Road Safety - Decade of Action

Visit the new website.

'No excuse' is delivering in Dorset - 50% reduction in fatalities

reposted: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1324.html

'No excuse' is delivering in Dorset

Big falls in Dorset’s KSI (Killed Seriously Injured) and fatality figures are being largely attributed to ‘no excuse', a yearlong mass enforcement and publicity campaign.

Provisional casualty data produced by Dorset County Council suggests a 50% reduction in fatalities and a KSI  reduction of almost 20%, compared with the same period last year.

‘No excuse’ was launched by Dorset Road Safety Partnership in January 2010 and runs until the end of the year.

Robert Smith, road safety manager for Dorset County Council, said: "Dorset County Council has struggled to get anywhere near its KSI reduction targets in recent years, but the astonishing impact that this partnership project is having indicates we were right to replicate the approach taken by our colleagues in Essex.

“A combination of long-term, targeted mass overt and covert enforcement, supported by non-stop advertising and publicity, seems to be working."

The latest stats reveal that more than 16,000 motoring offences have been detected by the enforcement team.

Robert Smith added: “Brand awareness of ‘no excuse’ has increased to 93%. Of the 7% who said they hadn't seen or heard about it, the vast majority were visitors from outside Dorset, suggesting an astonishingly high awareness level."

As part of the ‘no excuse’ education options instead of fines and penalty points, Dorset Police have introduced an on-line seatbelt referral course.

For more information contact Robert Smith on 01305 224680.

About Car Active eSafety by crabsallover

Car Active eSafety systems can prevent accidents from happening & could save 6123 lives & prevent 135,834 injuries on European roads each year*. In the long run we want a world where cars don’t crash.


Whilst driving your car what would you rather do? Be well protected in a car crash with Passive Safety Systems such as seatbelts & airbags. Or never crash at all? If the latter (and who wouldn't?) your next car should be fitted with Car Active eSafety (CAeS) systems. In Europe these eight CAeS could save 6123 lives & prevent 135,834 injuries (1*) each year by 2020:-

1) Electronic Stability Control (ESC) In emergencies prevents skids / rolls. 3253 lives & 52,182 injuries saved If Fitted In (IFI) 75% cars.

2) SpeedAlert (SPE) Informs you about advisory & legal speed limits. 1076 lives & 34,887 injuries saved IFI 39% cars.

3) eCall (ECA) In a crash dials emergency services giving your cars' location. 728 lives saved IFI 50% cars.

4) Lane Keeping Support (LKS) Prevents your car drifting into the next lane. 678 lives & 17,296 injuries saved IFI 18% cars.

5) Emergency Braking (EBR) In an emergency automatically applies your car brakes. 193 lives & 10,925 injuries saved IFI 9% cars.

6) Full Speed Range ACC (FSR) Keeps your car at a safe distance from car in front. 101 lives & 9,774 injuries saved IFI 11% cars.

7) Driver Drowsiness Monitoring (DDM) Alerts you when you are sleepy at the wheel. 94 lives & 2,174 injuries saved IFI 4% cars.

8) Lane Change Assistant (LCA) Helps you to safely change lanes. 86 lives & 8,596 injuries saved IFI 9% cars.

Worldwide the roads each year have 1.2 Million (M) deaths & 50M casualties (3*). In Europe, 300M drivers have 1.3M accidents & 41,000 people die (2*). In UK in 2007, 2,946 died (49% car users, 21% pedestrians, 20% bikers, 5% cyclists, 5% other vehicles) & UK casualty rate was 199 casualties /100M km in 1967; 48 /100M km in 2007. (5*) In UK in 2008 (3*), 2,538 died of which 1,257 (again 49%) were car users, 10,711 were seriously injured with 149,188 car user casualties (injured or maimed). In UK in 2009 (6*) 2222 died, 222,146 reported casualties of all severities, 24,690 were seriously injured and 195,234 were slightly injured.

Refs: 1* fig. 12+13 tinyurl.com/3ym7jl9, 2* tinyurl.com/2w8sqa8, 3* tinyurl.com/lkrn65, 5* tinyurl.com/q3oxq 6* tinyurl.com/3abo3ex

Organisations urged to embrace Road Safety Week 2010 (22-28 November)

All organisations requiring staff to travel as part of their work are being urged to get involved in Road Safety Week 2010 (22-28 November) to help raise awareness of the need for slower speeds in communities to help reduce on roads.   

Road Safety Week is organised by Brake, the road safety charity, with the support of the Department for Transport, and many business organisations.   

The theme of this year’s Road Safety Week is ‘Kids Say Slow Down’, and children will be holding media launches in major UK cities telling drivers that ‘20 miles (30 kilometres) an hour is plenty’ in towns and villages. 

According to the official ‘Road Casualties Great Britain: 2008’ publication, an estimated 12 people are killed by drivers going above the speed limit or too fast for the conditions every week in the UK, making speed the biggest killer on our roads and devastating communities.   

Dr Will Murray, Research Director at Interactive Driving Systems said: Road Safety Week is all about encouraging international, national, regional and local awareness-raising, including business and community initiatives, communications and events to help improve road safety. In our experience over many years working with the likes of British Telecommunications (BT), Nestlé, Royal Mail, Wolseley and others we believe that work-related road safety is an excellent conduit for community road safety and are encouraging as many organisations as possible to participate’.   

Organisations can support the week in a variety of simple ways, examples of which are show at www.roadsafetyweek.org   As well as promoting Road Safety Week, Interactive Driving Systems is also further supporting the initiative by making available the following research paper:  Murray W and Watson B. Work-related road safety as a conduit for community road safety. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, May 2010, Vol 21 (5), p65-71.  Please email will.murray@virtualriskmanager.net for a free copy. 

Will Murray | 23 July 2010

European Road Safety Charter

The European Road Safety Charter is a European participatory platform made up of enterprises, associations, research institutions and public authorities. These actors undertake to carry out concrete actions and share their good practices in order to resolve the road safety problems that they encounter in their day-to-day environments. The objective of the Charter is to help reduce road fatalities. The Charter has more than 1.450 signatories. Join this community in action! Read more

eSafety Interactive Car

eSafety Interactive Car includes interactive images of eSafety technologies. A great version 1.0 and more images and videos in v2 will enhance it further.

eSafety effects database

The eSafety effects database has been compiled by eSafetySupport in order to maintain the uptodate knowledge of the effects of different eSafety systems or intelligent vehicle safety systems. The database is based on studies, conference papers and articles concerning the effects of eSafety systems, and particularly their safety effects. Links are given to all such sources, which are available in the Internet. The database is structured according to type of system or application.

Safety effects of intelligent vehicle safety systems

• Adaptive headlights
• Alcohol (inter)lock
• Anti-lock braking system (ABS)
• Automatic speed enforcement
• Blind spot monitoring
• Dynamic traffic management (Variable Message Signs)
• eCall
• ESC
• Extended environmental information (extended FCD)
• Lane departure warning
• Local danger warnings
• Obstacle & collision warning (including ACC)
• Real-time traffic information
• Seat belt reminder
• Speed alert

eSafety - European Commission on Road Safety

Vehicle technologies and road casualty reduction

Vehicle safety is a key strategy used to address ambitious targets for a safer road traffic system. Secondary safety technologies continue to deliver large savings; primary safety technologies are starting to contribute to casualty reduction and hold potentially large future promise. At the same time, new in-vehicle technologies under development have the potential to increase as well as decrease crash injury risk. Currently, there is uncertainty amongst road safety experts about the safety effects of some of the technologies that are being promoted widely in the name of safety. At the same time, more promising safety technologies, where benefits have been demonstrated, are being promoted or taken up at a lesser rate. Further research is needed urgently

eSafety - a definition

eSafety is defined here as a vehicle-based intelligent safety systems which could improve road safety in terms of exposure, crash avoidance, injury reduction and post-crash phases. This text discusses a variety of measures which are being promoted widely as 'eSafety' measures, the knowledge about which is slowly evolving, including information on the costs and benefits of measures.

eSafety measures - safety effects known

The evaluation of eSafety measures is a young science. However, research in the EU and elsewhere has confirmed that the following measures could make a large contribution to efforts to meet ambitious safety targets: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (advisory ISA, Speed Alert); seat belt reminders in all seating positions in new cars, electronic stability control, alcolocks for repeat offenders and fleet drivers, and event and journey data recorders. All are at different phases of implementation. In some cases, the safety effects of measures are known e.g. anti-lock braking in car, but the available evidence does not indicate clear safety benefits.

eSafety measures - safety effects unknown

Systems such as electronic driving licences and eCall hold promise. In general, most of the devices for improvement of braking and handling interfere with driver behaviour, and the questions of driver acceptance, risk compensation and driver reaction when the system is activated are important. Brake Assist, for example, is often cited as an eSafety measure, but its contribution to road safety is unknown. Collision Avoidance systems offer future promise and are receiving much attention, but will systems under development work in practice? Will systems address key safety problems and, if so, will the benefits be greater than other alternatives which have less active promotion?

EC and national initiatives

Since 2000, the EU institutions have played an active role in promoting eSafety policy and research. Sweden has been particularly active in promoting evidence-based eSafety measures in the national fleet and their approach should be taken up widely. The EU should encourage the early implementation of systems which have proven safety benefits and give priority in long-term development to systems that have significant potential to improve safety. Above all, the EU and Member States should establish a monitoring system to evaluate the design, development and implementation of new in-vehicle technologies and their short, medium, and long-term impacts on road safety.

Prediction casualty reduction

Although some aspects of this are being addressed within the research domain there is no accepted, systematic approach to predict the impact on safety of a new system. This is an essential component of any benefits analysis. An accepted, routine approach is now required.

Evaluating measures

A clear framework is needed urgently to identify, evaluate, deliver and monitor technologies which improve safety and to identify and discontinue work on those which cost lives. Measures described as eSafety measures; need to be demonstrably effective safety aids before they are introduced widely.

Consumer information

There is no information source that is readily available to the public to indicate whether the system offers large safety benefits or whether the system addresses other aspects of driving. A consumer information programme would be useful and should be developed.

Audi Lane Change Assistant (LCA) / Blind spot monitoring rewarded by EuroNCAP Advanced

click image for larger image

Blind spot monitoring

Blind Spot Monitoring is detecting other vehicles located to the driver's side and rear. This system helps you avoid a crash with a vehicle in the lane next to you by continuously screening the blind spots to the side of your vehicle.

On a motorway, a car which is far behind and can be clearly seen in the rear view mirrors. The Blind Spot Warning Light does NOT flash (red circle)

 As the fast approaching car in the drivers nearside lane enters the zone of the radar or camera, the Blind spot monitoring warning light flashes intermittently

As the car approaches, a point is reached where the car cannot be seen in either the interior or exterior mirrors. Typically this occurs when the car is just behind and to one side of the vehicle it is overtaking.  It is a common mistake for drivers to change lanes when there is a vehicle in this so-called “blind spot”, a manoeuvre which causes many accidents on European motorways.

Driver signals to enter lane (green circle) to nearside lane on left BUT then the Blind Spot Monitoring Warning light starts to flash continuously (red circle) indicating in time to the driver that a car is present in the blind spot. A potential collision is thus avoided.

As the other calls pulls away, the Blind Spot Monitoring light no longer flashes (red circle) and so the driver again indicates (green circle) to move left and then enters the nearside lane, safely. See Video below.

Several manufacturers have developed systems which monitor the blind-spot and help a driver change lanes safely. Some systems are camera-based, others rely on radar. Either way, the area to one side and rearward to the vehicle is monitored and the driver is warned when there is a vehicle in a position where it may not be seen in the rear view mirrors. Source: Euro NCAP

Audi Side Assist is a technology designed to help drivers to change lanes safely. Two radars, one on either side of the car, are mounted in the rear bumper.

At speeds above 30km/h, these radars monitor the traffic in a zone which extends from around 70m behind the car to a point just ahead of the driver, and includes the so-called ‘blind-spot’. However, Audi Side Assist does more than simply check for vehicles in this blind-spot. By measuring the distance and speed of vehicles approaching from behind, Audi Side Assist is able to calculate whether or not a change of lane would be hazardous.

If there is no apparent intention by the driver to change lane, a light situated in the door mirror on the relevant side of the car is illuminated. The light provides information to the driver that there is a potential threat. If the driver uses the direction indicator to signal that he intends to change lane, the warning light flashes more intensely, signifying to the driver that the manoeuvre he is about to make is potentially dangerous. The system works when the car is overtaking as well as when it is being overtaken, to ensure that the car can be safely returned to its lane.

What is the safety benefit?
Audi Side Assist is a technology developed by Audi to help drivers to make safe lane changes amongst traffic moving in the same direction at speeds above 30km/h on highways. The distribution of injury severities in accidents involving a lane change is similar to those which occur across all accident types. Audi Side Assist operates at speeds above 30km/h and is designed to address lane-change accidents which are typical of highway and motorway driving. Accordingly, it has the potential to help avoid higher-speed accidents and more severe injuries. Estimates vary as to the benefit which might be expected. One analysis predicts that lane change assistance technologies could affect around 20% of off-path fatalities in Sweden. Audi estimates that, in the accidents which could be addressed by Audi Side Assist, some 80 percent of the injuries are currently fatal or severe, compared to around a half for all accident types.

How has the system been assessed?
Audi have tested the system extensively during its development. Controlled tests were done on a track to establish the correct response of the system in a wide variety of overtaking manoeuvres, covering a range of relative speeds between vehicles. These trials were also used to ensure that, to the extent possible, false warnings are avoided i.e. that no warning is given for vehicles which are not in the adjacent lane, and which do not pose a threat. In addition, extensive road testing was done by professional drivers in different traffic and weather conditions. A customer survey has been used to demonstrate a high level of satisfaction by users, a critical parameter in ensuring continued use.

What are the limitations?

1. Audi Side Assist does not switch on by default at the start of each journey. 
2. The status of the system is stored in the key and automatically returns to the last setting used by the user of that key. 
3. The driver can manually turn the system on and off. 
4. In bends, Audi Side Assist may react to a following vehicle which is two lanes away, not in the next lane. 
5. Similarly, if lanes are unusually narrow (in road works, for example), the system may warn of vehicles in a non-adjacent lane. 
6. The system depends on clear detection by the two radars which might be impaired in adverse weather conditions (very heavy rain or snow etc). 
7. A mounted trailer might interfere with the radar’s operation. 
8. Audi Side Assist is automatically turned off when a trailer is connected to an Audi towing bracket but must be manually deactivated for trailers connected to brackets of other makes.

Availability
Audi Side Assist is rewarded for its availability on the Audi A4, on which it is offered as an option. The system is also available on other vehicles which have been tested by Euro NCAP, such as the Audi Q5 and Audi Q7.

Source: Euro NCAP

EuroNCAP Advanced - Car Active eSafety awards

Source: EuroNCAP

Paris - Euro NCAP presented the first Euro NCAP Advanced rewards at a press conference held on October 1st 2010 at the Paris Motor Show. Ten technologies developed by car manufacturers were rewarded for offering scientifically proven safety benefits.

Euro NCAP Advanced is a Euro NCAP initiative in response to the rapid development of new technologies available when buying cars for which there is no independent assessment. By rewarding advanced technologies, Euro NCAP is now providing an incentive to car manufacturers to accelerate the standard fitment of important safety equipment across their model ranges as well as offering more comprehensive guidance to consumers about the safety of new cars, helping them to make the right purchase decision.

The organization has rewarded the first set of manufacturers for their efforts in their development of new safety features. The 2010 rewarded advanced technologies are:

• Audi Side Assist 
• BMW Assist Advanced eCall 
• Honda Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) 
• Mercedes-Benz PRE-SAFE® and PRE-SAFE® Brake 
• Opel Eye 
• Peugeot Connect SOS 
• Citroën Localized Emergency Call 
• Volkswagen Lane Assist 
• Volvo City Safety

Euro NCAP Advanced is open to any technical system that has a proven safety benefit, whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary, as long as it is available as an option on one of the Euro NCAP tested cars and not already addressed by the current star rating.

The overall rating consists of an independent verification of a car by Euro NCAP based on crash tests and published protocols, The Euro NCAP Advanced assessment is based entirely on manufacturers’ data generated in their own defined test conditions and rigorously analysed by a team of experts appointed by Euro NCAP. In addition, Euro NCAP Advanced requires manufacturers to identify exactly what the safety impact of their technology may be in European countries, taking into consideration the different infrastructure, jurisdictions and at times driver behaviour.

Car manufacturers are pleased that Euro NCAP is launching an initiative which raises awareness of significant systems offering a safety benefit. Dr van Ratingen said: ‘Carmakers were involved in the development of the process and were very keen to get their systems into the assessment. We ended up having almost too many dossiers to cope with and we have more coming up in the next months, which is a clear sign that the industry is actively driving safety improvements, even when green cars are top on the agenda.’

Most systems rewarded at the Paris Motor Show were developed a few years ago and have been in the marketplace for at least a year or two. In the future, Euro NCAP Advanced will be able to use the methodology to assess completely new technologies, tackling areas of safety which have not yet been addressed.

Sometimes, it has proven very challenging for some carmakers to present a convincing case on which the Euro NCAP Advanced reward can be based. Not all of the technologies put forward in this first set of assessments have been rewarded. However, manufacturers can further develop their dossiers to demonstrate more clearly the benefits of their technologies, and Euro NCAP would be happy to reassess their systems at that stage.

So far, the dialog with manufacturers on their technologies is helping Euro NCAP to better understand the issues with the current generation of systems and fully digest the way carmakers have evaluated the performance of their systems both in laboratory tests as on the real roads.

The reward systems works two ways: on one hand by rewarding new innovations, Euro NCAP is now helping accelerate uptake of important safety features with the aim to make consumers more aware on the availability and function of these systems.

On the other hand, this ultimately provides Euro NCAP with the knowledge to develop future protocols that might be included in the current star rating. Indeed, the overall rating system with its four pillars is designed to make inclusion of new methods, as early as 2013, thus challenging vehicle manufacturers to make all-round safer cars.

Euro NCAP is confirming that other technologies will be assessed in the coming months and will be announced in 2011. Detailed information about the 2010 rewarded technologies, their safety benefits and the related cars is now available on Euro NCAP’s website: www.euroncap.com

For more details, please contact Marie Brasseur, Communications Manager at email or +32 2 4007746.

Road Safety UK Coalition Government Spending Cuts

source: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/MAKING%20IT%20COUNT%20-%20Final.pdf

Executive Summary 
The full extent of spending cuts will not be unveiled until the Treasury publishes its Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) expected in October this year, but early indicators from the coalition suggest that Local Government will take the biggest hit in budget deficit plans.

A cut of £780m for the Department for Communities and Local Government and a £1.2bn reduction to local authority grants combined with the removal of ring fencing for more than £1.7bn of local authority budgets mean that spending choices at the local level will become more complex and difficult decisions will need to be made.

... Legislation, funding and governance structures dictate that Local Government is the lead delivery agent of road safety activity and has made a significant contribution to the 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured (KSI) on our roads over the last decade. But road death and injury continues to plague our communities and must continue to be treated using a preventative approach.

The total value of prevention of reported road accidents in 2009, estimated to be £15.8bn. This includes an estimate of the cost of damage only accidents but does not allow for unreported injury accidents. A number of assumptions have been made to produce a broad illustrative figure which suggests that allowing for accidents not reported to the police could increase the total value of prevention of road accidents to around £30 billion.

The argument to improve road safety is therefore not simply ethically, socially and emotionally driven but also an economically sound policy area that will deliver real cost savings.

....  Spending on effective and well-evaluated road safety activity will not only protect members of your community but will also prevent the numbers of KSI from rising and presenting additional economic and social costs in your area. Road death and injury is expensive and demoralising but preventable. The following outlines the role which you can play in protecting the length and quality of life which your residents experience and offers guidance about where to look for additional financial and informative support.

More...

THINK! speed campaign 'exaggerated risks'

Road safety news: 17.09.10

RSS feed 

---

source: RoadSafetyGB

7 readers have commented on this story

The DfT has admitted that figures used in a THINK! anti-speed campaign overestimated the chances of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car at moderate speeds, according to a report in the Telegraph.

The Think! campaign told drivers that a pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30mph had a 20% chance of being killed, while at 40mph there was an 80% chance of death.

The Telegraph article says the figures used during the campaign were based on 1970s data, since when car design has changed radically and emergency medical care improved dramatically. It says that the latest research shows that the probability of death is now 7% at 30mph and 31% at 40mph.

Mike Penning, the road safety minister, said: “Road safety is a priority for the government but misleading statistics only serve to undermine our case, not help it. This government will be absolutely straight with the public. That’s why we have published this data as soon as we were made aware of it.

“However, the fact remains that the risk of death is still approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph. So no one should be in any doubt that 30mph limits protect pedestrians, and that to speed through residential areas puts lives at risk.”

Robert Gifford, executive director of PACTS, welcomed the publication of the updated figures.

He said: "This research puts together three sets of data and provides us with a picture of what happens to real people in the world in today’s environment. It is an important contribution to our knowledge about how speed can affect the chances of survival as both a pedestrian and a car driver in a crash.

"The key point is that the confirmation that injury risk rises substantially once cars are travelling at over 30mph in urban areas.”

Click here to read the full Telegraph news report.

---

Readers comments:

Let’s get this in perspective. The campaign in question was launched in 2004. The figures used were based on a 1992 paper, (Pasanen), which analysed data from 1979, (Ashton and Mackay). My understanding is that this was still a well regarded piece of research in 2004.

Obviously this latest research which looks at the risk of a pedestrian dying when they are hit by a car travelling at different speeds wasn’t around in 2004 – it was only published on Friday 17th September 2010.

I notice the THINK! team have rightly removed all reference to the old figures since the launch of this research. We as road safety professionals should now use the latest data in our work and amend any presentation slides or references we make to the old research.

The new research is also useful for it confirms that the risk of a pedestrian dying when hit by a car rises sharply above 30mph. Indeed, as has already been said it shows the risk of death is still approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph.
James Gibson Press & PR Officer RSGB

---

When this particular campaign was being run by the DfT, I was never comfortable with the information imparted especially when it came to the TV ads. It suggested that it was OK to hit a child at a speed less than 40 mph but didn't actually say it was unacceptable to hit someone with a car at all! As Vince Morley suggests,does this mean we can't trust any of the stats provided by the DfT? There are lies, damn lies and road safety statistics!
Joe - Sefton

---

The bottom line is still this: the faster you're going the more damage you'll cause. Can anyone seriously disagree with that? A 31% chance of death at a collision at 40mph should be enough to slow anyone down.
John Billington Sandwell

---

Let's hope it becomes a 'green light' for those campaigning to seek the truth, and not rely on outdated statistics.
Derek Reynolds, St Albans.

---

This is very encouraging.

There is so much spin and deception in road safety that it is refreshing to hear a little honesty for once. Let's hope this is a start towards a policy of honesty.

For instance, if we look at the reasons that pedestrians are killed or seriously injured, we find that up to 2% may have involved a vehicle exceeding a speed limit.

Therefore it's all very well telling us how dangerous it is to hit a pedestrian at a speed above the limit, but 98% of all pedestrian KSIs do not involve a speeding vehicle.

Therefore the entire national campaign, backed up by prosecuting millions of citizens, cannot make any noticable improvement to road safety for pedestrians.

And that's assuming the campaign does not have negative side effects resulting in more pedestrian KSIs.

www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/07_speeding.htm
Dave Finney - Slough

---

Is the DfT willing to fund the replacement of road safety partners marketing materials which were produced in good faith and which had been based upon their statistics - to ensure they are now accurate?
Jan Deans Dynamic Group

---

This is very worrying indeed.

I have used this campaign, and the figures quoted, on numerous occasions. We now find the statistics are out of date which effectively undermines all the work I've put in on this. Yes, it still proves that the higher the speed the greater the consequences (but didn't we know that anyway), but the general public can be forgivien if they now take the attitude of 'I don't believe what I'm being told' and therefore fail, or refuse, to modify their behaviour. I have always, perhaps naively, trusted the stats from the Think! campaign - it is disappointing to discover the innacuracies in this particular instance. How many more cases are there? Will I now have to research all the other statistics for all the other campaigns just to check they are accurate?

Added to the recent report by Dr McKenna (which I am still ploughing through) questioning the benefits of road safety ETP as a means to reducing casualties, it appears a case is being made to undermine the position of all RSO's across the country.

Will this be the green light for us all to be made redundant?
Vince Morley MK

Tyre safety guide

TyreSafe’s animated tyre safety guide is a set of ten easy-to-follow, digitally animated tyre safety lessons, designed to educate motorists about tyre wear and tyre pressure. The ‘Tyre Wear’ section encompasses wear and damage to tyres, tread depth, accidents and general tyre safety, while the ‘Tyre Pressure’ section covers why tyre pressure is vital to road safety, how to check pressure levels, where and when to adjust tyre pressure, as well as the associated tools and costs.

More...

Road safety experts issue joint statement in defence of safety cameras

source: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1152.html. Comments - some very long & detailed.

RoSPA and Road Safety GB have joined forces with other leading road safety organisations to voice concern about the switching-off of safety cameras.

To spark an informed debate, nine influential groups have put their names to a communiqué which unequivocally recognises safety cameras as an effective part of a much broader programme to save lives and reduce injuries on UK roads.

With many local authorities preparing to discuss cuts to their road safety budgets, it is feared decisions could be taken soon which may prove irreversible.

Before those decisions are taken, the communiqué’s co-signatories want to raise public awareness, demonstrate unity and feed the wider debate with facts.

The communique reads as follows:

We the undersigned agree that:

• Speed cameras help to save lives - an estimated 100 lives a year in the UK.

• Lives are saved by reducing speeding. Speeding significantly increases the risk of an accident happening; and also increases the severity of injuries in an accident.

• Cameras should continue to be used where casualty statistics show they are needed.

• Switching off cameras systematically would be close to creating a void in law enforcement on the road. Cameras currently account for 84 per cent of fixed penalty notices for speeding.

• Cuts might also threaten many speed awareness courses that give motorists an opportunity to learn about the dangers of driving too fast.

• While public spending needs to be cut, cuts must be justified by evidence. Cameras pay for themselves and currently make an important contribution to achieving compliance with the speed limit.

It is signed by:

• The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA): Tom Mullarkey MBE, Chief Executive

• The AA: Edmund King, President

• Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers (AIRSO): Graham Feest, Secretary

• CTC - the UK’s National Cyclists’ Organisation: Kevin Mayne, Chief Executive

• GEM Motoring Assist: David Williams MBE FIRSO, Chief Executive

• Institute of Road Safety Officers: Darren Divall, Chairman

• London Road Safety Council: Councillor Peter Herrington, Chairman

• Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS): Robert Gifford, Executive Director

• Road Safety GB: Alan Kennedy, Chairman

RoSPA has issued an evidence-based defence of speed cameras entitled: “Ten Reasons to Maintain Speed Camera Enforcement”. Click here to view the document.

Cars, Cops and Criminals - BBC 1 (now) - How speeding & inattention on roads kills

From Fast & Dangerous - a BBC 1 programme about the horrific death toll from speeding on British Roads. Watch the one hour programme until 6th September 2010: http://bbc.co.uk/i/tnqp4/

I'm trying to instill the fear of being caught back into the road user.

Supt. Steve Barry, Head of Traffic, Sussex Police 0'.50" & 3'10"

It's definitely a social problem that speeding is not considered 'a bad thing' in the UK

Supt. Steve Barry, Head of Traffic, Sussex Police 2'.10"

Anti-Social Driving
Anti-social driving can range from careless driver behaviour to deliberate activity. It not only affects road safety but also the quality of life in local neighbourhoods. With your help Sussex Police can crackdown on this behaviour.

 Click here to report antisocial driving in Sussex.

Human Rights and Speed Enforcement

How dare drivers drive faster than the speed limit! What right do they have to endanger the lives of me, my family and friends? Why aren't all cars fitted with Speed Limitation Devices, by law? Why aren't all speed hidden or covert?

As Slowerderbyshire (via Independent, via Facebook) says:-

"Current government, police and council policies regarding the setting of speed limits and their subsequent enforcement contravene the Human Rights Act, 1998. The articles being contravened include the following: 

• Article 2 “right to life” 

• Article 3 “prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment” 

• Protocol 1, Article 1 “peaceful enjoyment of possessions”

In 2004 the Department of Transport stated:

• The government expects all drivers to observe all speed limits on all roads at all times (except for emergency vehicles)

The government permits the police the routine use of covert speed cameras to catch drivers speeding “excessively”

The handbook for Safety Camera Partnerships states: 

• All cameras must be highly visible (rule 5) 

• Fixed/mobile cameras may only be used at a site with a significant killed/seriously injured record (rule 7) 

So government guidelines for safety camera placement require a disproportionate number of deaths or serious injuries before a camera may be deployed! The visibility guidelines along with the requirement for a high number of deaths/serious injuries mean that Safety Camera Partnerships are effectively prevented from enforcing the limits to the maximum of their ability. 

The guidelines also require that drivers be warned of speed enforcement well in advance of the cameras and that the cameras be highly visible. Research shows that the number of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the cameras has decreased. This decrease has not been statistically significant away from the immediate vicinity of the cameras. Research shows that most drivers just slow down in the immediate vicinity of the cameras and then speed up to their normal driving speed away from the cameras.

Highly visible enforcement strategies act to remind road users that enforcement is present and potentially increases both the actual and the perceived risk of detection. Non-visible enforcement acts to increase road user's sense of uncertainty and to prevent them from adapting their speeding behaviour at specific times and locations when speeding enforcement is clearly being carried out.

6 Recommendations

The rules governing Safety Camera Partnerships should be enhanced to permit the following: 

• Permitted to use safety cameras both covertly as well as overtly. 

• The only requirement for speed enforcement should be a history of speeding at the location in question. 

• Time average speed cameras to be used in preference to highly visible localized spot cameras. 

• Permit the use of 30mph repeater signs where appropriate/effective e.g. on a main road through a village