2005 Road Safety Congress

[Satch]

Few things in this world happen by accident. Lo, and behold:

http://www.rospa.com/road/programme.htm


READ object of said Conference

"Excellent progress has been made in the first years of the Road Safety Strategy, with deaths and serious injuries down by 17%, and child deaths and serious injuries down by 33% from their 1994/98 levels. However, there are some stiff challenges still to be faced.

Deaths on the road have remained stubbornly over 3,400 in each of the last five years, and slightly more people were killed in road crashes in 2002 than in 1998. Deaths in cars have remained steady and motorcyclist deaths have jumped up by 30% over this period. In contrast, pedestrian and pedal cyclist deaths have fallen.

Have the ‘easy wins’ been achieved? Will further reductions be much harder to achieve, especially for drivers, car occupants and motorcyclists?

The Review of the Road Safety Strategy highlights the need for further action in key areas, and Congress will explore what more can be done in these areas to influence driver and rider behaviour to prevent crashes from happening in the first place."

MARK presence of following speakers:

Telematics and Influencing Driver Behaviour - Julian Beardsworth & Anthony Lovick, Norwich Union

New Technologies, Road Traffic Enforcement and Road Safety - Jonathan Gaventa, PACTS

Expanding the Role of Safety Cameras - Richard Brunstrom, ACPO

Ministerial Address - David Jamieson MP, Minister for Road Safety

INWARDLY DIGEST and reflect upon stated desire of Government to reduce road deathes but also (i) get into Road Pricing to force people off congested roads and (ii) their need to raise further tax revenues by stealth in order to pay for some paltry improvements in public transport but in general to fund grand spending plans.

So:

The objective of reducing road deaths and injuries by encouraging proper driving behaviour is worthwhile but not when it is being used as cover for a far less noble hidden revenue raising agenda, pandering to the desires of the anti-car lobby groups and, as some suspect, enable a further clampdown on personal freedom and civil liberties.

Discuss

 

[Satch]

You will see in the Congress paper a reference to EuroRAP. This is a sister organisation to EuroNCAP but looks at the safety of roads themselves instead of the cars that use them. i.e

"
Our work

EuroRAP has two protocols:
The first protocol is used to map death and serious injury accidents and show where risk is high and low.

The second protocol is used to inspect roads across Europe, to examine how well they protect users from accidents, and from deaths and serious injuries when they do occur.

The star rating system used to compare the rate of fatal and serious accidents in the pilot year of 2002 has been replaced with a risk rating system. Instead of risk being shown on a range from 0 stars to 4 stars, risk is presented in terms of High, Medium-High, Medium, Low-Medium and Low. Currently work across Europe has included the rating of roads in Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

EuroRAP plans to include the inspection of the road design and the star rating system in later versions of the risk rating equation. Together these protocols will present a total picture of both the safety that the road has achieved and the extent to which it is equipped to protect the road-user."

http://www.eurorap.org/inside.htm

Website has map and seachable database of UK roads and rates them for safety. So why are roads clearly rated as "Low" and "Medium Low" risk by EuroRAP festooned with speed cameras? Hmmm, now let me think......