Are the roads to blame? Britain's "killer roads" under investigation; Fabulous turnout for women's Winter Wonder Ride; Artist's bike maps of London go viral; Vaccine required to race in France; Beeb's bike lane bulletins catch on + more on the live blog

TriTaxMan wrote:

I echo most comments on here.... it's not the roads that are the issue but the people behind the wheel of the vehicles that travel on them, for example if there is a single car crash involving a tight corner..... it is not the fault of the road it is the driver driving too fast for the conditions.

One definition of accident is "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."

There far too many Road Traffic Collisions which are caused by driver error and a tiny number of genuine accidents that the driver could not do anything about.  A SMIDSY is not an accident.... it is the fault of one driver not paying adequate attention

Again - not either / or. Yes - we have an overly permissive approach to drivers - they are the definition of "entitled" currently (cf "entitled cyclists"). However road design can - and must - play a part going forward. Much of our road infrastructure is historic - it has "evolved" (and not much) based on what was there before - which was suitable for walkers, carts etc. We've "upgraded" that and also added new stuff but with a pretty narrow focus. That's to cheaply (for very expensive infra!) provide for a high capacity of motorised traffic. We do some specific safety features (which definitely make a difference!) e.g. traffic lights. We improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists essentially by keeping them off the roads (barriers, restrictions) rather than considering their needs.

However because UK laissez-faire culture (that's my best guess) it doesn't do a great job at helping guide people. That's where the infrastructure itself lets you know what you should do. There are some rudimentary things like speed humps but generally we go so far and then cover ourselves legally by putting up a sign.

We could both guide drivers and reduce potential consequences. In the Netherlands many smaller roads are now one carriageway only with separated carriageways. No overtaking possible! There's a hazard completely eliminated. (Naturally cyclists and pedestrians have their own separate paths here.) There are plenty things our current engineers understand about working with fallible humans *. The will from above to change things / provide money is lacking. (It also requires the population at large to think this is worthwhile).

Consider this infamous junction - it's entirely possible to engineer out the current high rate of fatal SMIDSY. In other countries junctions in particular are treated with a lot of thought to ensure that people (drivers or others) only have to deal with one hazard at a time.

* Consider rumble strips alongside some roads. Waste of money! Shouldn't be required if we're all careful drivers! However people do veer off and these provide feedback which can prevent a crash.

You can design speed out of a road. Take a look at junctions, for example. All the curbs are curved so motor vehicles can turn into / out from a junction at speed. If you square that off and add a bollard then motor vehicles would have to do a 90deg turn into / out from a junction. Which would reduce their speed. They would have to 'tip-toe' their way around corners. 

Look at the pictures on World Bollard Twitter or the Car Drives into Building thread. Plenty of examples of the exact junction design you mention with cars sitting on the Bell Bollard or flipped because slowing down to negotiate a tight 90Deg bend does not seem to be taught anymore. 

Both you and Lukas are correct - you can and we should design the roads so they clearly indicate and reinforce the appropriate speed. But also plenty drivers are currently over speed and distracted. So both lots infra change (retraining engineers - although they understand this principle when building motorways...) and culture change needed. Neither quick!

If someone trashed on a bollard then in a sense it's done its job. Though it's sort of an admission of systemic failure that it's needed. I do wonder if it would help reinforce things if the offending car was impounded. If only for a period, assuming it wasn't written off anyway. Or the driver was given a stop-go for weeks / months.

The car trashing bollards are normally to blame for trashing the cars with locals then claiming "The council need to remove this bollard as it is dangerous". I think the cultural side is alot further behind then the infra side in most cases. 

You can design speed out of a road
Yet, the other topic about the doomed house by the roundabouts in Darlington shows that they're actually designing increased speed into roads so the little darlings don't have to go to all the trouble of slowing down, turning that heavy steering wheel, etc.

Lukas wrote:

You can design speed out of a road. Take a look at junctions, for example.

Have you seen how many cars overturn/crash on straight roads and on rural A-roads? No point putting kerbs and bollards there.

Driver behaviour is the problem, whether people like it not. It's entirely possible to drive safely, it's just that many people have been fooled into thinking that they don't need to.

Simon E wrote:

Lukas wrote:

You can design speed out of a road. Take a look at junctions, for example.

Have you seen how many cars overturn/crash on straight roads and on rural A-roads? No point putting kerbs and bollards there.

Driver behaviour is the problem, whether people like it not. It's entirely possible to drive safely, it's just that many people have been fooled into thinking that they don't need to.

Yes... but. Can we better train drivers? A bit.

Can we provide rapid feedback to them when driving badly? We effectively don't now - after you've done your test that's it unless you crash and / or get arrested? Yes - via enforcement mostly but also maybe regular driver restests, "tech" in cars and prompts from road infrastructure. After all we have bends on motorways to try to keep 'em awake and rumble strips...

Can we make everyone an advanced driver / a saint? No. Humans are human, follow rules more or less, are always distractable. I'm quite happy with more enforcement but don't want too many police. After all if they solved the problem you can be sure they wouldn't just all retire!

One way to get round the problem is by having much less driving. I believe that this does in part need infrastructure however (even if just pinched from existing car infra). If we can move that way there there are some virtuous circles to be entered into: more use of walking, cycling / public transport -> better provision for them -> fewer trips driven -> fewer drivers on the road so less pressure / stress in towns and better understanding of cyclists / walkers (because drivers and their loved ones are also) -> easier to identify / address the "problem" drivers -> better driving -> more pleasant to be walking / cycling at the points you interact with drivers etc.

Simon E wrote:

how many cars overturn/crash on straight roads and on rural A-roads?

So the right questions always are how many indeed? Salience is not the same as frequency. Also what's the cost (to driver, to others, to taxpayer having to fix the damage including to driver)?

On a road behaviour continuum of "wild west" (e.g. the roads in India which I believe are fairly dangerous) to "total order / control" (doesn't exist - or it's a railway) where are we? I agree there is definitely a long way to go in making driving a less casual affair both in regulation and culture. I think infrastructure has an important part to play in that too - I don't believe we can just leave the roads as they are and e.g. police our way to an ideal on the roads, even if money could be found and culture could be changed to favour this.

Maybe not a simple answer - a tangle of what's culturally acceptable and not, the legal system, people's desired transport choices and how we provide for them.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Yes... but. Can we better train drivers? A bit.

If the desire is there we can do a hell of a lot more than "a bit"!

At the moment there is very little incentive for people to drive more safely. That could (and should) change.

But it needs a change in priorities, refocus on how car use affects everyone else in lots of negative ways (instead of blaming the road, the cyclist who "came out of nowhere" or asking people not to exercise outdoors due to air pollution. FFS).

This culture change, along with other interventions, can help reduce driver numbers and alter the current perception among so many that driving is a 'right' and the default mode of travel.

Simon E wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Yes... but. Can we better train drivers? A bit.

If the desire is there we can do a hell of a lot more than "a bit"!

At the moment there is very little incentive for people to drive more safely. That could (and should) change.

But it needs a change in priorities, refocus on how car use affects everyone else in lots of negative ways (instead of blaming the road, the cyclist who "came out of nowhere" or asking people not to exercise outdoors due to air pollution. FFS).

This culture change, along with other interventions, can help reduce driver numbers and alter the current perception among so many that driving is a 'right' and the default mode of travel.

Agree - although change needs "pull" as well as push. People are already prepared to pay what they feel is lots of money and suffer boredom and stress to drive. And their cars mostly sit in on place, immobile! They need to believe that there are alternatives to their car use. Rightly or wrongly many people don't currently. And often it's not a like-for-like - patterns of travel will by necessity change.

Change isn't easy. And we're looking at changing the majority, even if it's a minority of people who actually drive. To aid them people need quick positive rewards. Those of us who already cycle for transport know there are plenty!  The question is how to best help people over their personal barriers and ensure they don't have early negative experiences which put them off. Like driver aggression / close passes, inconvenient journeys, stolen bikes.

Have you seen how many collisions occur on a motorway? Three, sometimes four lanes of traffic, and the fuckers are all going the same way!!! How the hell can they collide with each other?

Damn! I forgot that OC was on (was watching something on Netflix)

I liked the way Lancs police coned off the cycle lane so they could pull drivers over.

With the number of speeding motorists, you'd think the cameras would have a quick payback on the investment required.

Yeah, I know that stretch of the A6 well, and ride or drive on it regularly. I have never seen that, ever. I suspect the Panorama cameras may have had a bearing on them being there? Or am I just cynical? Or do I just know Lancs police too well? I live ten minutes drive from Lancashire police headquarters, so you would think we would see a lot of police in the area. You would be wrong.

hirsute wrote:

I liked the way Lancs police coned off the cycle lane so they could pull drivers over.

Yeah, I noticed that too, and the fact that the reporter said not a word as the police illegally blocked the cycle route.

It was also noticeable that they kept calling collisions "accidents".  I thought the BBC had signed up to the reporting guidance that says "don't call them accidents."?  And that there was only a single mention of a vulnerable road user, a pedestrian child, but nothing on cyclists or motorcyclists.  A bit strange as I thought that the biggest rise in road deaths was to cyclists, but hey, this is the BBC and cyclists officially don't exist.

Overall, it wasn't quite as bad as I expected, and it could have been worse, but if it hadn't been for Edmund King, it would have been a lot worse.  Didn't start well with the reporter opting to drive a large van to prove how dangerous the roads are; maybe take a bicycle next time?

They broke it down into four big problems; disappearing traffic cops, speeding,  not so smart motorways and fewer drink driving checks.

But really, it's two big problems, low enforcement and bad driving.

The speeding, drink driving and 'smart motorway' (aka distracted driver) issues are all bad driving, things that greater enforcement should discourage.

All the A82 does is amplify the consequences of this bad driving, as it's a demanding road that is unforgiving of mistakes.

HoarseMann wrote:

They broke it down into four big problems; disappearing traffic cops, speeding,  not so smart motorways and fewer drink driving checks.

But really, it's two big problems, low enforcement and bad driving.

The speeding, drink driving and 'smart motorway' (aka distracted driver) issues are all bad driving, things that greater enforcement should discourage.

All the A82 does is amplify the consequences of this bad driving, as it's a demanding road that is unforgiving of mistakes.

really it's just one - Bad driving

Enforcement would reduce that problem 

Yep, it's not complicated is it!

There's no doubt that road design can mitigate some of the effects of bad driving. Such as:

• Segregated cycling infrastructure does a pretty good job of isolating cyclists from bad drivers.
• A crash barrier down the middle of a dual-carriageway does a good job of preventing a driver asleep at the wheel straying into oncoming traffic.
• A hard shoulder helps a lorry driver looking at their phone to not crash into a broken down car.

I can understand the people who have been affected by tragedy campaigning for road changes, as it is something tangible. However, by calling so vocally for such changes, they are glossing over the bigger problem that is driver behaviour and by deflecting attention from it, peversely could be making it worse.

As us cyclists know, you can't always be riding on high quality segregated cycling infrastructure. You have to dice with these drivers most of the time.

The belief in Northants is that the Police threw up loads of speed cameras when they could collect part of the revenue and then switched them off again when the rules changed and they weren't 'profitable'. Panorama boil this argument down to 'funding'. This is a result of BBC allowing talking heads to make statements without any challenge.

biker phil wrote:

Britain's killer roads? Bollocks. There is no such thing as a killer road. All roads are just tarmac. The killers are the imbeciles who drive on them. 

Could be maneating tarmac?

Or a cyclepath! That's the craziest tarmac.

Last time I checked you have to ride a bike and they only get mentioned once in a while. I'm quite happy to see an occasional mention. 

eburtthebike wrote:

Québec; unbelievable, staggeringly stupid, and guaranteed to stop people walking.  The ultimate in driver power and victim blaming of pedestrians.  Not very comforting to find out that in some places, peds are treated worse than cyclists.

Mind you, I'm assuming that their cycling safety measures aren't worse.

Isnt it all those countries which gave so-called "jaywalking" laws?

Nudge marketing in the 1920s that people crossing the road wherever they wanted were being stupid jay birds who basically deserved to die.

Luckily (so far!) the UK doesn't have those laws, as we all know.

(Imagine what TfLs advertising team would have got up to if we did...)