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

Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

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

Post by Herned »

chaseracer wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 17:54 Bilston Road, Wolverhampton. Seem to co-exist quite happily, though.
The comment related to Manchester city centre, not in general
User avatar
Alderpoint
Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:25
Location: Leamington Spa

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

Post by Alderpoint »

jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 18:26
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.
I don't think any bits of the A82 are signal controlled anymore. Both Pulpit Rock and Crianlarich used to to have lights, but they have both been removed in the past 10-ish years.
Let it snow.
User avatar
ROAD ROVER
Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 07:48
Location: London

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

Post by ROAD ROVER »

I recall Panorama being quite a heavyweight programme back in the day with a heavyweight, punchy orchestral theme to introduce it. Then in the late eighties(?) they recorded & introduced a synthesised version of the theme music, a weedy, anaemic version which entirely lacked the gravitas of the original & the programme content seemed to follow this lack of punch. I never see the programme these days but believe another even more insipid version of the tune is used now. The last ones l did see seemed like the news documentary version of The One Show. Not that l watch that either.
ISTR World in Action also went downhill when they softened the theme music, which it seems can maybe be used as a fair gauge of the level of a news programmes content. :roll:
User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

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

Post by solocle »

Alderpoint wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 22:05
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 18:26
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.
I don't think any bits of the A82 are signal controlled anymore. Both Pulpit Rock and Crianlarich used to to have lights, but they have both been removed in the past 10-ish years.
Does Tyndrum not technically count?
6CFD27D4-FA4F-41C8-A83D-D1BD48A98981.jpeg
That section of the A82 is a stunning road.
0729C64B-45F7-4764-9D30-235F8433DCF9.jpeg
3A51D936-B92F-4FCB-A033-F0DF57665AB8.jpeg
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 »

solocle wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 08:40Does Tyndrum not technically count?
6CFD27D4-FA4F-41C8-A83D-D1BD48A98981.jpeg
That's a signalised pedestrian crossing, not signal controlled SALT.
“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
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 17:16 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 ...
A reaction, perhaps, to the seemingly relentless assertion that the problem is *always* cars. I know it's easy to focus on the shiny boxes on four wheels, but there are other aspects to road safety such as the infrastructure that everyone uses, no matter how many wheels they have or how they are propelled. I never cease to be amazed at the number of separate groups there are who declare themselves to be road safety focussed; there's surely some scope for amalgamation there?
“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
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 »

Herned wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 20:57
chaseracer wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 17:54 Bilston Road, Wolverhampton. Seem to co-exist quite happily, though.
The comment related to Manchester city centre, not in general
Maybe so. Mine didn't.
Last edited by chaseracer on Wed Jan 19, 2022 09:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

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

Post by ForestChav »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 09:02
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 17:16 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 ...
A reaction, perhaps, to the seemingly relentless assertion that the problem is *always* cars. I know it's easy to focus on the shiny boxes on four wheels, but there are other aspects to road safety such as the infrastructure that everyone uses, no matter how many wheels they have or how they are propelled. I never cease to be amazed at the number of separate groups there are who declare themselves to be road safety focussed; there's surely some scope for amalgamation there?
Not only that (I watched the programme last night), it seemed to be that the focus for drivers was on actual speed not inappropriate use of speed.

I think the person who was on about speed cameras on the A82 has already been mentioned here, and though I'm not familiar with the A82 at all in person, I know where it goes and a fair amount of it is following lakes, so is probably crammed in at the bottom of a hill with the lake on the other side. Outside of a built up area means it's probably likely to be NSL or 50, but even then, it looked like some bits you wouldn't be able to get through over 30 with standing water and it generally being too narrow for the trucks to get down without needing to go on the wrong side of the road, and also the number of bends making anticipating these difficult as well. Speed cameras on that would have to be set to the actual limit (plus whatever) and probably wouldn't do anything about any of the issues, which is probably why they don't have them.

It was also interesting to see that from their research one county doesn't have any fixed or mobile speed cameras at all, yet doesn't stand out as having a bad accident record, and most of the others have a significant proportion off or not working. I guess it would have been inappropriate for them to say as viewers would just ignore them.

I didn't get the point of them showing the drivers pulling out inappropriately at roundabouts as a "speed issue", that issue is because they are pushing out onto a roundabout where they shouldn't be or pulling out into traffic, as opposed to going over what the limit is. In this bit they just showed a load of clips of crashes and near misses but they could have showed with these what the bad driving was and who caused it/what they should have done instead. It just looked like they'd inserted clips of people crashing to make it more dramatic.

And the bit at the start with the village where there are no pavements and the narrow roads, yeah so that's not safe but drivers won't be going very fast down there and pedestrians should know to walk in the direction of oncoming traffic (i.e. on the right hand side) to keep it as safe as you can. They then just added a bit more melodrama by showing a little lad who had been hit by a car and broken his leg (Ok, he was 13 so not that little, but was he messing around with his friends or something, or was he walking sensibly and the driver was going too fast, etc etc) in a hospital bed and with a cast on at home looking sad. Having a footway there wasn't going to be the answer so they would have to just accept that it's not very safe and educate people.

The main issue is that they seemed to want to touch on a lot of issues but in a half hour time slot didn't have time to do it justice. With a couple or more programmes or an hour they could have done this. It didn't really say a lot about anything.
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
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 »

chaseracer wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 17:54
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.
I was talking about the Manchester trams (and mostly thinking about just the city centre).
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 »

jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 16:54
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.
Speaking as someone who generally (not always, but generally) does take the view that things are fine as they are it's neither because of inconvenience or vested interests but finding the measures over-the-top, excessive, insulting, patronising, stooping to the lowest common denominator etc. Building a world for children. Like I've said often enough before - in short, not one I really want to live, finding the (low if you're not an idiot, and if you are an idiot that's your problem) risks less obnoxious than the solutions.
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 »

ForestChav wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 09:34 I didn't get the point of them showing the drivers pulling out inappropriately at roundabouts as a "speed issue", that issue is because they are pushing out onto a roundabout where they shouldn't be or pulling out into traffic, as opposed to going over what the limit is.
It *is* a speed issue, in the sense that anyone using a roundabout should be aware of the possibility that entering traffic may not follow the rules and that it may be necessary to stop, slow down or take evasive action, and should enter the situation at a speed that facilitates this.

What it isn't, is a speed *limit* issue, since the speeds involved even in the most egregious cases are unlikely to be above the posted limit except possibly in 20 limits. The problem is that decades of emphasis on the number in the roundel means that many actors in this whole debate - not just drivers but also enforcers and roads authorities - seem to have lost sight of the concept of a "suitable speed for the situation". Basically we've had it rammed down our throats that the important thing is to keep your speed under the stated limit, and that has been extended in many people's mind to a presumption that if you're not speeding, you are OK, especially in urban (30 or 20-limited) environments. The concept of driving to the conditions is still somewhat alive in NSL where the vast majority of people's sense of self-preservation will kick in long before 60.
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
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

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

Post by Bryn666 »

Chris Bertram wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 09:02
jnty wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 17:16 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 ...
A reaction, perhaps, to the seemingly relentless assertion that the problem is *always* cars. I know it's easy to focus on the shiny boxes on four wheels, but there are other aspects to road safety such as the infrastructure that everyone uses, no matter how many wheels they have or how they are propelled. I never cease to be amazed at the number of separate groups there are who declare themselves to be road safety focussed; there's surely some scope for amalgamation there?
That might be because the majority of vehicles on the road are now cars, and they therefore by logical conclusion cause the most problems. It's completely blinkered "I'm all right Jack" attitudes that make people think they don't.

You can own a car and still acknowledge the social problems mass car dependency causes for pollution, safety, and general health. Why people think it's normal to drive kids quarter of a mile to school for example is beyond me. Even 20 years ago it was social suicide to have mummy drop you off at the gates.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
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 »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:15 You can own a car and still acknowledge the social problems mass car dependency causes for pollution, safety, and general health. Why people think it's normal to drive kids quarter of a mile to school for example is beyond me. Even 20 years ago it was social suicide to have mummy drop you off at the gates.
Ironically enough probably because of worries about safety. Have your children toddle off to school unprotected? Perish the thought! What if something happens to them? Better off in the car. This shows how disingenuous many safety arguments are - argue against taking children to school in the car and the retort will be "so you're not bothered about children getting hurt?" Probably made by someone who believes that they're making an unarguable counter-point rather than trying to make you look bad.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

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

Post by Bryn666 »

Helvellyn wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:23
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:15 You can own a car and still acknowledge the social problems mass car dependency causes for pollution, safety, and general health. Why people think it's normal to drive kids quarter of a mile to school for example is beyond me. Even 20 years ago it was social suicide to have mummy drop you off at the gates.
Ironically enough probably because of worries about safety. Have your children toddle off to school unprotected? Perish the thought! What if something happens to them? Better off in the car. This shows how disingenuous many safety arguments are - argue against taking children to school in the car and the retort will be "so you're not bothered about children getting hurt?" Probably made by someone who believes that they're making an unarguable counter-point rather than trying to make you look bad.
It is pretty much some weird feedback loop - "the roads are too full of cars so crossing is difficult, I'd better drive then".

There's also of course the paedohysteria that the Mail and Sun were good at whipping up based on one or two very tragic but hardly widespread incidents but that's a wider symptom of helicopter parenting I think, not really road safety related.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
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 »

Maybe it's not road safety but it is still all about risk perception and reaction - "there is a risk, this will mitigate it, so why wouldn't I do it?" Size of risk isn't a factor, it's the "no reason not to" perspective.
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 »

ForestChav wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 09:34It was also interesting to see that from their research one county doesn't have any fixed or mobile speed cameras at all, yet doesn't stand out as having a bad accident record, and most of the others have a significant proportion off or not working. I guess it would have been inappropriate for them to say as viewers would just ignore them.
From memory, North Yorkshire and Durham were the last holdouts against fixed speed cameras, so it would be one or other of them. I have a feeling that Durham may have some Talivans now; N Yorkshire would then be relying on traditional traffic cop enforcement. This allows them to act as a control group against areas with speed cameras, though N Yorks police area is largely rural, with only York, Harrogate and Scarborough as large cities or towns.
“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 »

Helvellyn wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:23
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:15 You can own a car and still acknowledge the social problems mass car dependency causes for pollution, safety, and general health. Why people think it's normal to drive kids quarter of a mile to school for example is beyond me. Even 20 years ago it was social suicide to have mummy drop you off at the gates.
Ironically enough probably because of worries about safety. Have your children toddle off to school unprotected? Perish the thought! What if something happens to them? Better off in the car. This shows how disingenuous many safety arguments are - argue against taking children to school in the car and the retort will be "so you're not bothered about children getting hurt?" Probably made by someone who believes that they're making an unarguable counter-point rather than trying to make you look bad.
Yes - this is evidence of infrastructure being designed around car travel and making car travel safe and easy. It clearly wasn't always this way. Roads and motor vehicle priority didn't just magically appear from the mists of time; they're the result of decades of concerted lobbying by motorists and motoring companies. The fury we are seeing at LTNs etc is a combined result of the average motorist getting very upset about any deviation from this now well-established favourable norm, and more organised interests realising that it represents a strategic shift away from car-centric design.

When these people say it is not safe for children to walk to school, they may well be right in an objective sense, but what they're really talking about most of the time is that it doesn't feel safe and convenient, at least when compared to driving a car. This isn't just a natural fact - even if you live a mile or two away from school, a walk (or cycle) along quiet backstreets will feel very different to a slog along a muddy verge on a busy NSL main road, just as a drive down a free-flowing dual carriageway into a spacious car park will feel different from a crawl along a congested main road followed by a wiggly back-streets drive to get as close as possible to the school gates. None of these scenarios arise naturally - all of them are a function of design decisions that have been made (or not made) over the years based on explicit decisions, prevailing standards and norms. When I (lazily, perhaps) use the phrase 'anti-road safety lobbyists', I refer to people who seek to ensure that these decisions continue to favour motorists and motoring every time they come up; the end result being more cars and a worse world for those who aren't in them.
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19171
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

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

Post by Steven »

jnty wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:01 When these people say it is not safe for children to walk to school, they may well be right in an objective sense, but what they're really talking about most of the time is that it doesn't feel safe and convenient, at least when compared to driving a car. This isn't just a natural fact - even if you live a mile or two away from school, a walk (or cycle) along quiet backstreets will feel very different to a slog along a muddy verge on a busy NSL main road, just as a drive down a free-flowing dual carriageway into a spacious car park will feel different from a crawl along a congested main road followed by a wiggly back-streets drive to get as close as possible to the school gates.
One thing to also bear in mind is that it's not just transport policy that affects this problem. For the last 40-50 years there's been a policy of closing schools in favour of ever larger single-site locations. From a LEA financial point of view, this may be advantageous, but it also means that for a lot of people they simply can't walk down the road to the neighbourhood school any more in any reasonable timeframe.

For example, and bear in mind that we live in a large city for this, so there's no additional rural issues going on, my son's secondary school is about 2.5 miles away, including crossing a number of extremely busy roads, some of which have minimal pedestrian facilities. However, up until about 10 years ago, there was an alternative secondary school about 1 mile away; but this school is no more and the site is cleared.

It was the same for my daughter - the nearest former primary school building was about 0.5 miles away, and an easy walk (if not the most pleasant). However, the school was converted to a Youth Centre in the 1980s, and so instead she ended up as a five year old at a school 1.5 miles away. And this was from a relative inner city starting point as well.

Reversing this ever-larger schools policy will help with the "school run" issues more than anything else.
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

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 »

Steven wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:32
jnty wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:01 When these people say it is not safe for children to walk to school, they may well be right in an objective sense, but what they're really talking about most of the time is that it doesn't feel safe and convenient, at least when compared to driving a car. This isn't just a natural fact - even if you live a mile or two away from school, a walk (or cycle) along quiet backstreets will feel very different to a slog along a muddy verge on a busy NSL main road, just as a drive down a free-flowing dual carriageway into a spacious car park will feel different from a crawl along a congested main road followed by a wiggly back-streets drive to get as close as possible to the school gates.
One thing to also bear in mind is that it's not just transport policy that affects this problem. For the last 40-50 years there's been a policy of closing schools in favour of ever larger single-site locations. From a LEA financial point of view, this may be advantageous, but it also means that for a lot of people they simply can't walk down the road to the neighbourhood school any more in any reasonable timeframe.

For example, and bear in mind that we live in a large city for this, so there's no additional rural issues going on, my son's secondary school is about 2.5 miles away, including crossing a number of extremely busy roads, some of which have minimal pedestrian facilities. However, up until about 10 years ago, there was an alternative secondary school about 1 mile away; but this school is no more and the site is cleared.

It was the same for my daughter - the nearest former primary school building was about 0.5 miles away, and an easy walk (if not the most pleasant). However, the school was converted to a Youth Centre in the 1980s, and so instead she ended up as a five year old at a school 1.5 miles away. And this was from a relative inner city starting point as well.

Reversing this ever-larger schools policy will help with the "school run" issues more than anything else.
Agreed - and this fits in with the "15/20 minute neighbourhood" idea which is gaining currency in planning and transport circles.

But the key detail "including crossing a number of extremely busy roads, some of which have minimal pedestrian facilities" is still there. 2.5 flattish miles is quite reasonable on a bike - the sort of distance over which you can sometimes beat car travel times in a busy city. It's maybe a sub 45 minute walk - probably slog territory in winter but a totally reasonable stroll home with your mates in the summer. Yet the walk sounds deeply unpleasant and the cycle is probably verging on impossible for a child.

So while planning policy may have set up this particular failure, transport policy has followed through and knocked it out the park.
User avatar
exiled
President
Posts: 24644
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 17:36
Location: South Lanarkshire

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

Post by exiled »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:28
Helvellyn wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:23
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:15 You can own a car and still acknowledge the social problems mass car dependency causes for pollution, safety, and general health. Why people think it's normal to drive kids quarter of a mile to school for example is beyond me. Even 20 years ago it was social suicide to have mummy drop you off at the gates.
Ironically enough probably because of worries about safety. Have your children toddle off to school unprotected? Perish the thought! What if something happens to them? Better off in the car. This shows how disingenuous many safety arguments are - argue against taking children to school in the car and the retort will be "so you're not bothered about children getting hurt?" Probably made by someone who believes that they're making an unarguable counter-point rather than trying to make you look bad.
It is pretty much some weird feedback loop - "the roads are too full of cars so crossing is difficult, I'd better drive then".

There's also of course the paedohysteria that the Mail and Sun were good at whipping up based on one or two very tragic but hardly widespread incidents but that's a wider symptom of helicopter parenting I think, not really road safety related.
Pretty much the feedback loop of the news that feeds in to peoples' genuine concerns for their children. The reasons these stories get on even the regional news is thankfully they are very rare, otherwise they would not make the news. However the mind makes them much more common 'the third this year in October' becomes the 'third this month' in the viewers heads.
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!
Post Reply