Understanding Road Safety
Created | Updated Nov 10, 2006
An Understanding of Road Safety
Road safety has everything to do with the risk we individually present on the road.
We all possess many bad points about our driving in amongst the many good points.
Road safety is entirely dictated by what faults we possess, by what degree and in what combination.
The greater the severity, degree and amount, the greater risk we pose.
Each and every one of our 32 million motorists have developed their own particular blend of driving style, so to address each one is an impossibility. From intelligence gathered regarding the causation of road traffic collisions, the major cause has not surprisingly been identified as speed, whether inappropriate of excessive. But even here, there is some confusion as to what truly defines speed.
Speed is a major contributor to the number of people seriously hurt or killed on our roads, but it is not the only factor. Any other failings in our ability as motorists could so easily result in a collision. The outcome of that collision will be determined by speed alone.
This is where road casualty causation statistics falter as many of the witnesses only see what has occurred from an external view point and will be oblivious to what errors were being made inside the vehicle at the time of the incident.
We know all of the types of error that the motorist make, we see it everyday when sitting beside others in their cars. Most of us will also know that we don’t signal or use our mirrors as often as we should, (both of these incidentally, given the right circumstances are potentially fatal errors) but are we aware of the many other errors we possess, possibly some but not all.
With knowing what types of error are made it is possible to broadly band people into driving risk categories.
Risk according to driver category
There are millions of different styles of motorist on our roads but broadly speaking we can band them into three main groups. They are the Advanced Driver, the Average Driver and the Underclass Driver. I will explain what these mean to road safety and the levels of risk each represents.
I’ll start by saying that you do not have to have passed the advanced driving test to be an advanced driver. Advanced driving is identified by how you drive and not, by what qualification you hold.
Similarly there are those who hold an advanced driver certificate but do not practice or sometimes even agree with what they have been taught. The teachings of advance driving have been based on hundreds of thousands of driving hours and experience from a range of sources.
The advanced driver is not perfect a perfect driver as the perfect driver is not believed to exist, but they are as close to this as they can be and as a result present the lowest risk.
The Advanced Driver
There are in the region of 300,000 advanced trained drivers on britains roads. In all they represent in the region of 1% of our motorists.
Their standard of driving means that they are around half as likely to cause death or injury on the roads than say, the ‘Average’ motorist.
As an advanced driver you stand in the region of a 1 in 18750 chance of being involved in a collision that results in death. This amounts to in the region of 16 deaths per year.
This group is therefore responsible for 0.45% of road deaths.
Average Driver
There are in the region of 28,675,000 average drivers on the road, this is a real mix of enthusiasts, petrol heads and really anyone who is not of an advanced drivers mind. This group includes racing drivers, rally drivers etc. whose skills do not translate well to the road.
They can generally be identified as someone who since passing the driving test has allowed their driving standard to slip. Simple errors such as crossing hands, driving too close, too fast, less mirror work and so on. (More examples of which are given later)
The average drivers risk fills the void from the underclass driver all the way up to the practising advanced driver.
They have an average 1 in 10990 chance of killing every year, almost twice the risk of an advanced driver.
This group is responsible for 74.5% of all road deaths.
Along with the advanced motorist, these groups are generally identifyable through either vehicle registration records or insurance records etc so it stands to reason then that most road safety initiatives have only been designed to target these two groups. As they are responsible for nearly 75% of all road deaths, this also makes the targetting of them legitimate.
Extreme Driver or 'Underclass of Motoring'
This group is a relatively small group and represents only 5% of our motorists. This is a mix of the uninsured, unregistered, unlicensed, basic poor standard, extreme speeders, disqualified drivers, the reason why this group is not represented as a higher figure is that a great many of them commit several of these offences at the same time.
They have a 1 in 1779% chance of causing death on the road every year.
As a group they cause 875 deaths annually which is 5 times that of the average driver and on balance are responsible for around 25% of all collisions.
As this group generally use unregistered or uninsured vehicles or both, they cannot be targeted by speed cameras and so are naturally a policing problem.
However with safety cameras now a permanent feature of our road system this allows police officers to deal with a far more concentrated pool of more serious offenders. Hence, this now more manageable pool of offenders justifies the much maligned reduction in traffic officers, as fewer officers are needed to deal with traffic issues. In addition to this, as the police are now targeting the more serious and prolific offender the benefits to road safety will be greater and far more economic. The alternative to get rid of safety cameras is unthinkable and would surely result in massive increases in local taxes needed to pay for a six fold increase in the numbers of police officers needed to start dealing with traffic issues.
In addition, nationally there has been an increase in the numbers of police officers who are now freer to deal with other criminal activity.
So speed cameras are making the roads safer for everyone and indirectly our homes.
So who is the safest driver?
The safest is the practising advanced driver. They have the lowest average level of risk posed to themselves or anyone else. The ultimate road safety strategy would be to train all of our motorists to advanced standard and for them to practice it. We would then see a reduction of around 90%-95% of road traffic casualties.
This though is never going to happen. There are not enough trainers in the country to effectively train our amateur motorists up to an advanced state.
Because this is never going to happen, casualty statistics will always be higher than the minimum, genuine fatal casualty rate (currently 175 per year). There is also a lot more that can be done to reduce the current level of 3500 per year. So what is the acceptable level of road casualties that we are prepared to accept? Somewhere between 175 and 3500.
The safest drivers or practising advanced drivers are already making their contribution. More practising advanced drivers in significant numbers will further reduce casualty rates. But the majority of collisions will always remain with our average motorists, who span the gap between the best and the worst. Bring the average standard up within this area and casualty rates will fall steadily and constantly as they hold the most potential for collision reduction. They will also be the most receptive to the suggestion of improving their driving skills.
Common driver errors
The motorist can be categorised by the severity and combination of mistakes they make. Each additional error will heighten the risk they represent and the severity of the risk is only increased by severity. Many of our motorists with years of experience will find that contrary to their own belief, the motoring experience they have accumulated on the road over the years, counts for very little. A novice who has recently passed the driving test will be of a far higher standard than someone with say 20 years experience who has allowed their driving standard to slip. The only thing that the novice lacks is the only thing an average driver has, experience. The novice driver then begins their own quest to develop their own particular blend of driving style ultimately ending up driving like their parents.
The desire is that once you have passed the most basic of driving tests, is to maintain these minimum standards and add experience to it. If the novice achieves this, they would have no requirement to take an advanced driving test other than to have their quality driving recognised.
The number and severity of the errors we make will determine the level of risk we pose to the other road users and ourselves. Poor attitudes, awareness, concentration, knowledge, anticipation all have an additional effect on standard also.
Many errors that we make are common to many of us; these include errors in the areas of:
Mirror work
Road positioning
Unsafe use of speed (includes excessive and inappropriate speed)
Anticipation
Not driving within the distance we can see to be clear
Driving to close
Lack of indication
Knowledge
Overtaking
Bad / inconsiderate parking
Crossing hands on steering wheel
Harsh acceleration
Harsh braking
Leaving foot over clutch in between gear changes
Never or rarely practised an emergency stop
Bad reversing (side road into main road)
Poor observations including blind spots
Failure to recognise road signs
Poor hazard recognition skills
This list is merely a brief example and should not be taken as comprehensive. I would have to say that most motorists have weaknesses in most, if not all of these areas and many more besides. These errors combined with excessive and inappropriate use of speed heighten risk.
So what is ‘Speed’
The errors we commit ultimately lead to the collisions we’re involved in. The inappropriate and or excessive use of speed only serves to enhance the severity of any collision. So, proper use of speed is incredibly important to master and adhere to.
The correct use of speed is a judgement; part of that judgement has been done for you in the form of speed limits (giving rise to the acceptable numbers killed on the roads, if there is such a thing), the remainder, so far has been left up to the motorist.
The roads have been studied and graded according to risk, the higher the risk the lower the speed limit and vice versa. This is a fairly obvious conclusion to come to.
The speed limits all over the country have been set for years, in the main, they are accepted as accurate. However, on occasion they need to be amended or corrected to reflect the changing conditions, hence, now we see the slow introduction of 20mph speed limits, which I don’t think anyone has ever complained about.
Excessive and inappropriate speed effects every area of driving. The faster you go the straighter the driving line needs to be, and so road positioning suffers. But more importantly, when any of us are driving there are certain observations that we must make to ensure that it is safe for us to proceed, these observations must be conducted all around the vehicle.
There are three zones of vision to the front, two to the near side, two to the offside and one to the rear. These areas must be consulted every few seconds whilst driving to keep the motorist well informed of his or her surroundings. They will then be better equipped to anticipate a situation and deal with it earlier. This then gives the driver the ability to ultimately change a fatal collision into a non-incident.
So the suggestion that increased speed increases concentration is nothing more than a selfish gesture that places the individuals personal safety first whilst at the same time increasing the risk presented to everyone else. This incredibly farcical idea has actually been debated by some motorists and brings into question their suitability for inclusion within serious debate.
What actually occurs is that the balance of observation is dangerously affected. The concentration on frontal zones of vision, are increased dramatically and those to the sides and rear are decreased. The risk then posed within these areas, to other vehicles and especially pedestrians, has increased dramatically. This is where we then get the excuses of, “I didn’t see him” or “He came out of nowhere”. When in actual fact they were not seen because the zone of vision the victim occupied was not considered important.
Increased speed reduces observation and as a consequence increases risk dramatically.
This is where Road Safety Cameras play such an important role; they are placed within proven high-risk areas. The motorists who comply with speed limits have no problem with them, having no need even to acknowledge their existence. Those that don’t comply with speed limits are forced to comply or run the risk to their licence and pocket. Little consideration given to the potential victims of their driving habits.
Excessive and Inappropriate Speed.
There seems to be confusion as to a definition of these terms. Here I will attempt to give you my own interpretation.
Before I do this though I want to explain ‘Speed Risk’ in a little more detail as it certainly applies to the following explanations.
It has been that around only 5% of all road traffic collisions are genuine accidents. This means to me that simply due to the presence of a vehicle on the road, even if every one were to drive to an advanced standard, then around 200 people would still get killed each year. This then suggests that there must to be an acceptable level of death on the road in order for the roads to exist. To completely eliminate death from our roads we would have to remove all vehicles. This will never happen so there has to be a level that is considered acceptable to retain the use of the motor car on the road.
As stated earlier, we will never achieve all motorists driving to an advanced standard, so the minimum level will never be as low as 200 deaths per year.
In 2003 there were 3508 people killed on the roads, so the acceptable level of death must be more that 200 and less than 3508.
By setting our speed limits as they are, an acceptable level of injury and death must have also been built into them. It must be accepted that some collisions will naturally occur and that some people will die as a result of them.
Having speed limits set as they are we expect a minimum of 200 deaths to occur, understanding the relation between death and speed we know that increasing the speed limit will only result in an increased number of deaths because people will be hit at greater speeds.
Excessive Speed
Excessive speed is basically exceeding the posted speed limit for any particular road. This speed limit already incorporates a certain level of risk to all road users. So by going over this limit only increases the risk we present. Collectively increasing the numbers killed on the road from the accepted limit of 200.
There was a failure to recognise this increased risk recently by a judge who could not see the inherent danger of a police officer who was unauthorised to drive his police vehicle at 159mph. Regardless of the fact that this particular police officer was highly trained or not the increased risk he presented to himself and others was clearly unacceptable.
High speed driving is trained because it is recognised that it is an extremely dangerous activity. Training does not negate the risk of a collision, but merely reduces slightly a massively increased risk in order to give the police officer a better chance of survival.
The defence witnesses of this particular case testified that they could not say that the officer in question was doing anything dangerous. Failing to recognise that the merely increasing speed was dangerous in itself. This brings their understanding of the relationship of speed and road safety seriously into question.
Inappropriate Speed.
We now know that going over the speed limit exceeds accepted risk levels. So inappropriate speed must relate to how we use speed within those limits.
Correct use of speed has always been related to road, traffic and weather conditions. On a clear road in good conditions we should be able to keep up to the posted speed limits, this is called making good progress. Everything else we come across is classed as a hazard, whether it be parked cars, junctions, pedestrians, road works traffic lights and so on. On the approach to these hazards a reduction in speed from the posted speed limit may be prudent. Certainly driving down a residential road with cars parked on both sides and only enough room for one vehicle to get through would be entirely inappropriate for a vehicle to negate at 30mph, yet so many vehicles still do.
This is where the motorist is expected to use their skills of awareness and hazard perception. Yet many don’t and so the authorities respond by placing 20-mph signs within these more than obvious areas.
This lack of hazard perception is certainly not confined to side streets and is applied pretty much everywhere else in the motorists daily driving.
Inappropriate speed is driving too fast for a particular set of hazards, not allowing yourself the time needed to deal with a situation safely if it arises.
Braking Distances
It is also worth saying at this point that the braking distances published in the Highway Code are still as pertinent today as they have always been. They relate to the maximum safe stopping distances, which some vehicles today are still only just maintaining.
If you can stop well within these distances then great.
There is another point to stopping distances that is always overlooked. And that is of the section pertaining to thinking distance. Your ABS may well stop your vehicle within 45 feet at 30 mph but that 45 feet only starts from when you have started to brake. The weak hazard perception skills of our average motorist will certainly delay the application of a brake pedal over the motorist who does recognise a hazard early enough to stop. No amount of ABS will stop a car if the danger has not been seen. Effectively it is the unaware driver who is artificially extending braking distances and rendering them as valid today as the Morris Minor who tested them.
Speed, Distance and Collisions
Another interesting issue is that at 40 mph you are travelling at a rate of 60ft per second. If a pedestrian stands out in the road in front of you who is 40 feet away then the impact speed will be 40mph regardless of ABS, tyres etc. At 30 mph you are travelling at 45ft per second. You will have started to break 15 feet before reaching the pedestrian and on contact your impact speed will be in the region of 20 mph or possibly even less. This 25% reduction in speed leads to a 50% reduction in impact speed leaving the pedestrian far greater chance of survival. 0
If however the pedestrian is standing 75ft away at 30 mph you would stop, at 40 mph you would hit them and still not stop for a further 45 ft.
Road safety features
Over the years this government have invested billions into our complex road networks to make them safer. Many safety devices have been created to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, which for many years have brought our fatality rates down and are keeping them down. It is for this reason and improvement in vehicle design that fatalities are reducing, not because of our average driver standard. Driver standards have changed very little for many years.
Such road safety devices are:
Traffic lights
Roundabouts
Pedestrian crossings
Railway crossings
One way systems
Dual carriageways and motorways
Road Humps
Road Safety Cameras
Yellow Lines
Speed Limits
Chicanes
All of these and many more besides have been created to slow the driver down in areas where the perception of hazard risk has increased, such as junctions, outside schools, high density pedestrian areas, country roads. These have been placed in these areas to force the driver to slow because the hazard recognition skills of many motorists are under developed or rather forgotten.
Many of the obstacles presented to the motorist have been designed to slow the driver down in areas of heightened risk, in effect enforcing a thought process rather than relying on the motorist to think for themselves. This is quite insulting for the average motorist but unfortunately, it is necessary. Sadly though, because of pressure on the government, we have to wait until at least 4 people have died or been seriously injured before road safety cameras can be installed. We should rely on risk assessments of particular stretches of road to assess whether they are in need of safety cameras. Not have to wait until the human suffering has occurred before recognising the risk motorists present in areas of elevated risk. Even after these deaths have occurred some organisations still question the value of placing Safety Cameras within these areas. The incredibly irresponsible argument presented here is that we have seen a heightened death rate and so the trend is unlikely to continue. These defences only display a credibility damaging lack of basic speed awareness and judgement that expels their inclusion from any sensible and reasoned debate.
The Impact of Road Safety/Speed Camera’s on Our Driving.
Speed cameras, contrary to some beliefs do so much more than affect speed. We now know that when driving we all make multiple mistakes, some we are aware of and others are not so obvious. But they are there all the time.
A collision can occur because of any of these errors and then the severity of the collision will be determined by the speed that we are travelling at.
A speed camera will slow us down, if we notice that it is there, but it will not make us drive any better. So in the event of a collision occurring because of any combination of our other errors it will be less severe.
Because of this reduced speed, the motorist has also been given more time to react. This has without doubt prevented many collisions from occurring and saved many unappreciative motorists from the pain of knowing that they have killed someone. There are just as many families who have people sitting next to them who would not have otherwise been there.
None of us drive through a Speed Camera intentionally and yet they catch out thousands, every week. This indicates that as well as their excess speed there are other issues with their driving. For example, poorer concentration levels than those who manage to slow down for them. So this clearly shows divides in driver skill, attention and awareness even in areas where prosecution is almost guaranteed. This in itself does not make them any worse a driver; it is just that their particular set of faults is different to those of other motorists.
So for those who slow down enough to drive through them at a speed which is not going to set them off. The impact of any collision now involved in for whatever reason; the effects are going to be significantly reduced.
So Safety Cameras like many other road safety initiatives compensate for the average motorists naturally weakened driver skill. In particular those, whose error base includes excessive speed. Within the limited area of speed camera placement, the roads have been made significantly safer.
Speed cameras are present on less than 1% of our road network, leaving the motorist to carry on driving to their normal standard elsewhere. The safety camera can only produce a positive result within its placed area. The desired behavioural change to the average motorist passes once they are clear of these areas. Without having changed the driver’s behaviour, their collective bad driving habits result in death and injury elsewhere, maintaining the numbers of road casualties.
Looked at from another view, with the numbers of people killed within safety camera sites reducing then numbers of those killed outside of camera sites must have increased. So the alleged natural downward trend of road casualties based on the responsibility of the average motorist, never existed. This has given rise to the following theory.
Collision Transgression
I have a theory called ‘Collision Transgression’ this theory basically in its simplest form means that a motorist who poses a risk on the roads is unlikely to change his or her behaviour until that change is either enforced upon them or they are involved in some tragic circumstance. Speed cameras are only likely to alter their driving habits whilst the motorist is in the vicinity of a speed camera.
Once free of them their driving behaviour returns to its normal elevated risk. The motorist then collectively continues to drive in this manner until someone has been injured or killed. The pain created by this event is usually enough, to influence a behavioural change. Which is why I believe driver education, after a tragic collision is almost valueless as the driver is unlikely to revert to the same standard as prior to the collision. The collision has itself affected that particular individual driving style.
In areas where speed cameras have been erected, the casualty reductions are proven, the average driver has been forced to slow down achieving the desired behavioural change and what would have been a casualty has now been prevented. But this has only prevented the collision occurring within this area.
Evidence of this is reflected in how the types of casualty have altered. We have seen a marked reduction in child and pedestrian casualties. This reduction caused by the increase in speed cameras located within the areas that pedestrians and children frequent. If speed cameras were ineffective then surely reductions within these areas would not have been realised. This goes a long way to support the theory that intelligent speed camera placement really works.
However if a driver is likely to be involved in a collision within speed camera locations, then it is reasonable to assume that he is just as likely or even more likely to be involved in a collision outside of speed camera areas. So the collision that is collectively bound to happen because of the manner in which these motorists drive their vehicles will still occur. Just less likely to occur now in the areas where speed cameras have been erected.
New sites for speed cameras are constantly emerging, why?
Because safety cameras, currently change the type and location where collisions occur. The previously high-risk areas have been addressed and so the problem moves onto another area, creating the need for ever more cameras in new locations.
This is also why the overall number of fatalities is remaining steady, because of the reduction in the number of new speed cameras currently being erected, a reduction due to the stringent rules applied to speed camera placement. Without these rules, more cameras would have been erected and more lives saved.
I have said it before, that to significantly reduce road casualty numbers there must be a massive increase in the number of speed cameras, or a change in driver behaviour.
I can only currently see a worsening of driver behaviour.
Vehicle Safety Features
It is true that engineering has improved. Vehicles are now more pedestrian friendly. But why was it necessary to make them this way in the first place?
ABS is an excellent addition to many modern vehicles. Why ABS braking systems? They enhance the braking effect of the driver not the vehicle. Unfortunately, some drivers are unable to perform an effective emergency stop, using unassisted brakes. Normal brakes may be just as effective as ABS, if you have the driver skill to control them.
Air Bags, again because the driver of the vehicle when involved in a crash has an improved chance of survival. An excellent piece of safety equipment designed to save the driver or their passengers.
Side impact bars and crumple zones, again to provide important protection for the motorist and passengers.
But why have all of these safety features been incorporated into the modern vehicle, quite simply because we, the motorist have created the need for them with our less than safe standards of driving. Even though Britain is among the best driving nations in the world, the best overall standard we can achieve is still less than adequate. We could be so much more.
If our average driver was better skilled, there would be a reduced need for these features and fewer people would be killed. The average driver has already been given the skills they need through their tuition. It is then left up to them how they proceed.
In reality bad driving is a matter of choice, each and every motorist on the road could improve their standard instantly by around 20%. The current choice is not to.
As a motorist I have to pay for safety features such as ABS, crumple zones, Air bags etc, the costs of these are transferred to me when I purchase a vehicle. Why? Because, the poor average standard of our nations driving has dictated a need for them. Yes, they certainly are great safety features and I would not do without them, but they are to vehicles as stabilisers are to a child’s bike. They are there to help stop you having a collision or reduce the suffering when you do. And crumple zones are there to make the impact softer when you do lose control of your vehicle. For those of us who do not need ABS they are a costly addition to our vehicles that we do not need and yet we are willing to stump up the cash for road safety sake. We do this willingly and without complaint as we realise the necessity for them.
So do not be proud of your ABS, be proud if you don’t need ABS.
I have an interest in road safety that has grown stronger since stopped driving instruction for a living.
Road safety has everything to do with the risk we individually present on the road.
We all possess many bad points about our driving in amongst the many good points.
Road safety is entirely dictated by what faults we possess, by what degree and in what combination.
The greater the severity, degree and amount, the greater risk we pose.
Each and every one of our 32 million motorists have developed their own particular blend of driving style, so to address each one is an impossibility. From intelligence gathered regarding the causation of road traffic collisions, the major cause has not surprisingly been identified as speed, whether inappropriate of excessive. But even here, there is some confusion as to what truly defines speed.
Speed is a major contributor to the number of people seriously hurt or killed on our roads, but it is not the only factor. Any other failings in our ability as motorists could so easily result in a collision. The outcome of that collision will be determined by speed alone.
This is where road casualty causation statistics falter as many of the witnesses only see what has occurred from an external view point and will be oblivious to what errors were being made inside the vehicle at the time of the incident.
We know all of the types of error that the motorist make, we see it everyday when sitting beside others in their cars. Most of us will also know that we don’t signal or use our mirrors as often as we should, (both of these incidentally, given the right circumstances are potentially fatal errors) but are we aware of the many other errors we possess, possibly some but not all.
With knowing what types of error are made it is possible to broadly band people into driving risk categories.
Risk according to driver category
There are millions of different styles of motorist on our roads but broadly speaking we can band them into three main groups. They are the Advanced Driver, the Average Driver and the Underclass Driver. I will explain what these mean to road safety and the levels of risk each represents.
I’ll start by saying that you do not have to have passed the advanced driving test to be an advanced driver. Advanced driving is identified by how you drive and not, by what qualification you hold.
Similarly there are those who hold an advanced driver certificate but do not practice or sometimes even agree with what they have been taught. The teachings of advance driving have been based on hundreds of thousands of driving hours and experience from a range of sources.
The advanced driver is not perfect a perfect driver as the perfect driver is not believed to exist, but they are as close to this as they can be and as a result present the lowest risk.
The Advanced Driver
There are in the region of 300,000 advanced trained drivers on britains roads. In all they represent in the region of 1% of our motorists.
Their standard of driving means that they are around half as likely to cause death or injury on the roads than say, the ‘Average’ motorist.
As an advanced driver you stand in the region of a 1 in 18750 chance of being involved in a collision that results in death. This amounts to in the region of 16 deaths per year.
This group is therefore responsible for 0.45% of road deaths.
Average Driver
There are in the region of 28,675,000 average drivers on the road, this is a real mix of enthusiasts, petrol heads and really anyone who is not of an advanced drivers mind. This group includes racing drivers, rally drivers etc. whose skills do not translate well to the road.
They can generally be identified as someone who since passing the driving test has allowed their driving standard to slip. Simple errors such as crossing hands, driving too close, too fast, less mirror work and so on. (More examples of which are given later)
The average drivers risk fills the void from the underclass driver all the way up to the practising advanced driver.
They have an average 1 in 10990 chance of killing every year, almost twice the risk of an advanced driver.
This group is responsible for 74.5% of all road deaths.
Along with the advanced motorist, these groups are generally identifyable through either vehicle registration records or insurance records etc so it stands to reason then that most road safety initiatives have only been designed to target these two groups. As they are responsible for nearly 75% of all road deaths, this also makes the targetting of them legitimate.
Extreme Driver or 'Underclass of Motoring'
This group is a relatively small group and represents only 5% of our motorists. This is a mix of the uninsured, unregistered, unlicensed, basic poor standard, extreme speeders, disqualified drivers, the reason why this group is not represented as a higher figure is that a great many of them commit several of these offences at the same time.
They have a 1 in 1779% chance of causing death on the road every year.
As a group they cause 875 deaths annually which is 5 times that of the average driver and on balance are responsible for around 25% of all collisions.
As this group generally use unregistered or uninsured vehicles or both, they cannot be targeted by speed cameras and so are naturally a policing problem.
However with safety cameras now a permanent feature of our road system this allows police officers to deal with a far more concentrated pool of more serious offenders. Hence, this now more manageable pool of offenders justifies the much maligned reduction in traffic officers, as fewer officers are needed to deal with traffic issues. In addition to this, as the police are now targeting the more serious and prolific offender the benefits to road safety will be greater and far more economic. The alternative to get rid of safety cameras is unthinkable and would surely result in massive increases in local taxes needed to pay for a six fold increase in the numbers of police officers needed to start dealing with traffic issues.
In addition, nationally there has been an increase in the numbers of police officers who are now freer to deal with other criminal activity.
So speed cameras are making the roads safer for everyone and indirectly our homes.
So who is the safest driver?
The safest is the practising advanced driver. They have the lowest average level of risk posed to themselves or anyone else. The ultimate road safety strategy would be to train all of our motorists to advanced standard and for them to practice it. We would then see a reduction of around 90%-95% of road traffic casualties.
This though is never going to happen. There are not enough trainers in the country to effectively train our amateur motorists up to an advanced state.
Because this is never going to happen, casualty statistics will always be higher than the minimum, genuine fatal casualty rate (currently 175 per year). There is also a lot more that can be done to reduce the current level of 3500 per year. So what is the acceptable level of road casualties that we are prepared to accept? Somewhere between 175 and 3500.
The safest drivers or practising advanced drivers are already making their contribution. More practising advanced drivers in significant numbers will further reduce casualty rates. But the majority of collisions will always remain with our average motorists, who span the gap between the best and the worst. Bring the average standard up within this area and casualty rates will fall steadily and constantly as they hold the most potential for collision reduction. They will also be the most receptive to the suggestion of improving their driving skills.
Common driver errors
The motorist can be categorised by the severity and combination of mistakes they make. Each additional error will heighten the risk they represent and the severity of the risk is only increased by severity. Many of our motorists with years of experience will find that contrary to their own belief, the motoring experience they have accumulated on the road over the years, counts for very little. A novice who has recently passed the driving test will be of a far higher standard than someone with say 20 years experience who has allowed their driving standard to slip. The only thing that the novice lacks is the only thing an average driver has, experience. The novice driver then begins their own quest to develop their own particular blend of driving style ultimately ending up driving like their parents.
The desire is that once you have passed the most basic of driving tests, is to maintain these minimum standards and add experience to it. If the novice achieves this, they would have no requirement to take an advanced driving test other than to have their quality driving recognised.
The number and severity of the errors we make will determine the level of risk we pose to the other road users and ourselves. Poor attitudes, awareness, concentration, knowledge, anticipation all have an additional effect on standard also.
Many errors that we make are common to many of us; these include errors in the areas of:
Mirror work
Road positioning
Unsafe use of speed (includes excessive and inappropriate speed)
Anticipation
Not driving within the distance we can see to be clear
Driving to close
Lack of indication
Knowledge
Overtaking
Bad / inconsiderate parking
Crossing hands on steering wheel
Harsh acceleration
Harsh braking
Leaving foot over clutch in between gear changes
Never or rarely practised an emergency stop
Bad reversing (side road into main road)
Poor observations including blind spots
Failure to recognise road signs
Poor hazard recognition skills
This list is merely a brief example and should not be taken as comprehensive. I would have to say that most motorists have weaknesses in most, if not all of these areas and many more besides. These errors combined with excessive and inappropriate use of speed heighten risk.
So what is ‘Speed’
The errors we commit ultimately lead to the collisions we’re involved in. The inappropriate and or excessive use of speed only serves to enhance the severity of any collision. So, proper use of speed is incredibly important to master and adhere to.
The correct use of speed is a judgement; part of that judgement has been done for you in the form of speed limits (giving rise to the acceptable numbers killed on the roads, if there is such a thing), the remainder, so far has been left up to the motorist.
The roads have been studied and graded according to risk, the higher the risk the lower the speed limit and vice versa. This is a fairly obvious conclusion to come to.
The speed limits all over the country have been set for years, in the main, they are accepted as accurate. However, on occasion they need to be amended or corrected to reflect the changing conditions, hence, now we see the slow introduction of 20mph speed limits, which I don’t think anyone has ever complained about.
Excessive and inappropriate speed effects every area of driving. The faster you go the straighter the driving line needs to be, and so road positioning suffers. But more importantly, when any of us are driving there are certain observations that we must make to ensure that it is safe for us to proceed, these observations must be conducted all around the vehicle.
There are three zones of vision to the front, two to the near side, two to the offside and one to the rear. These areas must be consulted every few seconds whilst driving to keep the motorist well informed of his or her surroundings. They will then be better equipped to anticipate a situation and deal with it earlier. This then gives the driver the ability to ultimately change a fatal collision into a non-incident.
So the suggestion that increased speed increases concentration is nothing more than a selfish gesture that places the individuals personal safety first whilst at the same time increasing the risk presented to everyone else. This incredibly farcical idea has actually been debated by some motorists and brings into question their suitability for inclusion within serious debate.
What actually occurs is that the balance of observation is dangerously affected. The concentration on frontal zones of vision, are increased dramatically and those to the sides and rear are decreased. The risk then posed within these areas, to other vehicles and especially pedestrians, has increased dramatically. This is where we then get the excuses of, “I didn’t see him” or “He came out of nowhere”. When in actual fact they were not seen because the zone of vision the victim occupied was not considered important.
Increased speed reduces observation and as a consequence increases risk dramatically.
This is where Road Safety Cameras play such an important role; they are placed within proven high-risk areas. The motorists who comply with speed limits have no problem with them, having no need even to acknowledge their existence. Those that don’t comply with speed limits are forced to comply or run the risk to their licence and pocket. Little consideration given to the potential victims of their driving habits.
Excessive and Inappropriate Speed.
There seems to be confusion as to a definition of these terms. Here I will attempt to give you my own interpretation.
Before I do this though I want to explain ‘Speed Risk’ in a little more detail as it certainly applies to the following explanations.
It has been that around only 5% of all road traffic collisions are genuine accidents. This means to me that simply due to the presence of a vehicle on the road, even if every one were to drive to an advanced standard, then around 200 people would still get killed each year. This then suggests that there must to be an acceptable level of death on the road in order for the roads to exist. To completely eliminate death from our roads we would have to remove all vehicles. This will never happen so there has to be a level that is considered acceptable to retain the use of the motor car on the road.
As stated earlier, we will never achieve all motorists driving to an advanced standard, so the minimum level will never be as low as 200 deaths per year.
In 2003 there were 3508 people killed on the roads, so the acceptable level of death must be more that 200 and less than 3508.
By setting our speed limits as they are, an acceptable level of injury and death must have also been built into them. It must be accepted that some collisions will naturally occur and that some people will die as a result of them.
Having speed limits set as they are we expect a minimum of 200 deaths to occur, understanding the relation between death and speed we know that increasing the speed limit will only result in an increased number of deaths because people will be hit at greater speeds.
Excessive Speed
Excessive speed is basically exceeding the posted speed limit for any particular road. This speed limit already incorporates a certain level of risk to all road users. So by going over this limit only increases the risk we present. Collectively increasing the numbers killed on the road from the accepted limit of 200.
There was a failure to recognise this increased risk recently by a judge who could not see the inherent danger of a police officer who was unauthorised to drive his police vehicle at 159mph. Regardless of the fact that this particular police officer was highly trained or not the increased risk he presented to himself and others was clearly unacceptable.
High speed driving is trained because it is recognised that it is an extremely dangerous activity. Training does not negate the risk of a collision, but merely reduces slightly a massively increased risk in order to give the police officer a better chance of survival.
The defence witnesses of this particular case testified that they could not say that the officer in question was doing anything dangerous. Failing to recognise that the merely increasing speed was dangerous in itself. This brings their understanding of the relationship of speed and road safety seriously into question.
Inappropriate Speed.
We now know that going over the speed limit exceeds accepted risk levels. So inappropriate speed must relate to how we use speed within those limits.
Correct use of speed has always been related to road, traffic and weather conditions. On a clear road in good conditions we should be able to keep up to the posted speed limits, this is called making good progress. Everything else we come across is classed as a hazard, whether it be parked cars, junctions, pedestrians, road works traffic lights and so on. On the approach to these hazards a reduction in speed from the posted speed limit may be prudent. Certainly driving down a residential road with cars parked on both sides and only enough room for one vehicle to get through would be entirely inappropriate for a vehicle to negate at 30mph, yet so many vehicles still do.
This is where the motorist is expected to use their skills of awareness and hazard perception. Yet many don’t and so the authorities respond by placing 20-mph signs within these more than obvious areas.
This lack of hazard perception is certainly not confined to side streets and is applied pretty much everywhere else in the motorists daily driving.
Inappropriate speed is driving too fast for a particular set of hazards, not allowing yourself the time needed to deal with a situation safely if it arises.
Braking Distances
It is also worth saying at this point that the braking distances published in the Highway Code are still as pertinent today as they have always been. They relate to the maximum safe stopping distances, which some vehicles today are still only just maintaining.
If you can stop well within these distances then great.
There is another point to stopping distances that is always overlooked. And that is of the section pertaining to thinking distance. Your ABS may well stop your vehicle within 45 feet at 30 mph but that 45 feet only starts from when you have started to brake. The weak hazard perception skills of our average motorist will certainly delay the application of a brake pedal over the motorist who does recognise a hazard early enough to stop. No amount of ABS will stop a car if the danger has not been seen. Effectively it is the unaware driver who is artificially extending braking distances and rendering them as valid today as the Morris Minor who tested them.
Speed, Distance and Collisions
Another interesting issue is that at 40 mph you are travelling at a rate of 60ft per second. If a pedestrian stands out in the road in front of you who is 40 feet away then the impact speed will be 40mph regardless of ABS, tyres etc. At 30 mph you are travelling at 45ft per second. You will have started to break 15 feet before reaching the pedestrian and on contact your impact speed will be in the region of 20 mph or possibly even less. This 25% reduction in speed leads to a 50% reduction in impact speed leaving the pedestrian far greater chance of survival. 0
If however the pedestrian is standing 75ft away at 30 mph you would stop, at 40 mph you would hit them and still not stop for a further 45 ft.
Road safety features
Over the years this government have invested billions into our complex road networks to make them safer. Many safety devices have been created to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, which for many years have brought our fatality rates down and are keeping them down. It is for this reason and improvement in vehicle design that fatalities are reducing, not because of our average driver standard. Driver standards have changed very little for many years.
Such road safety devices are:
Traffic lights
Roundabouts
Pedestrian crossings
Railway crossings
One way systems
Dual carriageways and motorways
Road Humps
Road Safety Cameras
Yellow Lines
Speed Limits
Chicanes
All of these and many more besides have been created to slow the driver down in areas where the perception of hazard risk has increased, such as junctions, outside schools, high density pedestrian areas, country roads. These have been placed in these areas to force the driver to slow because the hazard recognition skills of many motorists are under developed or rather forgotten.
Many of the obstacles presented to the motorist have been designed to slow the driver down in areas of heightened risk, in effect enforcing a thought process rather than relying on the motorist to think for themselves. This is quite insulting for the average motorist but unfortunately, it is necessary. Sadly though, because of pressure on the government, we have to wait until at least 4 people have died or been seriously injured before road safety cameras can be installed. We should rely on risk assessments of particular stretches of road to assess whether they are in need of safety cameras. Not have to wait until the human suffering has occurred before recognising the risk motorists present in areas of elevated risk. Even after these deaths have occurred some organisations still question the value of placing Safety Cameras within these areas. The incredibly irresponsible argument presented here is that we have seen a heightened death rate and so the trend is unlikely to continue. These defences only display a credibility damaging lack of basic speed awareness and judgement that expels their inclusion from any sensible and reasoned debate.
The Impact of Road Safety/Speed Camera’s on Our Driving.
Speed cameras, contrary to some beliefs do so much more than affect speed. We now know that when driving we all make multiple mistakes, some we are aware of and others are not so obvious. But they are there all the time.
A collision can occur because of any of these errors and then the severity of the collision will be determined by the speed that we are travelling at.
A speed camera will slow us down, if we notice that it is there, but it will not make us drive any better. So in the event of a collision occurring because of any combination of our other errors it will be less severe.
Because of this reduced speed, the motorist has also been given more time to react. This has without doubt prevented many collisions from occurring and saved many unappreciative motorists from the pain of knowing that they have killed someone. There are just as many families who have people sitting next to them who would not have otherwise been there.
None of us drive through a Speed Camera intentionally and yet they catch out thousands, every week. This indicates that as well as their excess speed there are other issues with their driving. For example, poorer concentration levels than those who manage to slow down for them. So this clearly shows divides in driver skill, attention and awareness even in areas where prosecution is almost guaranteed. This in itself does not make them any worse a driver; it is just that their particular set of faults is different to those of other motorists.
So for those who slow down enough to drive through them at a speed which is not going to set them off. The impact of any collision now involved in for whatever reason; the effects are going to be significantly reduced.
So Safety Cameras like many other road safety initiatives compensate for the average motorists naturally weakened driver skill. In particular those, whose error base includes excessive speed. Within the limited area of speed camera placement, the roads have been made significantly safer.
Speed cameras are present on less than 1% of our road network, leaving the motorist to carry on driving to their normal standard elsewhere. The safety camera can only produce a positive result within its placed area. The desired behavioural change to the average motorist passes once they are clear of these areas. Without having changed the driver’s behaviour, their collective bad driving habits result in death and injury elsewhere, maintaining the numbers of road casualties.
Looked at from another view, with the numbers of people killed within safety camera sites reducing then numbers of those killed outside of camera sites must have increased. So the alleged natural downward trend of road casualties based on the responsibility of the average motorist, never existed. This has given rise to the following theory.
Collision Transgression
I have a theory called ‘Collision Transgression’ this theory basically in its simplest form means that a motorist who poses a risk on the roads is unlikely to change his or her behaviour until that change is either enforced upon them or they are involved in some tragic circumstance. Speed cameras are only likely to alter their driving habits whilst the motorist is in the vicinity of a speed camera.
Once free of them their driving behaviour returns to its normal elevated risk. The motorist then collectively continues to drive in this manner until someone has been injured or killed. The pain created by this event is usually enough, to influence a behavioural change. Which is why I believe driver education, after a tragic collision is almost valueless as the driver is unlikely to revert to the same standard as prior to the collision. The collision has itself affected that particular individual driving style.
In areas where speed cameras have been erected, the casualty reductions are proven, the average driver has been forced to slow down achieving the desired behavioural change and what would have been a casualty has now been prevented. But this has only prevented the collision occurring within this area.
Evidence of this is reflected in how the types of casualty have altered. We have seen a marked reduction in child and pedestrian casualties. This reduction caused by the increase in speed cameras located within the areas that pedestrians and children frequent. If speed cameras were ineffective then surely reductions within these areas would not have been realised. This goes a long way to support the theory that intelligent speed camera placement really works.
However if a driver is likely to be involved in a collision within speed camera locations, then it is reasonable to assume that he is just as likely or even more likely to be involved in a collision outside of speed camera areas. So the collision that is collectively bound to happen because of the manner in which these motorists drive their vehicles will still occur. Just less likely to occur now in the areas where speed cameras have been erected.
New sites for speed cameras are constantly emerging, why?
Because safety cameras, currently change the type and location where collisions occur. The previously high-risk areas have been addressed and so the problem moves onto another area, creating the need for ever more cameras in new locations.
This is also why the overall number of fatalities is remaining steady, because of the reduction in the number of new speed cameras currently being erected, a reduction due to the stringent rules applied to speed camera placement. Without these rules, more cameras would have been erected and more lives saved.
I have said it before, that to significantly reduce road casualty numbers there must be a massive increase in the number of speed cameras, or a change in driver behaviour.
I can only currently see a worsening of driver behaviour.
Vehicle Safety Features
It is true that engineering has improved. Vehicles are now more pedestrian friendly. But why was it necessary to make them this way in the first place?
ABS is an excellent addition to many modern vehicles. Why ABS braking systems? They enhance the braking effect of the driver not the vehicle. Unfortunately, some drivers are unable to perform an effective emergency stop, using unassisted brakes. Normal brakes may be just as effective as ABS, if you have the driver skill to control them.
Air Bags, again because the driver of the vehicle when involved in a crash has an improved chance of survival. An excellent piece of safety equipment designed to save the driver or their passengers.
Side impact bars and crumple zones, again to provide important protection for the motorist and passengers.
But why have all of these safety features been incorporated into the modern vehicle, quite simply because we, the motorist have created the need for them with our less than safe standards of driving. Even though Britain is among the best driving nations in the world, the best overall standard we can achieve is still less than adequate. We could be so much more.
If our average driver was better skilled, there would be a reduced need for these features and fewer people would be killed. The average driver has already been given the skills they need through their tuition. It is then left up to them how they proceed.
In reality bad driving is a matter of choice, each and every motorist on the road could improve their standard instantly by around 20%. The current choice is not to.
As a motorist I have to pay for safety features such as ABS, crumple zones, Air bags etc, the costs of these are transferred to me when I purchase a vehicle. Why? Because, the poor average standard of our nations driving has dictated a need for them. Yes, they certainly are great safety features and I would not do without them, but they are to vehicles as stabilisers are to a child’s bike. They are there to help stop you having a collision or reduce the suffering when you do. And crumple zones are there to make the impact softer when you do lose control of your vehicle. For those of us who do not need ABS they are a costly addition to our vehicles that we do not need and yet we are willing to stump up the cash for road safety sake. We do this willingly and without complaint as we realise the necessity for them.
So do not be proud of your ABS, be proud if you don’t need ABS.
I have an interest in road safety that has grown stronger since stopped driving instruction for a living.
