Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Jan 21, 2020 06:21

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 14:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297307/Country-roads-deadlier-city-Motorists-likely-die-rural-routes-help-takes-longer-arrive.html]Daily Mail by Ray Massey[/url] wrote:
Country roads deadlier than the city: Motorists more likely to die on rural routes as help takes longer to arrive

Rural Herefordshire is the deadliest place in the UK to drive
New tables were launched by Transport Minister Stephen Hammond

By Ray Massey

PUBLISHED: 01:59, 22 March 2013 | UPDATED: 01:59, 22 March 2013

Comments (15)
Share


They may be idyllic - but beware: country roads are the deadliest places for drivers, new research has revealed.

New figures released by the government show that although more accidents take place in cities, motorists are more likely to die in a collision if it takes place on rural roads.

The high rate of deaths on rural roads is partly because such routes are more isolated and help takes longer to arrive.

Rural Herefordshire emerges as England’s deadliest county, with the highest number of road deaths compared to population density.
Deadly: They may be picturesque, but country roads are the deadliest place for drivers according to new figures

Deadly: They may be picturesque, but country roads are the deadliest place for drivers according to new figures

Some 36 people died in 2011, representing 0.76 people in every 10,000.

Herefordshire was followed by North Yorkshire (71 per 10,000), Wiltshire (67), Lincolnshire (64), Warwickshire (61), Cumbria (60), Leicestershire (59), Rutland (52), Somerset (51), the east riding of Yorkshire (50), and Milton Keynes (49).

Lowest with no reported deaths were Middlesbrough, Darlington, Slough, Portsmouth and the City of London.

The City of London also has the most crashes overall per 10,000 population - way ahead of second and third place Westminster and Surrey - and it also has the most crashes resulting in serious injuries.

More...

Pictured: Devastating damage caused to car in which motorist died after it was hit by London-bound train on level-crossing
Number of people living past 90 has trebled to 440,000 in the last 30 years
Boys born today will live eight years longer than those from 1980

As well as showing just the raw number of deaths and injuries, the new online database also measures the figures against population densities, traffic levels, road lengths and local authority spending on road safety.

The tables were launched by Transport Minister Stephen Hammond at a road safety conference organised by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for transport safety (PACTS) called ‘Lies, damned lies and statistics: understanding road casualty trends and causes’ held at the Royal College of Surgeons in London.

The tables also compare casualty rates against road safety budgets.

The council with the highest rate of people killed or seriously injured per £10,000 spent on road safety is the London Borough of Barnet - with 1,120 people killed or seriously injured per £10,000 spent on running costs such as road maintenance and repainting white lines.
Blackspots.jpg

Barnet said the figures were ‘skewed’ because of ‘accounting issues’ linked to changes in the way it allocated its road safety budget.

Next from bottom was rural Northumberland - England’s least populated county - followed by and Rotherham.

The lowest rates of casualties for the money spent were seen in Ealing, Blackburn and South Gloucestershire.

Ministers say highlighting the best and worst performers will allow drivers and other road-users to see whether they are getting value for money from their councils in cutting the carnage rates on the nation’s roads.

As well as putting casualty figures into context, the site provides a mapping facility so people can see how many cyclists or children have been involved in collisions on a particular road.

Road Safety Minister Stephen Hammond said: ‘This new comparison website will give local residents a more accurate picture of their council’s performance in reducing road casualties and will allow councils to make more meaningful assessments of the work they are doing to improve road safety.

'If a council is performing particularly well, then I want to see them sharing best practice with others so that they can improve and people across the country can benefit.’

One silver lining of the economic downturn is that it is dramatically cutting the number of deaths on Britain’s roads, the PACTS road safety conference heard.

Since Britain went into recession the number of people killed on Britain’s roads has fallen by more than a third, from 2,946 in 2007 to 1,901 in 2011, according to a report from TRL - formerly the Transport Research Laboratory - launched at the conference.

Louise Lloyd, senior statistician at TRL said the economic mood of the UK is resulting in a fall in traffic volumes as motorists cut out discretionary journeys.
Safer: Urban roads are far safer for drivers because they are less isolated and it takes less time for help to arrive

Safer: Urban roads are far safer for drivers because they are less isolated and it takes less time for help to arrive

Drivers are sticking to slower speeds to save fuel costs, and drink-drive casualties are declining as people sacrifice nights out.

The ‘squeeze on spending’ is also resulting in a drop in young males taking their driving tests.

Miss Lloyd said: ‘It appears that in prosperous years people may have been over-confident in their driving style, taking more risks with speed and drink-driving for example.

'External influences such as the recession and weather patterns have caused people to be more cautious about their safety on the roads, leading them to drive more carefully.

‘It is this change in behaviour which is directly affecting the number of fatalities on our roads.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2OH0JO700
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(I will edit this later)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 00:55 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Now there's a bit of research that sounds fraught with confounding factors! Of course big cities will be better "per head of population"! They are likely to have more inhabitants that don't drive!!! Surprised about the city of London though - Presumably that includes crashes involving pedestrians an cyclists too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Death rate needs to be organised by billion vehicle miles... any other comparison is nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 20:39 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
teabelly wrote:
Death rate needs to be organised by billion vehicle miles... any other comparison is nonsense.


A comparison against vehicle hours would also be useful, particularly when comparing bicycle use against motor vehicles and urban versus motorway use for example. In some respects time would be a better measure of exposure to hazard than distance traveled.

The deaths & injuries per £10000 metric is just weird though, what does it tell you?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 21:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9266
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
City vs Country is like comparing techniques to join wood vs techniques to join metal . Differnt skillset involved . Almost the same as someone from the sticks ending up on a motorway in the busy ( but not static) hour . Then again are soley country drivers being compared against soley town drivers ? There's too many variables that IMHO don't seem to have been considered .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 23:09 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I often think it should be "per passenger journey", rather than per million vehicle-miles. That might make it fairer when compared to walking and cycling. It would also be better for comparing rural and urban areas, as urban journeys are likely to be shorter. It's the same effect that makes air travel look so safe - because nobody gets on a plane to nip down to the supermarket, and you can get a lot of people on a plane!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.262s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]