Login to comment

• Dave - 26/06/2015 13:45

  It would be interesting to know what the proportion of deaths is against the number of drivers or vehicles on the road to see if more drivers/vehicles has an impact on the figures.

  • 1 
  • 0 

  • Gareth Roberts - 26/06/2015 14:10

    What we do know is that vehicle traffic levels increased by 2.4% between 2013 and 2014, which compares to the 4% year-on-year rise in deaths.

    • 0 
    • 0 

• mark edgecombe - 28/06/2015 06:27

  Think Amy is a registered charity which promotes safe driving. It was first set up as a safe driving campaign by Jane Hofmeister after her 13 year old daughter Amy was killed in June 2011 in Taunton, Somerset whilst cycling on a cycle path in broad daylight. The driver of the car that killed Amy had been racing another at motorway speeds along a residential road. He overtook the car he was racing, lost control on a bend and struck the kerb flipping the car into the air which hit Amy, killing her instantly. Think Amy has been operating as a safe driving campaign since 2011. In April 2014 it was successfully registered as a charity with a new body of trustees. In its first year as a charity, a priority for the trustees was to develop a 3-year Strategic Plan, to set out a clear strategic direction for the charity. The trustees’ strategic vision is to make Think Amy "the" campaign for safe driving across the UK; to make the term ‘Think Amy’ synonymous with safe driving. Remember, Drive Safely, Think Amy! The trustees want to remind drivers that their driving style is a choice they make themselves – the driver alone has the power and the choice to drive safely. We want Think Amy to influence that choice. You stated that “A new national strategy on road safety cannot come soon enough" We believe that together with the support of the motor industry we can make a hugely positive difference. Remember, Drive safely, Think Amy!

  • 0 
  • 0 

• Bob P - 30/06/2015 20:09

  Reading the other comments being self employed I require my phone whilst I am driving like a lot of other people . I am a non smoker but if I did I can drive along open a packet of cigarettes. Pop one in my mouth push in a cigarette lighter then light it then continually. Take it in and out of my mouth so only have one hand on the steering wheel then when I am finished throw it out of the window and in this dry climate set the verge alight and if I was a 20 fags a day man my concentration must be less than me speaking to a client regarding business but looking at it the revenue from cigarettes. Is a good earner for the government so banning smoking in vehicles will never happen if it did then perhaps the NHS would not be under so much pressure regarding smoking related diseases

  • 0 
  • 1 

• Clive Durdle - 11/07/2015 13:52

  Why the concentration on deaths and serious incidents? My understanding of health and safety is that near misses are the warning canary in the mine here. How can one look at certain incidents that lead to deaths and assert they are not statistically significant? All incidents and near misses matter! I know this is about slips trips and falls in the workplace, but the proactive principles apply on the road don't they? I don't understand the emphasis on reactive road safety, isn't the first thing to do is design and engineer out risk and hazards? "More: Near-miss reporting A simple, and potentially anonymous, system for reporting near-miss incidents is a very important way of identifying problem areas. This will help you highlight some of the less obvious hazards in a workplace, or identify areas where a problem is developing. Some models suggest that for every accident there are approximately ninety near-misses. If there is a good reporting system in place, the hazard could be dealt with before someone is injured. It can be difficult to get staff to report near-misses or minor slip accidents, as they are often seen as funny or embarrassing occurrences (until someone is hurt). It is important to create a culture which encourages reporting of these accidents." http://www.hse.gov.uk/SLIPS/step/general/advanced/8E7F777B-3B84-49FE-A3D6-D0324E25A801/HSLCourseTemplate/28531/slidetype2_174026.htm

  • 0 
  • 0 

• Clive Durdle - 11/07/2015 14:19

  And maybe the radical action needed is to think things through from first principles, like why is the journey being made using those tools and what happens about storage at the end of the journey? https://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/CMUPark/The-High-Cost-of-Free-Parking.pdf This is about a very significant factor that is often forgotten in logistics. "The High Cost of Free Parking By Donald Shoup Summarized by Tri-State Transportation Campaign 350 W 31st Street, New York, NY 10001 p: (212) 268-7474 f: (212) 268-7333 www.tstc.org The matter of parking is largely taken for granted, until you’re circling the block looking for that elusive space. Even for many transportation professionals and urban planners, parking tends to be little more than an afterthought. But a major new treatise by UCLA professor Donald Shoup makes a strong case for more attention to parking. Shoup determines that in the United States, off-street parking consumes an area roughly the size of Connecticut. If global car ownership rates catch up with those in the U.S., and assuming just one off-street space per car, an area the size of England would need to be paved to house the world’s car fleet (during the 95 percent of the day when it’s not on the road). Shoup contends that many of the woes associated with America’s car culture can be linked directly to the lack of rational attention to parking. More specifically, he argues that the oversupply of free parking (he estimates 99 percent of parking in the U.S. is free) is an enormous public subsidy that makes driving less expensive than it should be, further skewing travel choices. In fact, transportation suffers from the same “tragedy of the commons” relative to parking observed with regard to fisheries and other free and un-owned resources. Zoning requirements for overly-abundant off-street parking and failure to charge appropriately for curb parking result in extra air pollution, higher oil consumption, traffic congestion, and sprawl. Less obviously, parking requirements increase the cost of housing, as well as goods and services. For urban areas, Shoup summarizes these effects quoting Mumford: “The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city.” https://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/CMUPark/The-High-Cost-of-Free-Parking.pdf Similar conclusions are here. https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Europes_Parking_U-Turn_ITDP.pdf So to be radical Is every journey necessary? Is the operator of the transportation device competent - do not pass driving test without also passing IAM? Regular "MOT's" of drivers competence and skills Pricing parking properly so that the right decisions about the logistics of getting from A to B are made. Not just dedicated funding for the strategic highways network, that includes a motorway tunnel across the Pennines, but proper spending and thinking about local infrastructure.

  • 0 
  • 0