To be honest, it's an assumption that people are actually slowing down!
Concerns that roads are being designed to INCREASE danger and accidents.
- Thread starter asim18
- Start date
It's true (not your limited IQ bit) that most of the moves councils make regarding roads can be predicted to be utter failures. It's like some idiot without any actual knowledge looks at a map or drawing and makes a completely stupid decision.
I wonder if there is any correlation between the political "Colour" of the relevant Councils or whether this is just a case of equal opportunity stupid?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Posts
- 6,305
- Location
- Southampton
Roads are of course not designed to be more dangerous that is absurd; which cash-strapped council wants to try their hardest to be sued? Here are a few things to bear in mind anyway:
Many road improvement schemes are designed to re-prioritise non motorised traffic and slow down motorised traffic to make it easier for less mobile people to get around; streets are no longer (and haven't been for a while) designed for the sole purpose of conveying motorised traffic. (well, some obviously are like motorways, but city 'streets' are now designed with pedestrians and cyclists as the most important road user. This is to make travelling by sustainable modes easier which is a key policy target from EU law/policy and down) These days, providing a highway improvement scheme will often compromise something for one type of road users to give a benefit to another type road users. if you're having a particularly slow Sunday afternoon, have a look at Manual for Streets, which sets out the principles for street design in 21st Century UK. It is a free book and its readily available online.
Also note that no road improvement scheme is perfect, because of various constraints such as land availability and budget constraints, therefore some risk will always remain, just like when you walk outside your front door every morning! I am not a safety engineer so I don't know where the line is drawn in terms of "this is not safe enough" or "this is not actually an improvement".
When a street improvement is designed it goes through 3+ stages of Road Safety Auditing. Stage 1 and 2 occur during the design process and 3 and 4 occur once it is built. These are in theory independently undertaken and specifically assess a highway design for safety, for all road users. The Safety Audit checks for issues and recommends solutions. An "approved" audit is usually a requirement for the scheme to go ahead.
Finally, normal people who use the roads every day are not highway engineers. Usually when people are clamouring for a roundabout to be installed they don't know why that kind of junction is unsuitable, or how many road users would be negatively effected by a change in junction type, or what the constraints are that stopped a different design going ahead etc... People don't seem to realise that usually a lot of thought goes into highway design! There is also the mix of political and engineering at work; local people (and therefore a local councillor) will be clamouring for a certain (but in engineering terms unsuitable) improvement, the highway authority responsible for providing or not providing said improvement (usually a County Council or Unitary Authority) is essentially a political body so...
However, there are of course poorly engineered designs highway designs which could have been avoided which stem from mistakes being made, or lack of forsight etc...
I work (and worked) alongside highway engineers both in the private (and public) sectors. I should also say that I don't necessarily agree with all of the current approach.
Many road improvement schemes are designed to re-prioritise non motorised traffic and slow down motorised traffic to make it easier for less mobile people to get around; streets are no longer (and haven't been for a while) designed for the sole purpose of conveying motorised traffic. (well, some obviously are like motorways, but city 'streets' are now designed with pedestrians and cyclists as the most important road user. This is to make travelling by sustainable modes easier which is a key policy target from EU law/policy and down) These days, providing a highway improvement scheme will often compromise something for one type of road users to give a benefit to another type road users. if you're having a particularly slow Sunday afternoon, have a look at Manual for Streets, which sets out the principles for street design in 21st Century UK. It is a free book and its readily available online.
Also note that no road improvement scheme is perfect, because of various constraints such as land availability and budget constraints, therefore some risk will always remain, just like when you walk outside your front door every morning! I am not a safety engineer so I don't know where the line is drawn in terms of "this is not safe enough" or "this is not actually an improvement".
When a street improvement is designed it goes through 3+ stages of Road Safety Auditing. Stage 1 and 2 occur during the design process and 3 and 4 occur once it is built. These are in theory independently undertaken and specifically assess a highway design for safety, for all road users. The Safety Audit checks for issues and recommends solutions. An "approved" audit is usually a requirement for the scheme to go ahead.
Finally, normal people who use the roads every day are not highway engineers. Usually when people are clamouring for a roundabout to be installed they don't know why that kind of junction is unsuitable, or how many road users would be negatively effected by a change in junction type, or what the constraints are that stopped a different design going ahead etc... People don't seem to realise that usually a lot of thought goes into highway design! There is also the mix of political and engineering at work; local people (and therefore a local councillor) will be clamouring for a certain (but in engineering terms unsuitable) improvement, the highway authority responsible for providing or not providing said improvement (usually a County Council or Unitary Authority) is essentially a political body so...
However, there are of course poorly engineered designs highway designs which could have been avoided which stem from mistakes being made, or lack of forsight etc...
I work (and worked) alongside highway engineers both in the private (and public) sectors. I should also say that I don't necessarily agree with all of the current approach.
Not buying it. Someone is definitely trying to kill us all, I've thought so for the past 10 years.
Thanks for the reasonable and concise explanation
no they are not, they are making the roads more dangerous in the HOPE people slow down in response.
they are not forcing people to slow down in anyway, just making driving at the speed limit unsafe.
if I do as Clarkson suggested and replaced your airbag with a machete I haven't made you slow down ive just made the consequences of a crash much worse.
by your logic we should remove all safety features from cars crumple zones seatbelts etc as thid would make people drive "safer"
What? This might be as ridiculous as the OP.
It's not my logic, it is the logic of road designers and your facile example of it is ludicrous. They are adding obstacles, not danger, that for anyone with a brain in their nut would be dealt with by slowing down.
The roads as a whole are safer by doing this, not more dangerous. Obstacle ≠ danger. Incorrect road use = danger.
Last edited:
This is the problem though, there ARE people on the road without a brain in their nut that don't see these obstacles as a signal to slow down. These people are made MORE dangerous as a result.
I agree, dangerous drivers are dangerous. That's not the same as saying obstacles make roads more dangerous though, they don't.
As a whole, roads safety measures work which is evidenced by the steady fall in accidents despite a rise in the number of road users.
Tefal is suggesting that increasing the severity of accidents is the same as increasing the likelihood of accidents if drivers don't drive properly. That's just wrong.
And you have statistics to back that up?
People over estimate their driving ability, if they're driving to an arbitrary speed limit then in general they're not driving beyond their ability but actually below it, but when you "force" them to slow down due to road obstacles etc so that they are driving to what they perceive as their safe limit then they quite likely will now be driving unsafely.
Road traffic safety is the only area I'm aware of where they deliberately give humans more to do in an effort to improve safety - every other industry looks to remove human involvement as much as possible in areas of safety as they are always the weakest link!
Last edited:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics#publications-2017
Equally, do you have evidence to back your claims up?
I'm not saying all road safety measures work for everyone, I am saying as a whole roads are safer and not more dangerous because of them. I agree there are probably people who will drive more dangerously. That's not the point.
From your link:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648081/rrcgb2016-01.pdf
Since last year:-
Fatalities up 4%
Serious injuries up 9%
But more specifically, the type of accidents these types of road schemes are designed to protect are pedestrian fatalities.
Up 10% since last year and up 6% on the 2010-2014 average.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,119
Asim is saying it's being done to increase accidents in some paranoid conspiracy theory, heck it's even in the title.
Jokester is saying it's being done to reduce accidents and he at least appears to have some knowledge of the background principles to it.
@almoststew1990 just had a quick look, man that stuff is dry reading.
Why are you still whining about that even though I have clarified THREE times? You are simply incapable of any reasoning ability whatsoever.
For the THIRD time, that phrase was used to express my beggared belief. Good grief.
Asim you're always on about some theory or other that only you are smart enough to see and no one else can possibly understand.
When your thread title is "Concerns that roads are being designed to increase danger and accidents" you are postulating that the roads are being made more dangerous by deliberate decisions of the road planners.Or putting forward the idea that there may be a conspiracy to do it...
Pretty useless posting there too. They either don't care, don't understand or believe that making roads more dangerous makes them safer and will thus be pleased to be told that their changes have made the roads more dangerous. Even that's assuming that anyone with any authority to make any decision would ever read anything sent to the local highways department, which is unlikely to be true.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,705
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I can verify both statements above but only with this one road where I live.
A lot of motorists are still trying to drive at normal speeds even though it's a bit of a tobogan run doing it.
exactly I really don't fancy dying because the council hoped that an idiot would realise his vision has been cut by half
actually this is one time he's bang on the money.
and i notice its very telling people are happy to pilee **** on the forum whipping boy but very careful to avoid dping the same to a forum mod.
@asim18 is rarely somone I agree with but people are being hilariously two faced in this thread with respect to him