Thoughts On Road Safety
(25 April 2005)
I have felt for some time that there is a long-term psychologically-based plan to pressurise the modern motorist into mute acceptance of whatever further rules and financial burdens are placed upon them. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who control our national finances consider the motorist an easy touch when imposing ever more stringent penalties together with of course an increase in fines to boost the national exchequer.
Only recently a report referred to in this magazine showed that out of £42 billion per year contributed by the motorist, only £17 billion is spent on public roads. There is no doubt that our roads are becoming ever more congested, and of course the fashionable explanation is the increasing number of cars.
From information I have recently read, however, the increase in the number of lorries should also be a matter of some concern. It has been alleged that of the many new supermarket distribution centres due to appear throughout the country, just one (at Greenham Common) will have 700 lorries flowing in and out of it every 24 hours, while between 35% and 40% of lorries on the UK roads today are engaged in food distribution covering in the region of a billion kilometres per year.
In 2002/3, it is alleged that just four supermarket companies alone increased their distribution fleets by 20%. Because of the fierce price competition between the food industry giants, the small local shops have almost disappeared. Politicians would say that the public can obtain cheap food, but only of course if they use their cars to drive to the outlying supermarkets. It is alleged that only three out of ten villages in the UK have a local shop.
We are often alerted to the dangers of tailgating by cars on motorways, and quite rightly so, but in my experience a very common sight are lorries following each other so close it would be almost impossible to get a car between them. In view of their powerful air brakes, it only needs the lead vehicle to stop suddenly to risk a possible serious accident.
UK drivers are, I believe, in second place on the list of safe drivers in Europe. Our record in relation to accidents involving children is not so good. This disturbing and tragic fact should of course be of great concern to everyone, and is seized upon by representatives of road safety organizations using emotive phrases such as accusing the motorists of "killing our children". We also have road signs saying "Kill your speed, not a child".
There is, however, another side to the coin. There appears to be no central policy with regard to road safety education in schools now. Whatever happened to the Green Cross Code? There is a famous quote by priests in one of the world's leading religions, namely: "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man."
This could be applied equally to road safety training in schools. No mention is ever made, either, about the hundreds of parks and school playing fields dug up, either to build houses, or because the schools need the money. All this appears to be ignored by the road safety organisation members. It is easier to blame the motorist.
"Road calming" is a commonly-used phrase nowadays. One example of it is narrowing a road to a width of one lane on the approach to villages. Far from calming road users, it can be merely a source of additional stress to drivers who have no intention of speeding anyway, and certainly does nothing to slow the traffic except for literally only a few yards.
Another remedy is the frequent use of speed humps. These certainly slow traffic down, but if recent reports in the press are anything to go by, are a contributory cause of hundreds of deaths per year where ambulances are unable to get to patients fast enough, or to hospital, as a result of heart attacks and other emergencies.
I am not against the use of cameras in the interest of road safety. To have one on the approach to a village in support of a speed limit is in my view a far better solution than blocking half the road or using speed humps. Unfortunately this raises the question that if it were 100% effective, might it be viewed as too expensive?
Despite the increased use of cameras throughout the country, the tragedy is that the number of fatal accidents is reported as rising. In consideration of the amount of revenue they generate however, will there be any incentive to produce a more effective alternative?
Add new comment