Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

There’s a potential positive aspect to the wider use of phones in the last decade or two: when you have a bad crash in the middle of nowhere, it’s easier to call for help, and to find/communicate your exact location. So may save a few fatalities by getting help quicker.

And, more recently, your car or Apple Watch may be able to make that call for you if you’re incapacitated.

Dunno if this happens enough for a noticeable impact on the figures, though.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by jnty »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:04
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:44 The invention of the 'phone zombie' caricature is just another in a long line of victim-blaming behaviours used by the anti-road safety lobby, rarely borne out by hard evidence, going right back to the invention of 'jaywalking' in the states following the introduction of motor vehicles to cities and consequent death and injury caused.
Why does discussion of road safety always have to be some kind of zero sum game? You appear to be arguing that because driving while using your phone is dangerous (which you're darn right about, btw), phone use by pedestrians can't possibly be a cause of increased danger. It's concentrating on phones when your attention should be elsewhere that's the problem, not whether that is occurring behind the wheel, on a bike or on foot.

Even when on the phone, people do tend to respond to the existence of pavements and kerbs, and there is a natural tendency to avoid stepping off a kerb into traffic that protects a lot of pedestrians from their own lack of observation as well as any behaviour by car drivers that may put them at risk. This safety net is largely absent when it comes to pedestrian/cycle interactions, especially in countries where cycle paths are physically segregated from motor traffic but less so from pedestrians.

I'm also not sure why you seem to believe that zomboid behaviour in relation to phones is the preserve of a specific mode of transport. What all phone users have in common, whether they are being "zombies" or not, is that they are human beings. It would surely be very odd if all the people we complain about for using their phone while driving were as good as gold regarding paying attention the moment they get out of their car and walk around, or vice versa. If you're the kind of person who walks straight across a cycle path without looking because you're concentrating on your phone, you are probably going to do precisely the same behind the wheel.

I can categorically state that "phone zombies" exist. They are neither a caricature nor an invention. I encounter them pretty much every time I cycle in the city, either on foot, on bikes or in cars. The difference between modes is as I explained above: I'm more likely to be affected by pedestrians being muppets because they have more frequent physical access to the same part of the road as me, and often are actually intended to be there alongside me, whereas car drivers are separated and I only need to interact with them at junctions.
To a quite significant degree, the road safety debate is a zero sum game. A pound spent on a crash barrier to keep an arterial road at 40 is a pound not spent on a protected cycle lane or a wider pavement. Officials have a limited time to listen to arguments, to implement new regulations or initiatives and, of course, limited budgets. The general public has limited attention spans and limited time to consume media - they will only read a certain number of newspaper column inches or adverts in a day. Car companies and associated lobbying groups, by virtue of the dynamics of the market, have far more time and money to spend on persuading people than other groups do. Which is why it's extremely dangerous when notions like 'phone zombies' become embedded and provide the perfect excuse for officials to ignore the evidence and save their cash on the sometimes quite difficult task of embedding sustainable safety in our urban environments. It's makes it much easier for them to go "oh, people just need to pay attention", throw some pocket change at some kind of awareness campaign, and ignore the hunks of metal flying past unprotected children at 35mph piloted by drivers trying to queue up a podcast on their (perfectly legal!) integrated touchscreen.

I can categorically believe that it has happened at least once that a distracted pedestrian has walked into a road and got hit by a driver who was fully in compliance with the law and driving at a reasonable speed for the conditions. I have yet to see any statistics which suggest this is a genuinely significant issue, nor any suggestions to solve it which don't involve wagging fingers (usually at 'millennials' or whatever the latest generational boogeyman phrase is) and leaving everything else as it is.

Let's not ignore the moral dimension here - being absorbed on your phone while walking on the street is at best harmless and at worst rude and foolish. Doing so while in charge of a vehicle in a busy city is negligent almost to the point of being murderous - and the law more or less agrees. Many behaviours are fine in one context while being extremely bad in another - attempting to equivocate phone use on foot with phone use while driving is to be wilfully blind to context.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by FosseWay »

jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:18 Let's not ignore the moral dimension here - being absorbed on your phone while walking on the street is at best harmless and at worst rude and foolish. Doing so while in charge of a vehicle in a busy city is negligent almost to the point of being murderous - and the law more or less agrees. Many behaviours are fine in one context while being extremely bad in another - attempting to equivocate phone use on foot with phone use while driving is to be wilfully blind to context.
On being blind to context: I am *far* more likely as a cyclist to have a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist than with a car. As said, I am in close proximity to pedestrians and other cyclists to a much greater degree than with cars, and the layout of cycle/pedestrian facilities means that I often have very little warning of a sudden departure from normal/desired behaviour from another road user. Conversely, where I cross motor roads I can generally see the traffic coming and take action, such as not insisting on my priority, if the car approaching is being driven antisocially. It simply isn't true to suggest that walking straight across a cycle lane (or tram line, as frequently happens here) is just rude or foolish. It is dangerous.

Everyone who is capable of being out by themselves has a duty to behave in a sensible, responsible fashion that allows other people to move around in a similar responsible, safe fashion. That means accepting that in certain locations, one group of users must give way to another, and it means being aware of what is going on around you. Exactly what you need to do to live up to that responsibility differs depending on whether you're on foot, in a car, driving an artic or whatever, but the general duty and the reason for it are the same for everyone.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9707
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by WHBM »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:37
On being blind to context: I am *far* more likely as a cyclist to have a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist than with a car.
It was notable that in an analysis (it was long ago) of accidents on the Manchester tram system running on the street in the city centre, there were far more pedestrian accidents than any other type, a surprising number of buses, and very few cars.

The principal at risk road user around here in London seems to be motor cyclists; there was yet another fatal motorbike accident on the A13 this last Saturday. I have not seen any justification for why pedal cyclist fatalities are always headline stories and motorbike fatalities are swept under the carpet.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by jnty »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:37
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:18 Let's not ignore the moral dimension here - being absorbed on your phone while walking on the street is at best harmless and at worst rude and foolish. Doing so while in charge of a vehicle in a busy city is negligent almost to the point of being murderous - and the law more or less agrees. Many behaviours are fine in one context while being extremely bad in another - attempting to equivocate phone use on foot with phone use while driving is to be wilfully blind to context.
On being blind to context: I am *far* more likely as a cyclist to have a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist than with a car. As said, I am in close proximity to pedestrians and other cyclists to a much greater degree than with cars, and the layout of cycle/pedestrian facilities means that I often have very little warning of a sudden departure from normal/desired behaviour from another road user. Conversely, where I cross motor roads I can generally see the traffic coming and take action, such as not insisting on my priority, if the car approaching is being driven antisocially. It simply isn't true to suggest that walking straight across a cycle lane (or tram line, as frequently happens here) is just rude or foolish. It is dangerous.

Everyone who is capable of being out by themselves has a duty to behave in a sensible, responsible fashion that allows other people to move around in a similar responsible, safe fashion. That means accepting that in certain locations, one group of users must give way to another, and it means being aware of what is going on around you. Exactly what you need to do to live up to that responsibility differs depending on whether you're on foot, in a car, driving an artic or whatever, but the general duty and the reason for it are the same for everyone.
I hadn't clocked that you're not a UK resident and live in a city with much better (or at least well used) cycle infrastructure than much of the UK - that certainly changes the dynamic, and I disagree with very little of what you've just said. However, I still think we have to be careful to keep things in perspective in these situations. If I'm walking in crowds at a football match, I'm quite likely to somehow collide with another pedestrian. If I'm cycling through a busy urban setting, there is indeed regrettably a risk of bike/pedestrian collisions. None of these collisions are desirable and even pedestrian-on-pedestrian collisions can sometimes cause serious injury and death, particularly if one of those involved is particularly vulnerable, but there would need to be ten or maybe even a hundred times more of these collisions to bring the overall risk up to that posed by motor vehicles.

While it's important to maintain minimum standards and good design in all urban environments - and a modicum of politeness in behaviour - it's really important to never to miss the big picture. In the UK, we seem to be really good at getting very worried about 'near misses' on cycle paths while ignoring the terrible accident record of an adjacent main road. We'll talk about 'equal responsibilities' of 'sharing' the road when every driver knows full well that they're going to come to no (physical) harm at all in almost any collision with a pedestrian, while the pedestrian will almost always be hospitalised or worse. And I would estimate that the volume of media time spent on 'phone zombies' and 'lawless cyclists' is at least triple that spent on discussions around 'lawless drivers' - even though surveys indicate that everyone is, on average, as lawless as everyone else, albeit with much more deadly consequences when we're behind the wheel. As a recent example, I wonder how many pedestrians were unlawfully killed by drivers during the media circus around Charlie Alliston's dangerous cycling court case, and ensuing calls for law changes? I certainly didn't hear about it.

So yes, I'll continue to treat discourse around road safety as a zero sum game - because in the UK it really does often seem to be, to the detriment of people who want to occasionally get around without a car.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by KeithW »

WHBM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:57
FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:37
On being blind to context: I am *far* more likely as a cyclist to have a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist than with a car.
It was notable that in an analysis (it was long ago) of accidents on the Manchester tram system running on the street in the city centre, there were far more pedestrian accidents than any other type, a surprising number of buses, and very few cars.

The principal at risk road user around here in London seems to be motor cyclists; there was yet another fatal motorbike accident on the A13 this last Saturday. I have not seen any justification for why pedal cyclist fatalities are always headline stories and motorbike fatalities are swept under the carpet.
As an ex motorcyclist I can confirm it can indeed affirm motorcyclists are at risk and I have the scars and limp to prove it, that said it al depends on how you measure the risk, In raw numbers car drivers and passengers are the highest but they are the largest number of road users in traveller miles per year

If you look at adjusted rates the risk in terms of user miles travelled is

1) Motorcycle
2) Pedestrian
3) Pedal Cycle
4) Car
5) HGV
6) LGV
7) Bus/Coach

See
https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... t-15.0.pdf
Page 13
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by A303Chris »

jervi wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 18:24 The last one had so many errors in it, it could of been classified as satire. I wonder if this one is any better?
This was the same, my best was "I'm now on the M25", no you're not your passing under j10 eastbound on the m4, even my partner saw that.

It would have been better to show accidents per million of miles travelled then compared with other countries, like Spain, Italy, France etc, and we would have been lower.

The A82 is 175 miles long and apart from the 10 miles north of Tarbet by the side of Loch Lomond, in my opinion the road is fine. You can not speed on that section and just have to take it carefully. Given the road only has a AADT of 3,100, I see busier housing estate roads. Through Glen Coe it only increases to 3,200, so the flows are so low, no Government is going to spend money on it. South of Tarbet, on the improved length it is 8,800 which suggests most traffic goes along the A83.

The A9 at the Pass of Drumochter is only 9,900, all figures 2019 before the pandemic. Therefore its peoples driving standards that cause accidents not the lack of police of layout of the road.

The reference to deaths on smart motorways, would have been better presented in pre conversion the roads had so many accidents per million vehicle miles and now they are this. Obviously they did not want to do this as it would not assist the narrative they wanted to create.

I found the whole programme like most BBC output these days to be totally unbalanced and not offering a balanced view.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by Chris Bertram »

jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:44... the anti-road safety lobby ...
What is this, a group of people who actively want less safe roads? Care to say who they are?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 24664
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by Helvellyn »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:11
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:44... the anti-road safety lobby ...
What is this, a group of people who actively want less safe roads? Care to say who they are?
Doubt anyone wants more people hurt, but there are people who aren't so keen on all the measures put in place to avoid them - which is fair enough unless you go for an extreme "anything done in the name of safety must not be argued against" position.
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 24664
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by Helvellyn »

WHBM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:57
FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:37
On being blind to context: I am *far* more likely as a cyclist to have a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist than with a car.
It was notable that in an analysis (it was long ago) of accidents on the Manchester tram system running on the street in the city centre, there were far more pedestrian accidents than any other type, a surprising number of buses, and very few cars.
There aren't that many places where trams and cars can come in to contact with each other, but there are some shared tram and bus lanes, and pedestrians have access to city centre areas where the trams run.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by KeithW »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:04 Even when on the phone, people do tend to respond to the existence of pavements and kerbs, and there is a natural tendency to avoid stepping off a kerb into traffic that protects a lot of pedestrians from their own lack of observation as well as any behaviour by car drivers that may put them at risk. This safety net is largely absent when it comes to pedestrian/cycle interactions, especially in countries where cycle paths are physically segregated from motor traffic but less so from pedestrians.
Anything that distracts you increases risk and there is ample evidence of people being killed or seriously injured as a result of stepping out into traffic. I was a witness to one such event in Wembley close to the arena. The pedestrian concerned was just yards from this crossing but decided to run across the road and was hit by a car. He clearly had not seen the car and was lucky to survive. The police investigated and were of the opinion that what saved him was the prompt braking of the car driver.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.56099 ... 8192?hl=en

A 2015 study showed that in the case of deaths and serious injuries 51% had as a contributory factor Adult pedestrians failing to look properly.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448036/pedestrian-casualties-2013-data.pdf wrote: The most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians of all ages is ‘failed to look
properly’. This is known as ‘looked but failed to see’ in road safety literature. Between
2009 and 2013 74 per cent of child pedestrians, 51 per cent of adult pedestrians aged
between 16 and 59 and older pedestrians above the age of 60 failed to see.

The second most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians of all ages was
‘careless reckless or in a hurry’. This is most common among child pedestrians, of
which 36 per cent of child pedestrian KSIs were careless, reckless or in a hurry in
comparison to 24 per cent of adult pedestrians aged 16 to 59 and 12 per cent of older
pedestrians above the age of 60.

The most common contributory factor allocated to adult pedestrian KSI casualties aged
from 16 to 19 is ‘impaired by alcohol’. Between 2009 and 2013, 23 percent of adult
pedestrians were impaired by alcohol compared with only 5 per cent of older
pedestrians. Based on 2012 coroners’ data, 73 per cent of pedestrians aged 16 and over
who were killed in reported accidents between the hours of 10 pm and 4 am were over
the legal limit for drivers compared with 61 per cent of car drivers who were also killed
in those reported accidents. It is also estimated that in 2012 there were around 80
pedestrians killed or seriously injured in accidents where the driver was over the legal
limit. The majority of these were aged between 16 and 59.

Older pedestrians are more likely to be allocated contributory factors relating to their
wellbeing. Between 2009 and 2013, 6 per cent of older pedestrian KSIs over the age of
60 were allocated the contributory factor ‘pedestrian disability or illness,
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by jnty »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:11
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:44... the anti-road safety lobby ...
What is this, a group of people who actively want less safe roads? Care to say who they are?
There are and always have been plenty of people who think things are fine "just as they are" and generally oppose further safety measures. Sometimes the people who hold these views worry, rationally or not, that they might be inconvenienced by measures like bike lanes, LTNs, wider pavements, speed limits; others happen to work for companies for whom the new measures might cost them money or lose them sales. You might not say "I want people to be less safe" but your actions might have that result - in a similar way to how you can profess to care deeply about climate change while still burning coal by the ton.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by Chris Bertram »

jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:54
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:11
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:44... the anti-road safety lobby ...
What is this, a group of people who actively want less safe roads? Care to say who they are?
There are and always have been plenty of people who think things are fine "just as they are" and generally oppose further safety measures. Sometimes the people who hold these views worry, rationally or not, that they might be inconvenienced by measures like bike lanes, LTNs, wider pavements, speed limits; others happen to work for companies for whom the new measures might cost them money or lose them sales. You might not say "I want people to be less safe" but your actions might have that result - in a similar way to how you can profess to care deeply about climate change while still burning coal by the ton.
Does this include anyone who complains about any measure at all, regardless of the reason for their opposition? There's a lot of "we're always right" about coming from the industry promoting the measures that you list, but they don't always work as intended or to the overall benefit of the public.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by jnty »

Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 17:05
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:54
Chris Bertram wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:11
What is this, a group of people who actively want less safe roads? Care to say who they are?
There are and always have been plenty of people who think things are fine "just as they are" and generally oppose further safety measures. Sometimes the people who hold these views worry, rationally or not, that they might be inconvenienced by measures like bike lanes, LTNs, wider pavements, speed limits; others happen to work for companies for whom the new measures might cost them money or lose them sales. You might not say "I want people to be less safe" but your actions might have that result - in a similar way to how you can profess to care deeply about climate change while still burning coal by the ton.
Does this include anyone who complains about any measure at all, regardless of the reason for their opposition? There's a lot of "we're always right" about coming from the industry promoting the measures that you list, but they don't always work as intended or to the overall benefit of the public.
No. But there are a lot of people who seem to complain about almost every measure at all, and suspiciously seem to think that the problem is either everything but cars, or that there is no problem at all. These people often have a vested interest; they're often representing companies or trade bodies. For example, this recent story boosting the "phone zombie" caricature actually came from a press release by Fiat promoting the new Fiat 500 and its safety features. A counter-argument might be that the best safety feature of the Fiat 500 in a city is the "off" button but clearly Fiat would rather head that off, so they commission "puff pieces" like this.
User avatar
chaseracer
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 15:46
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by chaseracer »

Helvellyn wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:21 There aren't that many places where trams and cars can come in to contact with each other...
Bilston Road, Wolverhampton. Seem to co-exist quite happily, though.
BF2142
Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 13:42
Location: Essex

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by BF2142 »

I didn’t see the entire show but was widening the unsafe sections of the A82 discussed? Why does Scotland still have an A road where two large vehicles can’t pass without a risk of colliding? Hasn’t the highway authority got liability for failure to maintain the road to a modern standard?

My take was that it was propaganda for the safety lobby. More speeding tickets, more cameras, more going slow. Safety shouldn’t be some trump card. I feel we could be losing a lot of freedom because of the obsession with safety. At what point do you say it’s safe enough?
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by jnty »

BF2142 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 18:03 I didn’t see the entire show but was widening the unsafe sections of the A82 discussed? Why does Scotland still have an A road where two large vehicles can’t pass without a risk of colliding? Hasn’t the highway authority got liability for failure to maintain the road to a modern standard?

My take was that it was propaganda for the safety lobby. More speeding tickets, more cameras, more going slow. Safety shouldn’t be some trump card. I feel we could be losing a lot of freedom because of the obsession with safety. At what point do you say it’s safe enough?
Was the show specific about what parts of the A82 are actually dangerous? The worst bits further south are signal controlled, I think. Further north around Glencoe are where I would consider it most dangerous - some of the overtakes during busy tourist season. There's good sightlines for a lot of it, but this seems to encourage people to hop entire queues and inevitably conflict as people further up the queue pull out without looking etc.

Don't say things like "Why does Scotland still have an A road where two large vehicles can’t pass without a risk of colliding?" unless you'd like to start a compilation thread of the S1 A-roads of Scotland! Trunk A-roads are a bit better but there's still plenty of pinch points.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9707
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by WHBM »

I've driven the A82 quite a bit, and the worst sections, including every actual accident I have passed, are north of Crianlarich on the dead-straight, somewhat narrow 1930s alignments across the moors, where 70-80mph in both directions seems common, along with hazards like deer herds at night.
BF2142 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 18:03 I didn’t see the entire show but was widening the unsafe sections of the A82 discussed? Why does Scotland still have an A road where two large vehicles can’t pass without a risk of colliding? Hasn’t the highway authority got liability for failure to maintain the road to a modern standard?
Simplistically, no. The liability law is that the public highways are as you find them. That 99.9 (to a number of decimal 9 points) of users manage them OK tells you something.

One of the contributors to the substantially reduced accident rate is that pretty much all the significant hazard items that were on roads have been engineered out already. Accident nodes to receive particular attention, but there is a cost/justificatrion. I look at the A82 around Arrochar and wonder just how one could engineer it out, especially as actual vehicle usage over the year is quite light. I've driven south from Crianlarich to Tarbet, late evening in summer, and hardly passed a vehicle.
User avatar
Ruperts Trooper
Member
Posts: 12031
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by Ruperts Trooper »

WHBM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 18:54 I've driven the A82 quite a bit, and the worst sections, including every actual accident I have passed, are north of Crianlarich on the dead-straight, somewhat narrow 1930s alignments across the moors, where 70-80mph in both directions seems common, along with hazards like deer herds at night.
BF2142 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 18:03 I didn’t see the entire show but was widening the unsafe sections of the A82 discussed? Why does Scotland still have an A road where two large vehicles can’t pass without a risk of colliding? Hasn’t the highway authority got liability for failure to maintain the road to a modern standard?
Simplistically, no. The liability law is that the public highways are as you find them. That 99.9 (to a number of decimal 9 points) of users manage them OK tells you something.

One of the contributors to the substantially reduced accident rate is that pretty much all the significant hazard items that were on roads have been engineered out already. Accident nodes to receive particular attention, but there is a cost/justificatrion. I look at the A82 around Arrochar and wonder just how one could engineer it out, especially as actual vehicle usage over the year is quite light. I've driven south from Crianlarich to Tarbet, late evening in summer, and hardly passed a vehicle.
I've driven the A82 between Glasgow and Fort William many times, usually with a 2.3m wide caravan - it's very slow in places due to the narrow width but I've never found it a major challenge - even the appearance on an oncoming LHD coach merely requires stopping and manoeuvring slowly - those who expect to drive it at NSL speeds are almost bound to come to grief.
Lifelong motorhead
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Panorama tonight on "Britain's killer roads?"

Post by KeithW »

Ruperts Trooper wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 19:11 I've driven the A82 between Glasgow and Fort William many times, usually with a 2.3m wide caravan - it's very slow in places due to the narrow width but I've never found it a major challenge - even the appearance on an oncoming LHD coach merely requires stopping and manoeuvring slowly - those who expect to drive it at NSL speeds are almost bound to come to grief.
And judging by the bits of wing mirror and bumpers dropped on the loch side of the road quite a few have. Its not my favorite section of the road but the only hazard I was worried about were the vehicle drivers who drove too far from the nearside making others slow down and creep past.
Post Reply