dangers of rural roads

Those of us living in deepest rural Norfolk know all too well how narrow,
winding country lanes with poor visibility are used as motorists' personal
rally driving courses. Interesting article on BBC web site today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/4537453.stm

"Warning about rural roads' risk

More needs to be done to make children in rural areas aware of the risk of
road accidents, campaigners say.

Official figures show children involved in accidents are more likely to die
in the country if they are pedestrians, cyclists or car passengers.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents blamed the speeds at which
people drive in the country and the nature of the roads.

The charity has produced a schools pack to help reinforce safety measures.

Rospa road safety project manager Linda Morrison Allsopp said campaigns in
the past had tended to target urban areas, but children in rural settings
also needed advice.

"Drivers forget that children live and play in rural areas.

RURAL v URBAN

One in four child pedestrians in road accidents die or are seriously
injured, compared to one in five urban pedestrians in 2003.

While 17% of 2003 child cyclist injuries were on rural roads, they accounted
for nearly half of deaths.

Of the 5,500 child car passengers hurt in 2003, 51 died, whereas on urban
roads 18 died out of 6,700 injuries.

"Much higher speeds and bends and hills on many country roads reduce the
distance that drivers can see ahead. This gives them less time to react and
results in more severe impacts."

And she added: "Although the higher speeds on rural roads increase the
chance that a crash will be fatal, there is evidence that many country
children are less likely to wear a seatbelt for every journey than those
from towns."

Government statistics for 2003 showed that while about three times as many
children were hurt in urban accidents as in rural ones, children in those
accidents were more likely to die in the country.

Injuries

A quarter of child pedestrians in accidents were killed or seriously
injured, compared to less than a fifth of those in urban settings.

And while 17% of child cyclist injuries were on rural roads, they accounted
for 44% of the deaths.

Of the 5,500 child car passengers hurt in 2003, 51 died, whereas on urban
roads 18 died out of 6,700 injuries.

The schools pack, which has been funded by the Department for Transport, has
been sent to teachers across the country and includes advice on where on the
roads children should walk, what sort of cycle training they should get and
warnings about car travel.

It is designed so the advice can be incorporated in a range of lessons.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Transport said the government's 200 road
safety officers already tailored their advice depending on whether they were
addressing children in urban or rural settings.

But she agreed more needed to be done to make sure the message reached rural
areas.

"I think there is strong evidence to suggest that death rates are higher in
the country and we need to pay attention to that.

"We are producing posters and redesigning our website so they are relevant
to people in rural areas." "

Of course, it doesn't seem to occur that reducing the speed limit on rural
roads from 60mph to, say (plucking figure out of air at this stage) 40mph,
may have a beneficial effect. The village I live in has a 50mph speed limit
on the main road running through it. People have tried for *years* to get
the limit reduced to 30mph. Isn't going to happen as apparently, not enough
people have been killed to warrant a lower speed limit. The fact the
vehicles (including many a large HGV) zoom through at well over the 50 limit
may actaully deter local people from going out for a walk in their own
village does not enter into the equation :-(

Cheers, helen s

Helen:

Dig up the road through your village. I've noticed that drivers go
really carefully when roads have been scarified (the top surface ripped
off prior to re-laying).

THat'll slow the buggers down a bit :-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/4537453.stm

More needs to be done to make children in rural areas aware of the risk of
road accidents, campaigners say.


Rospa road safety project manager Linda Morrison Allsopp said campaigns in
the past had tended to target urban areas, but children in rural settings
also needed advice.

"Drivers forget that children live and play in rural areas.

Gah! Who is running over whom? Who is the grown up in charge of the
large lump of metal travelling at speed? Who is in need of having
their awareness of risk raised? Oh of course the children who are not
running people over. Silly me thinking that a campaign to remind
drivers that there are other people in the world might be more
appropriate.

"wafflycat" waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk wrote in message
...

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents blamed the speeds at
which people drive in the country and the nature of the roads.

Oh dear.. here we go. The last bastion of being able to drive at speeds
appropriate to the road conditions looks like it is going to be on the way
out then. Looks like they are getting us ready for a reduction in the
national speed limit.

On 12/5/05 10:39 am, in article , "Mark
Hewitt" wrote:


"wafflycat" waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk wrote in message
...

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents blamed the speeds at
which people drive in the country and the nature of the roads.

Oh dear.. here we go. The last bastion of being able to drive at speeds
appropriate to the road conditions looks like it is going to be on the way
out then. Looks like they are getting us ready for a reduction in the
national speed limit.

Unfortunately the majority of people drive according to the condition of the
roads, not the population and presence of other users of the roads.

Or to be more cynical, in a manner to which they are accustomed to usually
not crashing.

...d

"wafflycat" waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk wrote in message
...


snip


Of course, it doesn't seem to occur that reducing the speed limit on rural
roads from 60mph to, say (plucking figure out of air at this stage) 40mph,
may have a beneficial effect.

Also has its cost of course, as it would add half as much time again onto
journey times for the affected roads; and this would be an excessively low
speed limit on many rural roads (and too high on many others).

This is why IMO we need to be putting the emphasis on making drivers work it
out for themselves - if they could, they'd be able to take advantage of
high-quality sections of rural roads (whilst being aware of and responsive
to potential hazards) - and at the same time they'd be able to slow


The village I live in has a 50mph speed limit
on the main road running through it. People have tried for *years* to get
the limit reduced to 30mph.

I don't know the village, but local people wanted the limit changed to 30
does not necessarily mean the limit should be 30 - there is a balance
between the advantages of higher limits and the advantages of lower limits.

Of course it may well be the case that the appropriate limit in this village
is 30mph - but ignoring the needs, desires and opinions of motorists does
nothing but to result in the odd inappropriate limit and moreover damages
the credibility of speed limits IMV.

That is not to say that residents views aren't important, of course.

snip

"Nathaniel Porter" wrote in message
...

Of course it may well be the case that the appropriate limit in this
village
is 30mph - but ignoring the needs, desires and opinions of motorists does
nothing but to result in the odd inappropriate limit and moreover damages
the credibility of speed limits IMV.


As opposed to the current situation where the views of those who are
disadvantaged by speeding are effectively ignored.

That is not to say that residents views aren't important, of course.

And the residents drive - so it's not as if they are ignoring motorists...

I wonder where the mentality comes from that those who argue against
speeding are not motorists?

Cheers, helen s



snip

On 12/5/05 11:10 am, in article ,
"Nathaniel Porter" wrote:


Also has its cost of course, as it would add half as much time again onto
journey times for the affected roads;
However did you work that out? By my reckoning it would do no such thing[1].

...d

[1] except in the case of a wide road with no hazards where you can start
and end the journey at the national limit. The majority of time taken is in
the slow bits. Speeding up the few fast bits will make a marginal
difference.

"wafflycat" waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk wrote in message
...

As opposed to the current situation where the views of those who are
disadvantaged by speeding are effectively ignored.

No, the situation as it stands is that the views of people who would be
disadvantaged by lower speed limits are completely ignored.

Mark Hewitt wrote:

Oh dear.. here we go. The last bastion of being able to drive at speeds
appropriate to the road conditions looks like it is going to be on the way
out then. Looks like they are getting us ready for a reduction in the
national speed limit.


Yebbut... people *don't* drive according to the road conditions - very
often they drive on blind faith alone - blind faith that there won't be
a cyclist/child/ped/horse in the road around the next blind bend (of
which there are many around here in PSF country).

I drive at a speed according to the distance I can react and stop in
ahead. On many of the roads around here that means taking a bend at
30mph or less, even though NSL applies. The quantity and desperate look
of all the black marks in the road is clue enough that people take these
bends recklessly.

Frankly it's madness - the nature of the countryside is such that
there's a pretty good chance, when you round one of these bends the road
will be full not of cyclist/child/ped/horse but of sharp, heavy and
face-high agricultural equipment trundling along behind a tractor. Ouch!

--
Chris