Roads getting safer or more dangerous ?

[UTmaniac]

We need the existing road laws enforced more than new laws created, too many people taking liberties while the police budgets (and number of officers) have been slashed under the Tories in recent years.

 

[Caseh]

Don't just move your eyes, move your head! (as I was taught)



Indeed, much more emphasis on this with a motorcycle, car drives should be taught the same, they should rename it "lifesaver" to emphasize it's importance.

I'm currently doing my Motorcycle licence, and these are actually called Lifesavers. I originally thought the name was a little dramatic, but I never forget them.. So I guess the name works

 

[Holst1981]

I don't think there is anything much you can do about this sort of thing.

Is pretty obvious that these drivers are difficult to retrain and expensive to catch.
Plus increased enforcement isn't popular with public if it involves more speeding fines and courses for those of us who make the odd mistake but are generally pretty safe.

Or you can wait for the technology to catch up and see something like enforced installation of GPS speed limiters or banning manual cars entirely as technology improves. Fully automated cars might appeal once the technology improves but I wouldn't want a GPS speed limiter installed in my car.

 

[Amp34]

if you had a sufficient gap between you and the cyclist why did the car have to "blast its horn" at you when it could have just over taken you into the gap?

Err... The assumption here is that he left a safety gap between him and the cyclist because there wasn't space to overtake it. Why should the other car behind want to get into that gap when it's there to leave space between two road users and the other driver wouldn't/shouldn't be able to overtake either.

 

[Loki]

I would say they are getting more dangerous depending on the time of day. I spend a lot of my week driving around the country. On a slow week It's a minimum of 400 miles but not unusual to hit 800 - 1000. At least once a week I have to do Mcr to Basingstoke. A lot of this is motorway but Jesus H Christ the standards are poor.

Does not help with the 'smart motorway upgrade / my dad works here' bullcrap. Despite a speed restriction of 50 MPH the middle lane or lanes one and two are dominated by trucks who just bully their way up the M6. Undertake / speed they dont give a flying fig thus making other drivers nervous.

One of the younger guys from our office drove from Mcr to Baskingstoke yesterday and that was a real eye opener. Especially when you are hitting Birmingham at around 8AM. Problem is driving lessons are there to help people pass their test. The real lessons come on the road once you have past your test.

 

[adolf hamster]

Cycling with helmets, lol, sure, discourage cycling even more. Nobody but mountain bikers or racing cyclists wear helmets.

Not gonna lie, thats not a particularly good attitude to safety there, although i suppose its only you as the cyclist thats going to get screwed over by it.

Although i do love the dichotomy of "us cyclists are fragile and vunerable on the road" with "but we wont wear a helmet".

Tbf ill admit to not wearing a helmet when cycling on the roads, although in keeping with your views i do wear one for mountain biking.

 

[jpod]

On my daily commute of 7 minutes I stop at traffic lights, get the chance to look arround. The number if oncoming drivers looking down at phones is astonishing. There are primary schools, secondarys, crossings and a childcare centre on this 30mph road. Kids everywhere. Their attention should be on the road ahead.

 

[Gixer]

if you had a sufficient gap between you and the cyclist why did the car have to "blast its horn" at you when it could have just over taken you into the gap?

In other words you're implying and assuming I'm still not confident at overtaking in my car? You couldn't be more wrong however I will only overtake when it is SAFE to do so. I'm the vehicle making the at risk maneuver and it's my responsibility to ensure nothing happens to endanger the cyclist I'm about to pass. Maybe you're just one of the inconsiderate drivers who will happily pass a cyclist leaving them 3" of space between you and them?

I rather think that was his point, wasn't it? The car didn't have to blast his horn, but did so because road users are impatient, rude, and only care about themselves getting from a to be in the fastest time possible, and damn any one else who dare hold them up.

Common sense has prevailed! Thanks Platypus, that's exactly what I was highlighting

 

[Gixer]

Three most annoying things when I'm driving:
1. People stopping on the yellow hatched area of a junction. It's there for a good reason.
2. Speed limited lorries trying to overtake each other on the motorway blocking off two lanes as one crawls past the other over the course of ten minutes.
3. Cyclists with strobing lights.

Honourable mention: The fact that motorways are still legally set at 70mph upper limit. I would think it should be time to take it higher, though I'll change that view if stats showed otherwise.

Point number 3 annoys me too. Whilst strobe lights are great for initially grabbing attention of others when I'm either cycling or driving on seeing a cyclist with strobe lights I find it a lot harder to gauge their distance over a cyclist with a light that is constantly on. Sadly I believe they have changed the law so that you only require a reflector and a flashing light unit above a certain power. I wish they'd kept the law as before when a non flashing light was a requirement. In my opinion a well adjusted (angled down so as not to dazzle drivers) decent front light is the best setup.

Not gonna lie, thats not a particularly good attitude to safety there, although i suppose its only you as the cyclist thats going to get screwed over by it.

Although i do love the dichotomy of "us cyclists are fragile and vunerable on the road" with "but we wont wear a helmet".

Tbf ill admit to not wearing a helmet when cycling on the roads, although in keeping with your views i do wear one for mountain biking.

Whilst we should be allowed to have choice I wonder how many people have come off their bike, smashed their heads and then wished they'd worn a helmet? They aren't going to save you if a car drives over your head granted or unlikely to do much if you smash your head into a lampost at 30+mph in one either. They do however offer protection in many other situations. I've seen a friend laying on the road fitting and blood coming out of his ear due to smacking the side of his head after he spat himself off his bike. That wasn't pleasant. I've also seen a friend wipeout quite spectacularly and head plant whilst wearing a helmet. His helmet broke into two however his head was fine. My brother (Rodders on here) he was knocked off a few days ago, the back of his head was smacked into the pavement / curb but he was wearing a helmet, which now has a big dent in it. My own choice is to wear a helmet but I appreciate it's up to others if they so wish to or not. I'm unsure whether it should be made law. I do however think that anyone under the age of 18 should have to wear one. Once an adult it's then up to you whether you wish to or not. Logically thinking though the outcome of wearing a helmet can only really provide pros so why one would choose not to wear one I don't understand myself.

 

[platypus]

I don't think there is anything much you can do about this sort of thing.

There is something you can do about it - it worked with drink driving. The government need to get their bloody act together and start campaigns to demonise driving whilst on the phone. Make it socially unacceptable. It took almost 20 years with seatbelts and then drink driving, they are being wholly irresponsible in not dealing with mobile phone driving more seriously.

 

[platypus]

Not gonna lie, thats not a particularly good attitude to safety there, although i suppose its only you as the cyclist thats going to get screwed over by it.

Although i do love the dichotomy of "us cyclists are fragile and vunerable on the road" with "but we wont wear a helmet".

Tbf ill admit to not wearing a helmet when cycling on the roads, although in keeping with your views i do wear one for mountain biking.

You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about cyclists for some reason, that isn't really in keeping with your final sentence.

It isn't a dichotomy, it's a truism. Cyclists are vulnerable and they are fragile, and the whole helmet debate is a complete diversion from the real issue. This country needs to stop victim blaming, and start thinking about how we can make the roads safe for all users, irrespective of what they wear.

 

[platypus]

Whilst we should be allowed to have choice I wonder how many people have come off their bike, smashed their heads and then wished they'd worn a helmet? They aren't going to save you if a car drives over your head granted or unlikely to do much if you smash your head into a lampost at 30+mph in one either. They do however offer protection in many other situations. I've seen a friend laying on the road fitting and blood coming out of his ear due to smacking the side of his head after he spat himself off his bike. That wasn't pleasant. I've also seen a friend wipeout quite spectacularly and head plant whilst wearing a helmet. His helmet broke into two however his head was fine. My brother (Rodders on here) he was knocked off a few days ago, the back of his head was smacked into the pavement / curb but he was wearing a helmet, which now has a big dent in it. My own choice is to wear a helmet but I appreciate it's up to others if they so wish to or not. I'm unsure whether it should be made law. I do however think that anyone under the age of 18 should have to wear one. Once an adult it's then up to you whether you wish to or not. Logically thinking though the outcome of wearing a helmet can only really provide pros so why one would choose not to wear one I don't understand myself.

The trouble with the helmet debate is that there are too many inconsistencies and not enough proof to actually say whether they are beneficial or not.

• The risk of serious head injury is small and frequently overstated. The promotion or mandation of cycle helmets is a disproportionate response to this risk. There is no actual real-world evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
  
• Helmet promotion (and especially compulsion) reduces cycling and the health benefits of cycling. Less cycling increases risk for those who continue to cycle, whether they wear helmets or not.
  
• Much pro-helmet research and promotional material is flawed or one-sided.
  
• Insofar as there are risks associated with cycling as a form of transport, the greatest risks of serious injury come from inappropriate motor vehicle use and poor cycling behaviour. Institutionalising the idea that wearing a helmet is necessary for safe cycling diverts attention from more important actions to prevent crashes happening in the first place and results in victim-blaming when crashes do occur through no fault of the cyclist.
  
• Cyclists should not be singled out for helmets when head injuries to pedestrians and motorists are much more numerous.

In 2009, a review of the literature for the UK Department for Transport (when both pro-helmet and helmet-sceptic interests had the opportunity to contribute towards the evidence considered) concluded that there was no reliable evidence that cycle helmets have resulted in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists.

And again, the effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries. So do we want to revert to a less healthy population with no discernible benefits?

…but a helmet saved my life!

This is quite a powerful little annecdote, and quite a experience, very much more common than the actual number of life-threatening injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. But there is actually no evidence that this is the case. A broken helmet does not mean that it has done its job and saved your skull, how many broken helmets have had the foam liner examined to see if it actually did do its job? Not many, I would wager.

And again, the bottom line: the focus should be on changing behaviour and attitudes of all road users so that the roads are safe, no matter what an individual chooses to wear.

 

[Jamesyboyjim]

Whilst we should be allowed to have choice I wonder how many people have come off their bike, smashed their heads and then wished they'd worn a helmet?

*raises hand*

Me. Foolishly rode out in front of a car as a 12year old boy, sent me flying, scraped my head and face to pieces, a helmet certainly would have helped as I had chunks of my hair torn off as I skidded along the floor. Those are only superficial injuries though, not sure the helmet would have done much to help with the concussion and impact.

 

[UTmaniac]

The thing is, cycle helmets do practically nothing for impacts where they collide with something in front of their primary direction of travel, forwards. I don't believe for a millisecond that the helmet I was wearing prevented me from getting worse facial injuries than I did in such an accident, my maxilla was broken into several pieces, while I lost two teeth and pretty much chipped all the rest.

However, it probably helped a fraction later after the initial impact, as the foam at the rear of the helmet got smashed up. With no witness statements, we presumed I must have fallen backwards after the initial impact and hit the back of my head on the tarmac, where the foam took the brunt of the impact instead of my skull.

 

[mrk]

However, it probably helped a fraction later after the initial impact, as the foam at the rear of the helmet got smashed up. With no witness statements, we presumed I must have fallen backwards after the initial impact and hit the back of my head on the tarmac, where the foam took the brunt of the impact instead of my skull.

You diss the helmet, then praise it for saving your life later

Of course the helmet helped. It got smashed up, and as such, you still have the back of your skull and brain in full working order.

 

[rodders]

Hit my head when I was knocked off the other day, glad I was wearing a helmet. Might have been OK without, but personally I dont want to take the chance. I don't mind wearing one at all, don't understand why people say it restricts them etc...
But I also respect it's their decision to not wear one.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The thing is, cycle helmets do practically nothing for impacts where they collide with something in front of their primary direction of travel, forwards. I don't believe for a millisecond that the helmet I was wearing prevented me from getting worse facial injuries than I did in such an accident, my maxilla was broken into several pieces, while I lost two teeth and pretty much chipped all the rest.

However, it probably helped a fraction later after the initial impact, as the foam at the rear of the helmet got smashed up. With no witness statements, we presumed I must have fallen backwards after the initial impact and hit the back of my head on the tarmac, where the foam took the brunt of the impact instead of my skull.

Saw someone hit a metal fence once coming off their bike. They got up fine, and then their cycle helmet split neatly down the middle! Yes, it doesn't prevent the face, but the first thing you usually do when coming off a bike is tip forwards.

 

[glenimp617]

You want dangerous roads....drive around Lincoln

It's so bad, only BMW drivers use their indicators

some of the things I see on a daily basis (I'm not joking)

People stopping at green traffic lights, and going through on red (this is very common, I have no idea why)

In heavy traffic (which is all the time in Lincoln), people stop 100 meters from the car in front, then do a series of start and stops like on the F1 warm up lap (you have to see it to believe it)

Undercutting on the A46 bypass. This is so common now, everyone thinks it's the right thing to do

No indicating...period. If you do see a car indicating, it's a rare sight to behold.

Lane swapping on roundabouts. I've seen a few crashes, and the person lane swapping is adamant that they were in the right.

10mph driving under the speed limit is the norm, 20mph under when there's a speed camera. The exception to this rule is the bypass mentioned above, where 100mph is the norm.

 

[tom_e]

I'm currently doing my Motorcycle licence, and these are actually called Lifesavers. I originally thought the name was a little dramatic, but I never forget them.. So I guess the name works

The first time you do one as you're about to change lanes and find a car that you had absolutely no idea was there is when you'll realise why they're called that

 

[adam cool dude]

there's a lot of young folks round here passing their test, going out with their mates, and finding out they're not sebastian loeb and that their ancient vw lupo is not a rally car but sadly they find this out by intrudcing themselves to a hedge.

i reckon we need to introduce the scandinavian way of driving tests, taking kids onto skidpans and teaching them how to control a car in a skid, with no abs or traction control, and more importantly just how easy it is to push a car over its limits.

far too many people these days driving much faster than either they or their car is really capable of doing safely.

20 years ago it would have been young folks finding out they are not Juha Kankkunen and their ancient Austin Metro has introduced itself to a hedge and killed all its occupants. Cars are a lot safer than they used to be. Look on the graph that was posted earlier and you can see a massive downward trend from the early 90's. That can be attributed to the introduction of air bags and ABS in most mainstream cars.