Reaching speed limits |
|
|
|
||||||||
Department for Transport statistics reveal that 3,508 people were killed on Britain’s roads in 2003, 2% more than in 2002. The number of people seriously injured fell to 33,707, 6% lower than in 2002. Total casualties last year were 290,607, 4% lower than in 2002.RoadSafe director Adrian Walsh says: “There is a tremendous amount of robust scientific evidence, based on extensive data, that in a given situation, higher speeds mean more accidents, more severe accidents and more deaths.”In calling for an anti-speeding campaign to be launched in a similar vein to the long-running crackdown on drink-driving, Mr Walsh says: “The drink-driving campaign was successful in changing public perception; its success was attributable to good public education, accompanied by effective enforcement. “The campaign achieved a change in psyche of the general population that was not a direct consequence of enforcement methods alone. The campaign needs to continue, as the drink-drive message still needs to be conveyed to younger individuals who may have missed the message first time around.“The same re-framing needs to take place with excessive speed to convey to the public that this behaviour is not acceptable. The challenge is for speeding to be seen as equally anti-social as drink driving.“Safety campaigns with the same intensity as the successful drink-driving and seatbelts should be undertaken aimed at changing attitudes to speed. Public opinion on the merits and drawbacks of speed is a major impediment to progress. The motoring public still rejects the speed message and, while agreeing to drink-driving concepts, feel victimised in relation to prosecution as a result of speeding.“Attitudes to speeding behaviour must become the focus of initiatives to inform the public to the dangers and anti-social tendencies of speeding behaviour.“Facts on the causes of crashes and collisions and the effectiveness of speed cameras must be brought to the public’s attention to counteract misinformation.”Research by TRL reveals that:
Meanwhile, research at Napier University shows that individuals are aware that the speeds they normally adopt when driving alone are actually unsafe. For example, motorists admitted they slowed down when a child accompanied them and when they saw a speed camera.RoadSafe’s campaign call is built around a driver education programme that highlights the cost of speeding – death, injury and material damage. It has also called for driver education to be included on the school syllabus with an emphasis on speeding.The organisation also wants driver training to place greater emphasis on the effect of speed on the control of the car and the dangers caused by excessive speed. Mr Walsh says: “Those who drive in the course of their work, whether in a company-supplied vehicle or not, are proven to be at higher risk possibly because of the pressure they are under to get to their destinations quickly, often through poor time management or badly planned work schedules. Under health and safety regulations, employers have a duty to ensure that their drivers remain competent – many schemes are now being successfully used, but there is a need for much more development in the future, using risk-based techniques.”He adds: “Persistent speeding offenders – more than three speeding offences within one year or five within three years – should have to undertake a retraining course at their own expense.
“Cameras are a benefit to safety. However, the problem is the perception that the police strategy is to ‘catch you’ rather than to ‘prevent you’ from speeding.”RoadSafe has also called for improved speed limit signage, such as painted speed limit roundels on roads and more signs on or near cameras and camera warning signs to signal to motorists what the limit is that is being enforced, thereby making compliance with limits easier for drivers.The organisation also wants national speed limits to be reviewed to ensure they are appropriate to road design and layout and, in the process, make it easier for motorists to understand what limit actually applies. This, RoadSafe argues, would help reduce the number of “inadvertent speeders”.“The confusion caused by the current unsigned national speed limit, with local variations, needs to be addressed. Many drivers simply do not know what the limit is. A solution would be to impose limits to different types of roads according to their features. Such a system would present a logical classification of roads to the general public,” says the policy. But, RoadSafe says that any move to raise the national limit from 70 mph to 80 mph must be “carefully considered” as it is highly likely that there would be an increase in death and injury in free-flowing motorway traffic by about 10% with deaths up by 15%. Equally, RoadSafe says that as many journeys in urban areas are less than one mile, lowering the speed limit to 20 mph or below could encourage people to walk or cycle instead of drive.The policy also calls for greater emphasis to be placed on road design to encourage drivers to maintain an appropriate speed, with problem areas where excessive speed leads to a high incidence of crashes and collisions engineered out. That is one of the aims of European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP), which aims to do for road improvements what the European New Car Assessment Programme has done to improve car design (Roadsafe: winter 2003). The policy document says: “Good road engineering can contribute approximately 7% to achieving safety improvements; the remainder is realised from a combination of technology, the adoption of better driving behaviour and the use of enforcement strategies.”RoadSafe wants vehicle manufacturers to use technology to make it easier for drivers to conform to “safe speeds” and it adds: “Interactive technology which controls the vehicle’s speed according to the speed limit and external conditions should be introduced as soon as it has been properly tested and evaluated.”The organisation also suggests that the government should regulate the provision of vehicles with top speeds substantially in excess of maximum speed limits; more variable message signs and interactive road signs should be erected; and that speedometers should be calibrated in line with speed limits, which tend to be at 30, 50 and 70 mph rather than 20, 40 and 60 mph as is sometimes the case now. The report “Reducing Speeds Will Save Lives” can be accessed on the RoadSafe website www.roadsafe.com |
||||||||
| |
