that improves the falling standard of driving gets my vote.
Put more actual human police on the roads and punish bad driving not just speeding
Too many cars, too many journeys and increasing number of roads makes this waste of resources. I am happy to film and be filmed.
I think all the safety features in cars mean people have actually got much worse at driving, because there are less consequences for them if they get it wrong (the old "steering wheel spike" theory).
+1. I learned to drive in a Mk1 Escort Van. It was hand painted and cost me £60. It had drums all round so forward planning was a must 😀
Drop a few mph below the typical and people become very impatient, L plates or not.
Yep there are a couple of bits of my car commute where it actually feels quite dangerous to observe the speed limit, mostly due to people tailgating or approaching from behind at speed then slamming on their brakes.
When it becomes more dangerous to drive legally than illegally then something is definitely wrong.
If we started prosecuting people for shit driving, it would definitely help.
It is a ridiculous situation that the state is more likely to prosecute you for not causing an accident, than for causing one!
I think dash cams would be a good idea if only to ensure that bad drivers do actually get properly prosecuted when things do eventually go wrong - rather than having one persons word / view on what happened presented in the court & also to greater inform the courts* of the details of any road layout etc.
* near fatal accident that I witnessed, best piece of evidence presented in court was print off of google map location of accident, the injured party had no recollection of accident, his girlfriend was a nervous wreck but luckily my mate & I were able to present effective evidence to stop the driver from worming out of it - driver got 9pts & £2500 fine, process would have been a whole lot easier on all concerned if drivers/riders had had dashcam footage of what actually had happened.
I learned to drive in a Mk1 Escort Van. It was hand painted and cost me £60. It had drums all round so forward planning was a must
"Can you stop within the distance you can see?"
"Well, I can see to the horizon, so, just about..."
Simple "black box" journey recorder in every vehicle...
...wouldn't react if you were steadily doing just under the speed limit, four inches from the rear of the car in front, or changing lanes into a gap that doesn't exist, or passing a cyclist with inches of clearance.
Is widespred citizen survellence that way to sort out driving in the UK?
No. This is:
[img] 
[/img]
...wouldn't react if you were steadily doing just under the speed limit, four inches from the rear of the car in front, or changing lanes into a gap that doesn't exist, or passing a cyclist with inches of clearance.
In theory it could use the parking sensors to record how far you are from a car in front or behind whilst moving. (Clearance to the cyclist is a bit more tricky)
In terms of real-world-ready solutions, self-driving cars are the closest option to becoming reality IMO
All those drivers using their phones/shaving/doing makeup/reading/Facebooking etc are already demonstrating they'd rather not have to do the driving themselves...
All those drivers using their phones/shaving/doing makeup/reading/Facebooking etc are already demonstrating they'd rather not have to do the driving themselves...
+1 hadn't really thought of that
The great thing about humans is that they can react to any situation they come across.
The problem with computers is that they can only react to the things they've been programmed to, by a human.
People forget that driving is actually quite safe, and the chances are that you will never be in a serious accident.
Should be pretty straightforward to fit a black box to any car belonging to a household or business address where any driver has six points for speeding. Box has GPS, maps and a database of speed limit on each road. Vehicle is restricted to the speed limit.
The UK is one of the safest places to drive in the world. We can of course make improvements but it's important to recognise the relatively good place we are in.
Dashcams are quite widely used in the US where road deaths are far higher.
Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speed as the OP suggests. Speed is a factor but is commonly overplayed. Distraction within the vehicle is a material and growing risk, eg playing with he gps, on the phone, even texting these days.
Should be pretty straightforward to fit a black box to any car belonging to a household or business address where any driver has six points for speeding. Box has GPS, maps and a database of speed limit on each road. Vehicle is restricted to the speed limit.
Great, that stops people speeding (or busts them when they do). Doesn't really address all the other ways people drive dangerously while not exceeding speed limits though.
Vehicle is restricted to the speed limit.
You are aware that we already have speed restricted vehicles on our roads?
Now tell me if you have ever seen one of these speed restricted vehicles driven badly?
Driving in excess of the speed limit is the major causal factor in only 4% of accidents.
Limiting a vehicle's speed will only encourage the driver to drive at that speed, no matter if appropriate or not, the evidence for this is on the roads right now.
The great thing about humans is that they can react to any situation they come across.
The problem with computers is that they can only react to the things they've been programmed to, by a human.
Driving isn't actually that hard, it can't be look at some of the half wits who manage it. Computers are far better at dealing with mononotous or repetitive tasks than humans, they are never distracted and never break the rules they are programmed to follow.
sbob the thing about humans is they are actually really bad at driving and also justify and rationalise their errors rather than accept fault . Self driving cars can be well programmed and are not subject to external pressures or distractions or an ego. As I understand it in thousands of miles Google's self drive cars have only had one accident and that was when the human occupant took over control.
I don't think self driving cars will catch on any time soon. Personally I like my independence to travel anywhere on a whim I am an excellent driver and can chose a safe speed for my journey matching the road and traffic conditions to my abilities and my vehicle without reference to some artificial number on a sign so I will not be using one unless it works out to be more practical than tying £7000 up in a depreciating asset that spends about 21 out of 24 hours a day sat still, empty while I pay for the privilege of leaving it there.
Oh and give make the speed limited cars have a "P" plate denoting their probationary status. It could stand for something else of course. Social pressure might soon see a change in attitude. Yes, I'm aware that speed isn't the only issue, and have driven many speed limited vans and minibuses, but not solving one problem just because you're not solving all the problems seems like a bad idea too.
unless it works out to be more practical than tying £7000 up in a depreciating asset that spends about 21 out of 24 hours a day sat still, empty while I pay for the privilege of leaving it there.
When a decent alternative (self-driving car which you can book to turn up at your house when you need it) becomes a real-life proposition I think you'll see a lot of people realise how utterly lunatic the private car is as a financial proposition - as per ^^^
let alone the benefits of being able to sleep, work, eat, chat etc etc whilst you travel
Computers are far better at dealing with mononotous or repetitive tasks than humans, they are never distracted and never break the rules they are programmed to follow.
That isn't the problem!
Driving in excess of the speed limit is the major causal factor in only 4% of accidents.
4% of all accidents, but 12% of all fatal accidents.
Along with related factors like:
Travelling too fast for conditions: 11% of fatals
Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry: 19% of fatals
Loss of Control: 31% of fatals
Also don't forget that this is based on police reports of accidents. The police will not always have evidence that a driver was exceeding the speed limit before a crash.
crankboy - Membersbob the thing about humans is they are actually really bad at driving
This is where I disagree.
I think we are getting worse, but only because there is a current trend to stop relying on the things us humans do well.
Personally I like my independence to travel anywhere on a whim I am an excellent driver and can chose a safe speed for my journey matching the road and traffic conditions to my abilities and my vehicle without reference to some artificial number on a sign
I may be wrong but I read this as you choose to "speed" when you see fit. If driver-less cars remove peoples ability to do this then I think that is a good thing. People make mistakes and you will too.
I dont think driver-less cars reduce independence you still get in it when you want to and it takes you where you want to go.
Speed restricting boxes will infuriate drivers and make them drive more dangerously, eg by refusing to slow down at all costs.
Speed restricting boxes will infuriate drivers and make them drive more dangerously, eg by refusing to slow down at all costs.
Thats not a good reason not to do it IMO.
One argument I've heard against speed restricting boxes is that [i]"sometimes you need to speed to avoid an accident"[/i]
So why not design the boxes so that excessive speed creates an annoying beep (and shuts off power to the stereo)?
It can allow a few minutes of this before it also reduces speed.
Obviously scrotes will try to bypass the box, so you'd have to add it into the MOT checks and accident investigations.
[i]Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speed as the OP suggests. Speed is a factor but is commonly overplayed. Distraction within the vehicle is a material and growing risk, eg playing with he gps, on the phone, even texting these days.
[/i]
This.
Speeding is an easy thing to focus on - it's crap driving (by at least one party) that normally (and that element that is crap is usually poor observation) is the cause in 100% of accidents I'd suggest.
I've driven for +30 years (car and motorcycle) and not had an accident since in my teens. Riding a motorcycle teaches you pretty early on that any failure to observe, by anyone on the road, can easily hurt - therefore I drive assuming that everyone else is an idiot who hasn't seen me. Worked so far.
If some type of driver-less car got me and my family to the places we want to go, safely, predictably and cheaply then I would be happy to forgo any (small) pleasure I occasionally got from driving.
I can plan my journeys to the places I want to be and spend more time doing the things I want to do. If that takes away my autonomy to break laws occasionally then that's a bonus.
GrahamS - MemberOne argument I've heard against speed restricting boxes is that "sometimes you need to speed to avoid an accident"
Unless you're on a motorbike, we both know that is toilet.
Great bit of advice I was given when learning: "If you really must have an accident, try and do it as slowly as possible". 😆
Scrap the Highways Traffic Officers, employ more Traffic Police in their place. That's my very generalised view.
So why not design the boxes so that excessive speed creates an annoying beep (and shuts off power to the stereo)?
the hire car I had in oman beeped at you constantly once or twice a second if you went over the national speed limit. very simple but very effective.
I think theres a simple remedy here..
Turn Off STRAVA
Just a flying visit to this thread at work so I haven't read it, but how about having a network of people acting like PCSOs in their cars. You get a bit of cash each year, £100 maybe, and they put a camera in your car. If you see anything potentially dodgy you just hit a button and it beams the footage to the cops at the next opportunity where they can pursue it (even if it's just a stern letter). Even if the police don't prosecute perhaps they could put your name on a list that insurers can see.
Speeding is an easy thing to focus on - it's crap driving (by at least one party) that normally (and that element that is crap is usually poor observation) is the cause in 100% of accidents I'd suggest.
At the risk of turning the thread into another bore, an actual accident is a combination of both speed and crap driving. For example (and this is just one) if you are going faster, you are relying on other people's observation skills being better. Not a wise thing to do when you consider how poor some of them are.
Data shows the number of people dying on UK roads falling massively since 70s and 80's which would indicate we don't really have a problem.But I'd like to see a study which shows what the causality is - is it people driving better or is it cars being so strong and with so many features to protect the occupants?
As you alluded to, the roads are pretty safe for people *in cars*. If you're on a bike or on foot then things are getting more dangerous.
It's probably a combination of lower speed limits, 'better'* road design (more barriers that stop cars crashing into trees, for example), better testing and education and safer cars.
Didn't the last 'cycling minister' (Norman Baker, maybe?) say that we had better cycling safety than the Netherlands because a smaller proportion of the population were injured in cycling collisions here? Which entirely misses the point that cycling rates in Amsterdam are 20 times what they are in most UK cities. It suggests that they're glad that vulnerable road users have been scared off the roads!
I too would like to see more human road policing, but to make a real difference you'd have to put hundreds of thousands of extra police cars out on the roads. A camera can do speed/red light/bus lane checks 24/7 fairly cheaply. A pair of police officers in a traffic car can work for 40 hours a week, with a big chunk of that spent in the office/at base/planning operations etc, but they can cover more than the black and white type offences that the camera can do.
*Better is in quotes because it's only better for high speed motor vehicles. A barrier at the side of the road doesn't protect a cyclist from the car behind him.
Going back a good few years I bought a programmable scrolling LED sign for a small business i was doing. After being particulary hacked off with being tailgated and seeing the toolbags on Top Gear do something similar with a caravan I decided to programme it with a few things like you're driving like a *, if i open my boot would you like to get in, and back the * off.
It didn't work, it made people so angry!! To the point that i had one guy get out at a set of traffic lights hammering on my window and screaming how dare i tell him he is driving like a bellend.
LHS - try reprogramming something more playful, press the button and have the following scroll up with a second or so between each message...
"Auto Tailgating System activated!"
"ANPR logging numberplate..."
"3G signal acquired: Uploading video..."
See how quickly they back off
🙂
I think more on road traffic officers/police is the only way to catch 'bad' driving as opposed to speeding/RLJ etc, but often the problem is they are easy to spot and people drive like saints as they go past and then go back to being stupid shortly after, a lot more [b]unmarked [/b]cars could be a good idea.
Didn't the last 'cycling minister' (Norman Baker, maybe?) say that we had better cycling safety than the Netherlands because a smaller proportion of the population were injured in cycling collisions here?
It was Mike Penning, then the Road Safety Minister.
He quoted the figures based on Cycling Deaths per 100,000 population. 😯
Really quite worrying that someone in charge of road safety would have such a poor grasp of the relevant figures.
It's a bit like saying less people die skiing in England than they do in the Alps.
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3394181.ece ]The reality[/url] is of course that if you use a proper comparator, cycling fatalities per 100 million km cycled, then the UK is over three times more dangerous (Netherlands has a rate of 1.1 fatality per 100m km cycled, UK is 3.6).
being particulary hacked off with being tailgated
I think tailgating is now so common that people have no concept of an appropriate gap.
The recommended gap is roughly one car length for every 5mph. So at 50mph you should be a [b]minimum[/b] of ten car lengths from the car in front.
If you tell people that, they look at you like you are mad.
Scrap the Highways Traffic Officers, employ more Traffic Police in their place. That's my very generalised view.
highways traffic officers are there to do the mundane activities that used to tie up the police for ages & are deployed to free up the police to allow them to get on with their job - ie exactly what you are advocating
Can anyone provide a link to some data which demonstrates that driving is getting worse?
Whether cycling, walking or driving, my impression is that not bothering to look properly or just outright lawlessness is on the increase but I don't know if the data reflects this or I'm just getting grumpier in my old age 😀
Certainly when I rode on the road as a kid in the 80's, I never got verbal abuse or people trying to knock me off, and I didn't in 2005 when I started road riding seriously but it's happening an awful lot at the moment - but that may just be because I'm riding so many more road miles.
One anecdote is nearly getting hit twice in a day when I stopped at amber lights - the cars behind had no intention whatsoever of stopping. But tbh that's been a problem since I first started driving regularly in London so I'm really not sure if the 'falling standards' is factually correct or just something that people are noticing a lot more
No extra surveillance please.
[u][b]No nanny state please.[/b][/u]
Let people die as they should be please.
Do not prolong suffering so let them die.
🙄
Can anyone provide a link to some data which demonstrates that driving is getting worse?
While I wouldn't disagree with you its hard to find numbers to back up the anecdotal stuff we would probably all agree with
[img] 
[/img]
Road deaths are falling while more people use cars, they are around half the level they were 10 years ago.
A lot of this is down to safer cars, but its hard to imagine such a dramatic downward trend is accompanied by a measurable increase in bad driving
but its hard to imagine such a dramatic downward trend is accompanied by a measurable increase in bad driving
Impossible to plot but it would be useful to see it against the introduction of ABS/Air bags etc etc.
Let people die as they should be please.
Bad drivers are often not the victims though.
Impossible to plot but it would be useful to see it against the introduction of ABS/Air bags etc etc
It's really hard to pick this kind of stuff apart.
And while there are definitely big factors improving car / road safety such as Motorways, seatbelts, reduction in drink driving, Euro NCAP etc, this is also set against a huge increase in the number of cars on the roads in the same time period
2012 (not on the graph) has the lowest death figures ever at 1754.
Maybe an national "Don't be a dick" campaign is the answer
To the point that i had one guy get out at a set of traffic lights hammering on my window and screaming how dare i tell him he is driving like a bellend.
Thereby proving you to be 100% correct - if he was that out of control of his anger whilst driving, he's not emotionally fit to be driving really!
Impossible to plot but it would be useful to see it against the introduction of ABS/Air bags etc etc.
Looking at the dates below (from Wikipedia) and the graph above, there;'s no correlation - deaths went up slightly after ABS was introduced, and no decrease when airbags were introduced - was stable for a while
ABS: In 1985 the Ford Scorpio was introduced to European market with a Teves electronic system throughout the range as standard. For this the model was awarded the coveted European Car of the Year Award in 1986, with very favourable praise from motoring journalists. After this success Ford began research into Anti-Lock systems for the rest of their range, which encouraged other manufacturers to follow suit.
Air bags: In Europe, airbags were almost entirely absent from family cars until the early 1990s. The first European Ford to feature an airbag was the facelifted Escort MK5b in 1992; within a year, the entire Ford range had at least one airbag as standard. By the mid-1990s, European market leaders such as Vauxhall/Opel, Rover, Peugeot, Renault and Fiat had included airbags as at least optional equipment across their model ranges. By the end of the decade, it was very rare to find a mass market car without an airbag, and some late 1990s products, such as the Volkswagen Golf Mk4 also featured side airbags.
Far more people die from preventable health issues than on the roads. Its politically impossible to introduce some of the stuff being suggested here, whatever government tried would be voted down and into oblivion even assuming they could get elected without such a thing in their manifesto.
how long did it take not just for new cars to get ABS, Airbags etc. as standard, but for (say) 50% or 90% of the road traffic to have those features?
probably talking decade scale?
the flat bit between early 1990's and early 2000's on that chart above is "interesting"
Far more people die from preventable health issues than on the roads
What you need here is some joined up thinking in government.
IIRC, obesity-related deaths are around 30,000 in the UK (have not been able to find a source for this though)
Meanwhile, the main reason people don't cycle (when surveyed) is they're too scared
So people [i]are[/i] dying of bad driving but not in a way which the recorded numbers are showing...
I suspect cycling campaigners and health organisations will have pointed out this connection to ministers but as there's no direct causation proven by putting these figures together, it's easy for ministers to side-step
On a related note to the obesity point above, if we're concerned about people then the externalities of driving are a much bigger issue. Taking 2010 for example, about 2000 people died on UK roads, whereas about 28,000 people died prematurely as a result of chronic exposure to air pollution, the bulk of which is associated with motor vehicles.
Whilst poor driving - mainly with respect to cyclists - does anger me, the bigger picture dictates a move away from motor vehicles, rather than driving them better.
This could be remedied, but unfortunately people-killing is preferred to vote-killing.
Based on figures from Wikipedia etc:
[img] https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7DhehWN6OqISYcRnyTLZ-aj7EtWWYXhPBHperlGXk4=w1278-h719 [/img]
1992-ish ? for introduction of speed cameras?
too many single introductions, most of which take years to roll out to be able to draw any conclusions.
Nice one Graham
You could also add Euro NCAP set up in 1997 to the graph.
Before Euro NCAP manufacturers could talk about safety but there was no objective measure
I'm going to posit that this is the one of the main reason for the fall from 2000 to 2010
Yeah it is hard to do anything meaningful - most introductions will have an impact measured in decades and some, like improvements in crash barriers, signage, lighting, tyres are a continuous thing.
And there are a few I missed out too: NCAP and tighter legislation of crash safety, skid protection, power steering, etc