Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 27 2011, 12:18 AM

According to ITV & EuroRAP Newbury, at 36 injuries/deaths per 100000 people, has the safest roads of any town city in Britain.

The worst was Brighton, at 154 - Brighton Council blamed injuries to pedestrians for the low score. Victory for the bollards?

Programme was a repeat from 2008.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 27 2011, 12:46 AM

It must be thanks to them. Before the bollards it was carnage in town.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 27 2011, 01:08 AM

I remember it well. Death Race 2000.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2011, 10:54 AM

It's not roads that cause accidents, it is the people.
Thus we have the safest road users in Newbury.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jan 27 2011, 11:06 AM

Were bollard victims included in the figures I ask? Are they just massaging them and not telling us about the victims that have been impaled / speared by them. The rivers of blood around town after a bollard collision must be great as I always see lots of sand and clearing up after an impalement.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2011, 11:46 AM

We are slipping into another bollard debate here but anyway.................
It would appear they, or some deterrent, are needed because have you noticed how many errant drivers have strayed into the "pedestrian" area while they have been out of action?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 27 2011, 11:50 AM

I have not heard of any RTAs whilst this is the case.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2011, 11:51 AM

So are you suggesting we have a "pedestrianised" area but allow it to self police until there is an accident?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 27 2011, 11:58 AM

No.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2011, 12:01 PM

OK..........so what were you suggesting by saying "I have not heard of any RTAs whilst this is the case."

Posted by: Iommi Jan 27 2011, 12:03 PM

That drivers navigating through the pedestrianised zone haven't yet caused any accidents. Perhaps the 'danger' isn't that great.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2011, 12:11 PM

It's not so much the danger (although this is present when vehicles are allowed) but the fact that people want to go about their visit to the town without the presence of motor vehicles which pollute and have to be dodged.
(Although I agree that, due to the admittance of buses and bicycles , this is still and issue.)

Posted by: spartacus Jan 27 2011, 05:44 PM

National Accident Statistics are measured by KSI figures (Killed or Seriously Injured). Whilst banging into those pesky bollards may (1) rattle a tooth or two, (2) result in a nose bleed at worst (3) or may need the errant driver to seek a change of underwear, these terrible accidents don't generally even result in an airbag being deployed.... (Write off possibly due to suspension damage but seldom is an airbag necessary)

If there's an injury it will be recorded as 'Slight' at best (most likely being a 'whiplash claimant' thinking they'll be able to take WBC to the cleaners...)

Posted by: Strafin Jan 27 2011, 05:51 PM

How can you have a serious accident with traffic flow as slow as Newbury's?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 27 2011, 06:31 PM

It is down to the outcome, not just the speed of the vehicles. Little old person knocked over by car going at 10mph breaks hip - serious. Athletic young person bumped by car going at 10mph, grazed and bruied - slight injury.

I believe 'serious' is 'hospitalised for at least one night/limb fracture etc, so broken finger doesn't hit the spot.

Some spectacular crashes lead to little/no injury, minor bumps can cause a death....

Posted by: spartacus Jan 27 2011, 06:36 PM

Modern car design is such that the panels and fittings absorb the energy that would otherwise rattle you to bits, hence drivers walking away from write-offs with nothing more than a scratch. Pedestrian don't normally come with crumple zones.... (though my beer gut could probably stop a rhino...)

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 27 2011, 06:45 PM

There is a little bit of structure that holds your aorta in place, attched to the rear of it. In an instant deceleration much more than a 20mph impact it is liable to rupture. Few survive a ruptured aorta.
The body is very much reliant on the crumple of the car body, the hold of the seat belt/air bag and the cushioning of the ribcage to translate a high speed crash to the sort of deceleration that can be coped with.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 27 2011, 09:21 PM

There have been two fatalities on the A339 between the Robin Hood and Sainsbury's roundabout in the recent past (since the figures posted by the OP were published).

AndI wonder what is the area covered as 'Newbury' in the statistics quoted.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 27 2011, 09:37 PM

Look again at the OP - refers to a 2008 TV programme repeated. It means that data is probably for 2007. The annual report comes out in June and is - I think - for the previous calendar year.
The area is the W Berks geographic one, including Highway Agency roads (M4/A34)

Posted by: blackdog Jan 27 2011, 09:43 PM

Which is why I noted that the two fatalities had happened since that data was published.


So the slower traffic flow in Newbury is not a reason for low casualty rate.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 27 2011, 10:15 PM

New Data every year http://www.eurorap.org/

The Eurorap report does not look at the reasons, just the numbers. The numbers do not always match the nationally produced figures either.

Plenty of cities have high casualty rates, and they have slower traffic than Newbury - all day.

The data relates the Killed rate (no argument about what that means, but the definition of 'killed by the crash' varies for other countries) to the area population (144000 or thereabouts). There are other stats re total road length and mileage travelled (a bit of a guesstimate) but the Eurorap is consistent. However, a single minibus crash can skew the figures for a year, so no one report drives action.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 29 2011, 12:12 AM

But being killed on a road doesn't mean killed by speed which was my point. Also the link provided is for 2006 - 2008 and contains no average traffic speed data.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 29 2011, 02:59 AM

Oh, no - the mobility scoooter lives to fight another day....

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 29 2011, 08:59 AM

Indeed, as a person can be killed by a load falling off a lorry etc. There are not may cases (not 'no') when the pace at which one/both/all the parties are travelling is not a factor. Along with attention paid by the parties etc.

The data is what it is. If you want traffic speed data then EuroRap is not for you.... If you find that information there may still not be a co-relation for all sorts of statistical reasons....

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 6 2011, 04:56 PM

I see they are re-painting the "magic roundabout" at St. John's with the infamous cycle lanes.
Watch out for errant bicycles and mobility scooters using them - oh no, of course - they use the pavements don't they?
Just in case the odd errant bike uses them - who does have the right of way??

Posted by: Strafin Feb 6 2011, 05:26 PM

Funny, the tories had a field day slating the lib dems over that, now they've done it too!

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 6 2011, 05:34 PM

Why have they just done the St John's roundabout? If it is such a good idea what about all the other roundabouts?

Is it because thousands of cyclists use this roundabout each year but the others are not used or what?

Or is it another of those council artworks on entry to the town that they keep wasting money on?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 6 2011, 05:50 PM

Maintaining road markings is not a party political issue. They are either maintained (as is happening) or removed (at considerable cost).
If removed then another road marking regime has to be put down, and even a 'standard' set of roundabout markings have to be drawn up by engineers to ensure current standards are achieved.
The cycle markings, like them or not, are part of a government led strategy to improve cycling facilities, so removing a part of the measures towards that strategic activity would doubtless be called in.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 6 2011, 06:35 PM

Sorry but that's not true, the council can change road markings, and even speed limits if they want to.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 6 2011, 06:50 PM

Of course they can, but it is not as simple as you imply, or maybe would wish. They certainly may not just do something differently because they feel like it. How about if they - overnight - changed the priorities on a roundabout?; closed off a road?; even, as you suggest, change a speed limit?
'Maintaining' can just be done, 'changing' involves the full range of Council bureaucracy - proposal, investigation, consultation, recommendation, design.....

Posted by: JeffG Feb 6 2011, 08:14 PM

(They haven't quite finished yet.)

I've always wondered how having a cycle lane round the outside of a roundabout is supposed to work. Roundabouts are predicated on the fact that you exit to the left, and traffic continuing round passes you on the right.

How are you supposed to allow for cyclists passing you on the inside which is what happens with this system? Anyone passing a left-turning vehicle on the inside is just asking for trouble.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 6 2011, 08:45 PM

[quote name='JeffG' date='Feb 6 2011, 08:14 PM' post='33777']
(They haven't quite finished yet.)

I've always wondered how having a cycle lane round the outside of a roundabout is supposed to work. Roundabouts are predicated on the fact that you exit to the left, and traffic continuing round passes you on the right.

How are you supposed to allow for cyclists passing you on the inside which is what happens with this system? Anyone passing a left-turning vehicle on the inside is just asking for trouble.


Are there towns nearby that have these markings on roundabouts? Who designed them?

Will the New CCTV system be able to monitor any accidents on them?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 6 2011, 09:01 PM

Here you go:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/a13_roundabouts.pdf

Do you really want CCTV monitoring traffic movements? Even as a tongue-in-cheek comment, someone will doubtless think you mean it!

Posted by: JeffG Feb 7 2011, 10:12 AM

Well, I'm not much the wiser from reading that. It looks like a design document, rather than advice to motorists.

If the purpose of the cross-hatching (just renewed) on the St. John's roundabout is to reduce it to a single driving lane, someone had better explain that to those motorists that believe that road markings don't apply to them. (The original markings were worn away from people driving over them.)

I still don't know what's going to happen to cyclists passing exiting motorists on the inside.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 7 2011, 12:49 PM

Given the relative speeds involved, cars will always be passing cyclists.

Therfore a car will always be overtaking the cyclist. Should the car then exit the roundabout the car would be cutting the cyclist off. The idea of the lane is to give the cyclist visiblilty & priority.

You'd not overtake another car & then cut them off would you?

Posted by: JeffG Feb 7 2011, 01:12 PM

No, of course not. I don't seem to be putting this very well, do I?

My point is, when I exit a roundabout I don't expect anything to be coming at me from the nearside. I am already in the left lane ready to exit. If you put a ring of cyclists on the outside of this, you completely change how roundabouts normally operate.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 01:14 PM

I understand your argument, but you should check the nearside before turning left. On my RAC/CBT course it was called a life saver.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 7 2011, 01:16 PM

err, I was led to believe that it was always mirror, singnal, manouvre and on a RB that means the nearside wing mirror.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 7 2011, 04:08 PM

Sorry to kick that one off.
I am still not too sure of the answer.
I am of the general opinion that if you are in a motor vehicle and have a collision with a cyclist you are automatically in the wrong.
Still, hypothetical question anyway because, as I said, they use the pavements.
Seems a lot of money to spend on something that is rarely used.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 7 2011, 04:49 PM

I believe that is the case in places on the continent (Holland?), but not here.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 7 2011, 07:11 PM

Your comments are very similar to the fuss made when the markings first went down.
Road markings exist to explain the road to users, not to make the driver pay attention. Any car driver who fails to see a cyclist, or any other road user, has a problem (even if not blame). Road users have to act according to the road conditions, use and layout as they find them at the time.

I don't particularly like the layout, but it is tested and approved, at it does encourage cyclists to follow a particular path (even if they choose not to).

Posted by: HJD Feb 7 2011, 07:41 PM

So who has tested it, GMR perhaps Who was it approved by Phil user23
But the serious bit was your last quote :- it does encourage cyclists to follow a particular path (even if they choose not to). So what's the point of it.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 8 2011, 09:32 AM

I'd be interested to hear whether anyone has actually seen a cyclist on or near the St. John's roundabout...

It seems to be a huge expense for very little (if any) benefit. Maybe I am just a selfish motorist, though. Perhaps there are hundreds using it and I just don't notice them

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 8 2011, 04:15 PM

Nope, you were right first time - it is a huge waste of money.