Today the Government is announcing a review of the points system for speeding. Also being considered are measures to reduce drink-driving and drug-driving and, of course, the use of speed cameras is rarely out of the news.
These may all be good things, but there is a problem - a trap that all the political parties fall into. The trap is to measure success by the number of deaths and injuries on the roads: the lower the number, the better we're doing. When it goes down, everyone cheers and says "but we need to do even better". When it goes up and everyone expresses concern.
It's an example of our old friend, the inappropriate target. We're all familiar with targets having undesired effects in schools, hospitals and police forces where working to the target becomes more important than delivering a good service. The same is true in road safety.
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. One way to cut deaths on the roads would be to make the roads safer for everyone, but that's not what's happened. What we've actually done is made the roads safer for car drivers and more dangerous for everyone else. The result is pedestrians and cyclists scared off the roads and, without them there, the number of deaths falls.
But surely that's not what we want. We don't want our roads in towns and villages to be the sole preserve of motor vehicles. We don't want parents scared to let their children out of the house alone. We don't want elderly people trapped in their homes. That's what destroys communities, kills local shopping centres and leads to all sorts of social and health problems cropping up.
It's strange, but the evidence seems to support it: by making cars safer for their occupants (who then drive more recklessly because they can) and being fixated on separating our different forms of traffic, we do more harm than good.
The answer? End this fixation on the raw number of people killed and injured on the roads. Instead, look at the sort of environment we want to live in, the freedoms we want people to have in and out of their cars, the towns and villages we want our children to grow up in.
If we really want to, we can cut road deaths much lower. Ban cycling, ban unaccompanied minors from being outside the home and encourage everyone to drive or take the bus everywhere instead of walking. Is that what we want?
Cameron turns both ways
15 minutes ago


6 comments:
The best safety device...
"by making cars safer for their occupants (who then drive more recklessly because they can)"
To me this makes a case for psychological testing of would-be drivers - before they are ever allowed behind the wheel with a provisional licence. In other words - if you are going to drive more recklessly just because you are required by law to wear a seat belt should you be driving at all? I don't think so.
Personally I just accept that if some ape drives out of a side road straight in front of me so that I have no room or time to do anything except hit him - wearing a seat belt cuts my risk of injury or death.
I'm concerned about what we are counting. Given the improvements in roadside medical care (properly equipped paramedics and doctors attending road crashes, air ambulances) it seems to me that a decrease in road deaths would be expected from these changes - otherwise there seems little point in their being implemented. Has anyone factored this into the statistics?
Cars themselves havebecome 'safer' in the use of crumple zones to absorb impacts - another factor in reducing deaths and serious injuries.
Has the term 'serious injury' changed over the years? In days of old a major leg break might keep you in hospital for weeks or months - now they might pin it and send you home within a few days.
I think it is very difficult to look at road crash statistics (I prefer to call them crashes, not accidents - an accident is somehting which is no-one's fault) and unscramble any one factor as a cause of increase or decrease in casualties - there are so many interacting factors.
The trouble is, anonymous, that pretty much everyone drives more recklessly when we feel safer so under your scheme there'd be no-one left to drive at all.
It's called risk compensation and there's good evidence that it's just human nature.
Imagine you're crossing a bridge high above a ravine. Imagine it's a rickety rope bridge, swaying all over the place. How carefully do you cross? Now imagine it's a much safer solid bridge with metal railings. Do you still take as much care, or do you modify your behaviour to take account of the reduction in risk and stride boldly across?
It explains why more children died in car accidents after child seats became compulsory.
"pretty much everyone drives more recklessly when we feel safer"
Speak for yourself.
I think your bridge analogy is a poor one. Clearly the rope bridge is intrinsically less safe than the solid one and requires much more care to cross it safely.
If you are driving a car along a particular stretch of road driving might be intrinsically as safe without a seat belt as with one. It just depends on your own willingess to drive with the appropriate standards of care. Some of us manage to do that.
However if you are in a collision with some other vehicle then assuming you did not contribute to the collision through your own driving wearing a seat belt might save you from death or serious injury.
I refer you to the crash in which the late (much lamented) David Penhaligon died - not wearing a seat belt and as I recall the cause of death was transection of the aorta
Anonymous,
I can't speak for myself - there's no sensible way I can judge my own driving accurately. What I can do is look at the research for drivers as a whole.
If you've come up with a way to accurately assess your own driving and you've tried doing it when you're breaking the law by not wearing a seatbelt and when you're following the law then good for you.
"there's no sensible way I can judge my own driving accurately"
For how long have you driven? Roughly how many miles? How many penalty points & disqualifications?
"and you've tried doing it when you're breaking the law by not wearing a seatbelt"
I have no problem about wearing a seat belt - I always wear one when I'm in a car.
Post a Comment