Fast lane walker caused accident?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4291292.stm

Fast lane walker caused accident

A man caused a high-speed crash by stepping into a dual carriageway and
then asked those fleeing the scene for directions, a court has heard.

After watching a car career into the central reservation at 70mph, flip
over and burst into flames, Marcus Whitelaw calmly asked the way to
Inverness.

Whitelaw, 27, of Bailey Place, Lossiemouth, was jailed for two months
for culpable and reckless walking.

He is thought to be one of the first people to be jailed for the
offence.

At Perth Sheriff Court he admitted walking into the path of oncoming
traffic and endangering the lives of Marie Connon and Ian Fraser on 14
March.

Miss Connon was driving a blue Peugeot 306 northbound on the A9 between
Perth and Inverness, with Mr Fraser as her passenger.

Fiscal depute Dawn Samson said Miss Connon had been driving from
Lincolnshire to Lossiemouth and picked up Mr Fraser in Kirkcaldy.

Miss Samson said police had begun to receive a number of calls from
concerned motorists about a blood-soaked man walking south on the road.

"At two thirty five in the morning, Miss Connon and Mr Fraser approached
the area travelling in the nearside lane at 70 mph," she said.

"She saw something ahead. She manoeuvred into the offside lane to avoid
whatever it was, then realised it was a person. The accused stepped from
the nearside to the offside lane waving his arms above his head."

Ms Samson said Whitelaw appeared to be signalling for them to stop.

Punch-up

After applying the brakes and steering away from the pedestrian, Ms
Connon mounted the central reservation.

The car struck the kerb and was lifted from the road, overturning onto
its roof. It came to rest on its wheels on the northbound carriageway.

"Fuel was leaking from the vehicle and the engine was smoking," Ms
Samson said. "They feared it would ignite, but Mr Fraser had difficulty
opening the passenger door."

He eventually managed to get out and ran to the side of the road as
other motorists had to swerve to avoid the car's debris.

"They got out and stood at the side of the road," Miss Samson said. "The
accused approached them and said 'Sorry, did I cause that? Which way is
Inverness?'"

Miss Connon was treated by paramedics at the roadside, although she and
her passenger escaped serious injury. The Ł4,000 car was written off.

Solicitor Gwen Wood, defending, said Whitelaw had been drinking during
the day with friends in Inverness.

She said they had all got into a car, but there was a dispute during
which punches were thrown and Whitelaw was dumped at the roadside.

"He was unsure of his whereabouts and panicked and got into an agitated
state. This incident has given him a wake-up call," she said.

Sheriff Michael Fletcher said: "This was an incredibly stupid action on
your part. The consequences were dire, but could have been much more
serious for the driver of that vehicle and others."

why?? On the duel carriage way sections 70 would be the speed limit. The
a9 is a good, well maintained road, with plenty of visibility to make 70mph
perfectly safe. As long as people don't throw them selves infront of you.

bit of a classic "I swerved many times before finally hitting the
pedestrian"

Andrew

On a road with a 70mph speed limit? I don't think I follow your argument

What, you mean that the driver was driving perfectly legally?

Why?

Seems to me that some brain-dead fool caused an accident in which people
nearly died. He was jailed for it. Should probably have been for longer,
but all in all it seems as if the law is doing the right thing.

regards,
/alan

Notice the quotes. I think they were travelling faster than 70mph.

Of course they would claim that after having a crash: wouldn't you? Even
if it wasn't true?

Only if you believe the motorists were actually observing the speed
limit in the wee small hours of the morning. Doesn't excuse the
pedestrian's idiocy, naturally. But what about the motorist? Entirely
blameless? Or are we just speaking of the balance of probabilities?

Note the report says when the driver saw something ahead, she just
switched lanes, did not slow down. Only when the pedestrian went into
offside lane did she brake.

>
> regards,
> /alan

At 2.35am do you really believe they were doing just 70mph? Note the

lanes, did not slow down. Only when the idiot went into offside lane did
she brake.

So it seems to me the driver has some culpability here too. Granted the
pedestrian was a pillock, and lucky to be alive.

> In article <1h3m5to.5jmsc61nz1yq0N%net...@nowhere.org>
> net...@nowhere.org wrote...

> You mean the maximum speed limit?

Just because it's legal to drive at that speed, does not mean it's
advisable.

> Actually it sounds like it was rather -inconvenient-.

Indeed, but my point was I suspect they were travelling faster than
70mph.

> > Somehow this stretches credulity.
>
> Someone doing 70mph on the A9 'stretches credulity'?

No, but claimimg to do exactly 70mph when involved in a high-speed
accident does. Why not 68mph? 50pmh? Hell, anything will do, as long as
it's under the limit of course...

> No doubt you'll use your massive intellect and tell us just why this is.

Because the A9 is a dangerous road, even without idiotic pedestrians
wandering around.

On a dual carridge way 70 is perfectly reasonable. You would also be very
surprised by the number of people that do actually go up and down the a9
*shock* observing the speed limit.

sooo its late at night. the road is empty. its duel carridge way with good
visbility and you... would be doing 50mph? now THAT is dangerous.

the a9 is not a dangerous road. there are a couple of dangerous junctions,
which I'm sure we would have heard about had this been near one of, and they
rightly have 50mph limits. the a9 is a well built good quality road. Its
only dangerous when impatient drivers overtake in dangerous places. If you
want to call a road dangerous the a9 is not the one to pick on - try the
a702, or any of the many other busy a class roads which have not been
modernised.

so why is the a9 dangerous?

Andrew

And you suspect that the police _haven't_ been measuring skid mark
lengths, _haven't_ examined the wreckage, _haven't_ done the usual
analysis of the accident kinetics to estimate initial speed and, in
general, haven't actually investigated the accident to determine if the
driver was, as you suspect, speeding?

Are you perhaps assuming that because _you_ speed after midnight that
everyone speeds after midnight? In the case of the A9 I suspect that a
much lower percentage of drivers speed on the A9 after sunset, in
particular those who know the road. I'll leave it to the student to work
out why that might be. Clue; you might get 10 or 12 points if you hit one.

--
Angus G Rae Science & Engineering Support Team
University of Edinburgh
The above opinions are mine, and Edinburgh University can't have them

> No, but claimimg to do exactly 70mph when involved in a high-speed

On a bit of an aside - when i drive I tend to sit dead on 70... It upstes
other drivers, but if I had an accident I could honestly claimed to be doing
70 - (allowing for parallax error and all). If I had a digital speedo, then
it would be even easier.

But the point is, the driver may actually have been doing 70 - just cause
you or others don't, doesn't mean that some drivers don't obey the speed
limit, even at the wee hours of the morning.

A pedestrian? How many points to win the game? Only 10 points for a
drunk one since they can't run as fast?

I am reasonably convinced that anyone seeing something on a road that was
clearly not a vehicle, and wasn't moving very fast would hit the anchors.
perhaps she was doing 70+, hit the anchors and came down to 70mph for the
losing control bit..

anyway my life is slipping away, gotta get back to reality.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Angus Rae casually suggested:

--
Shave your legs to reply

Bzzzzt. Not a "Death Race 2000" reference. But nice try!

Innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is evidence to suggest the
driver wasn't driving legally, I believe that s/he was.

regards,
/alan

In general, I think that this is a good thing to do. But there is one major
exception - when you are overtaking someone doing 69mph. I so hate people
overtaking me and taking hlaf an hour to do so - it's one of the more
dangerous consequences of the law...

regards,
/alan

Gail

> regards,
> /alan
>
>

I fear you have been really gullible,

regards,
/alan

If they're doing only 1mph less than the speed limit, why do you need
to overtake them?

-- Richard

So was my DoE approved driving instructor, apparently.

Sam

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.htm

"235: You MUST NOT exceed 70 mph, or the maximum speed limit permitted for
your vehicle (see table)."

I see nothing there that allows a get-out clause for overtaking. Nor is it
in any of the other references I can see to overtaking...

Unless there is a reference that shows where it is legal to exceed the speed
limit when overtaking (and I agree that it is often safer to do so) then I
fear your instructor was wrong.

regards,
/alan

That's a bloody good point.

Maybe I was unclear... I hate being overtaken by someone travelling barely
any faster than me. I would normally accelerate to get past faster, then
resume my 1mph faster when I was back in the left-hand lane. I get bugged
by people who overtake me in a period better measured on a calendar than a
stopwatch!

regards,
/alan

I don't think she would have argued with your conclusion as to the
strict legality, but she always said, in the interests of safety, that
it was better to pass as quickly as possible and then resume the limit
speed. I think my mother was taught the same thing by a police driver.

Sam

> resume my 1mph faster when I was back in the left-hand lane. ...

Thus you think it's OK to break the speed limit to overtake? You
concur with my driving instructor, then.

Sam

From what you've posted, yes I would indeed agree. But I believe that I am
breaking the law when doing so!

regards,
/alan (no actually I mean "Fred," m'lud

# That's a bloody good point.

You've obviously never driven behind someone that drives at 70mph when the
road is straight or not up hill and than 40mph when there are bends or hills.

I also get the opposite with speed cameras, I'm on the A1 in the inside
lane and needing to overtake soon. Cars come roaring up at >>70 and then
when they catch up with me ram the breaks on because there is a speed
camera, result, I miss my chance to overtake and get pinned in.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

william hewitt is stated to have refused to associate with mankind - Googlism

Well, as no one got it... deer.

(Apologies for the pun).

I thought of that but I'm obviously missing something.

Sam, The Man Who Had To Have The Joke Explained To Him

I almost ran over an idiot pedestrian on the A9 late last Friday night -
I was doing 30 through Plean & this daft child decided to play chicken
with the traffic.

>(Apologies for the pun).
>
I'm staggered that you made a pun that bad, although I'm away behind at
spotting puns. It's fair bucked me up that no-one else noticed either -
this place must be stuck in a rut.
--
Bob Scott

You ARE a cyclist aren't you?

Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to incriminate an innocent motorist.

Apologies to Mike Dickson - I left your header in when it should have been
out.

http://houstonphotochrome.homestead.com/files/12_Pointer.JPG probably
explains it...

Now we know why said traffic cop is now *ex* class 1.

In fact, don't have any doors on any of my motorbikes.
--
Bob Scott

> In article <1h3p4yc.1k3eos6ubwhs8N%net...@nowhere.org> net...@nowhere.org wrote...

>> > > Oh, I see. Nothing to do with the motorist doing "70mph" then?
>> > You mean the maximum speed limit?
>>
>> Just because it's legal to drive at that speed, does not mean it's
>> advisable.

> Well it's sure not if some arsehole is walking uop th dual carriageway
> to you. Are you suggesting we should all drive as though there may just
> be someone walking towards us on the road?

Yes.

That is why the highway code says...

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear.

It may be very unlikely, and extremely unreasonable, for there to be
somebody (or some thing) there.

But you still have a responsibility to avoid a collision.

Robert.

--
|_) _ |_ _ ._ |- | So what? It's easier for me, so I'll do it!
| \(_)|_)(-'| |_ |
deadspam.com is a spamtrap. | > > What's wrong with top posting?
Use bcs.org.uk instead. | > It makes it hard to see comments in context.

> every motorist out there is a homicidal maniac at the helm
> of a four-wheeled death-dealing hurtling mass of cold steel etc etc.

You took the words right out of my keyboard, Mike! ;)

> the a9 is not a dangerous road. there are a couple of dangerous junctions,
> which I'm sure we would have heard about had this been near one of, and they
> rightly have 50mph limits. the a9 is a well built good quality road. Its
> only dangerous when impatient drivers overtake in dangerous places. If you
> want to call a road dangerous the a9 is not the one to pick on - try the
> a702, or any of the many other busy a class roads which have not been
> modernised.
>
> so why is the a9 dangerous?

Maybe the same reason the A1 is, because it's a mixture of dual
carriageway and single carriageway.

22nd September 2005:

"The notorious A9 is Scotland's most dangerous trunk road – there have
been 82 deaths on it in the past five years."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1975712005

Absolutely.

Which is why, at 2.35am, 70mph is perhaps not advisable as a cruising
speed on the A9...

>
> The A9 is not 'a dangerous road'.

13th August 2005:

Deadly A9 tops fatality figures

By Mike Donachie and Rob McLaren

THE A9 through Perthshire has been confirmed as part of "the deadliest
road in Scotland" by the Scottish Executive, opposition MSPs claimed
yesterday.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/08/13/newsstory7431321t0.asp

21st September 2005:

Call to upgrade 'deadliest road'

The A9 between Perth and Inverness must be upgraded to a dual
carriageway to reduce the "atrocious" number of accidents, according to
an MSP.

Perthshire MSP John Swinney said the route was one of the most deadly in
Scotland with 82 deaths in the last five years. The former SNP leader
said the road was "fundamentally unsafe".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4266782.stm

I think some people here really need to read up on the rights and wrongs of
driving.

You ARE allowed to break the speed limit while overtaking, but this
manoeuvre should be done within a certain distance, and it does not allow
you
to over take several cars at the same time.
Also, if you're driving in the fast lane and, an emergency vehicle comes up
behind you, you are expected to increase your speed and overtake any
vehicles until you can safely enter the left hand lane.

There are several other laws that can be broken without the fear of the
law coming down on you, which is mostly to do with safety issues.
A good example of this would be driving your car to and from a garage for
repair, while your road tax and MOT had expired. You could stay in Edinburgh
and travel to Glasgow for the repairs to be carried out legally.

BTW, the Highway Code is a guide only, and not the law

> In article <f51u0g1...@3lg.org> rob...@deadspam.com wrote...

> Yes, but only as far as not possessing superhuman powers will allow.

But it doesn't need superhuman powers to moderate one's speed.

> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

Can you cite justification for this opinion?

This does obviously sit well with the Highway Code's statement that...

The speed limit is the absolute maximum

Leaving aside British roads not having a "fast lane" (only
overtaking lanes, which should be vacated once the slower moving
vehicle has been passed): expected by whom?

Again, can you cite justification for this?

That is not "a law that can be broken", it is an explicit exemption to
the law that you cannot drive without an MOT certificate.

True.

On the other hand, it does say..

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence.

and

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code
may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic
Acts to establish liability.

Reference, please?

regards,
/alan

But isn't Scots law also based on the premise of "the opinion of the
reasonable person"? It is not reasonable to expect to come across someone
wandering where they patently shouldn't be, at a time they shouldn't be, and
drunk.

Take your logic to its conclusion and we would all have to walk no faster
than the slowest old person or toddler, in order to ensure we could not
cause injury...

regards,
/alan

Mike is correct, the road is perfectly safe, but the fact that most
regular users treat it like one half of a dual carriageway as long as
nothing is coming the other way (despite the fact the flow is already
moving at or near to the speed limit), then all try to force back in
when something is coming makes it dangerous. Not to mention the 'wacky
races' that take place as soon as every 'Dual Carriageway in 1/2 mile'
sign appears..

> Sam Wilson wrote:
> > In article <dhjkd1$84u$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Angus Rae
> > <Angu...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Angus Rae wrote:
> >>
> >>> In the case of the A9 I suspect that a
> >>>much lower percentage of drivers speed on the A9 after sunset, in
> >>>particular those who know the road. I'll leave it to the student to work
> >>>out why that might be. Clue; you might get 10 or 12 points if you hit one.
> >>
> >>Well, as no one got it... deer.
> >>
> >>(Apologies for the pun).
> >
> >
> > I thought of that but I'm obviously missing something.
> >
> > Sam, The Man Who Had To Have The Joke Explained To Him
>
> http://houstonphotochrome.homestead.com/files/12_Pointer.JPG probably
> explains it...

Duuhh... right. Sorry about that.

Sam

> In article <300920051451152762%Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk
> wrote...
>
> > > ... I hate being overtaken by someone travelling barely
> > > any faster than me. I would normally accelerate to get past faster, then
> > > resume my 1mph faster when I was back in the left-hand lane. ...
> >
> > Thus you think it's OK to break the speed limit to overtake? You
> > concur with my driving instructor, then.
>
> Not at all. I fail to see why such a person should be overtaking you at
> all. BTW, did you see your instructor's certificate? Was it written in
> crayon?

I'm confused by the attributions (I think "> > > " is netizen) and who
you're disagreeing with, Mike (except for "everyone" of course).

Sam

> Some drunk wandering the dark roadway at 2:30am doesn't really cut it!

We rent a cottage south of Aviemore during the winter. When we drink in
Aviemore, it can be difficult to impossible to get a taxi. Walking back
on the A9 for at least part of the way is the only way to get back to
the cottage. It seems not unlikely that the same applies to some folks
who actually live near the A9. Thus some expectation that there will be
pedestrians on the road is not unreasonable.

My experience of being a pedestrian there does seem to indicate that
standing in the middle of the road and trying to wave traffic to a stop
would be a dangerous practice and best reserved only for
life-threatening emergencies.

FoFP

I remember about a decade ago there was a farmer who was arrested for
doing 90mph on the A9 while reading the Daily Record which was opened
across his steering wheel.

FoFP

Ah- The Rise of the Usenet Pedants. A bit like zombies, but harder to
daunt or kill.

Reminds me of the "gun's don't kill people, people do" argument. True,
it may be that the dangerous driving of road users makes a road
dangerous, but its design is surely a factor in encouraging or
inhibiting such behaviour - making it a full dual carriageway might
make head-on collisions difficult, if not impossible. I suspect Mike
was simply gunning for the politican, not the issue.

Angus

Must've been quite a souped-up tractor.

A Range Rover IIRC.

FoFP

--
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

One of the few Record readers who can afford one.

Angus

Nor does illegality automatically imply that it is unsafe to go over the
limit. What is your point here?

>>>Yes, the pedestrian was stupid, and imebriated apparently, but how
>>>convenient the car was travelling at exactly the speed limit.
>>
>>Actually it sounds like it was rather -inconvenient-.

> Indeed, but my point was I suspect they were travelling faster than
> 70mph.

But that's what a lot of people do when they consider it safe but
illegal to go faster - most don't differentiate by the odd mile or two
because they can't tell exactly.

>>>Even if they were observing the limit, doing 70mph on the A9 is stupid too.
>>
>>No doubt you'll use your massive intellect and tell us just why this is.
>
>
> Because the A9 is a dangerous road, even without idiotic pedestrians
> wandering around.

I can't think of any bits of dual carriageway where doing 70 legally is
particularly dangerous. Where it is dangerous, the speed limit has been
dropped.

TTH

> In article <433d03b9$0$16330$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net> wrote...
>
>
>>On a dual carridge way 70 is perfectly reasonable. You would also be very
>>surprised by the number of people that do actually go up and down the a9
>>*shock* observing the speed limit.
>
>
> Not *that* surprised. It's littered with speed cameras.
>
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

Only on the wee busy bit between Perth and somewhere south of Drumochter.

TTH

And to quote:
'An Executive spokeswoman said: "The A9 is the longest trunk road in
Scotland. Although the Executive targets significant resources at road
safety, it is inevitable that casualties will happen and, equally, the
longer the length of route, then the greater likelihood that numbers
will be greater."'

If its the longest road, it will have the highest casualty rate.

TTH

Except the 'fast' aka 'offside' aka _overtaking_ lane was empty. Until
the loon stepped into it.

TTH

Of course its illegal to drive over 60 at that bit.

I was wondering where you'd be on the stupid/drunk people acting
dangerously in the face of others acting reasonably.

TTH

> "Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:dhj8fo$rf0$1...@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
>
>>In article <BB8%e.118503$G8.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>alan <alan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In general, I think that this is a good thing to do. But there is one
>>>major
>>>exception - when you are overtaking someone doing 69mph.
>>
>>If they're doing only 1mph less than the speed limit, why do you need
>>to overtake them?
>
>
> Maybe I was unclear... I hate being overtaken by someone travelling barely

> resume my 1mph faster when I was back in the left-hand lane. I get bugged
> by people who overtake me in a period better measured on a calendar than a
> stopwatch!

Presumably they are overtaking you on a dual carriageway of course?

TTH

I trust to Father Darwin that his will be done.

FoFP

Not in Ohio you won't.

"Sam Wilson" <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:031020051008160215%Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk...

Overheard when touring Inverary Castle a couple of years back. Two tourists
looking at mounted stag's head bearing a legend something like 'Shot
by -------
in 19--. 10 points.'

Ist American tourist - "I wonder why its says '10 points' ? "
2nd American tourist - "Maybe that's what you score for hitting the darn
thing."

Toom

You're assuming that law is based upon logic, a very flawed assumption.
Prior precedent and, let's be frank, "received wisdom" (ie. social
conformity) play a much larger role in legal judgements than logic.

As far as I remember, Scots law is based on a heady blend of Roman law,
ancient clan rights, Norse tradition, Anglo-Saxon and Norman feudalism,
and, more recently English common law. Opinion may or may not enter into
it, but logic is certainly not the basis!

So the Scottish Executive's excuse for not improving road safety now
becomes your explanation for the death toll on the A9? That is pretty
shameless.

Consider this: the A9 does not, except in its Southern parts and the
Inverness area, pass through highly populated areas. There are long
roads in more highly populated areas with better safety records. The A77
for example has dramatically reduced accidents over the last few years.
Why? The Executive invested money. Why did they do that? Possibly a bit
of "pork barrel politics" in the hope of defending Labour seats? Not
many Labour voters on the A9, so why waste cash there?

Ah, the rise of the internet middle classes and their 'Speed doesn't
kill' arguments... 'The police should be out catching real criminals",
"I'm not a criminal, I own my own house and car and have a University
education, don't you know"

No. Clearly, it's the fault of the drivers: I'm not saying it isn't.
But drivers will under certain circumstances, drive more dangerously.
Whether it's right or not, has little to do with it.

But apart from policing and speed cameras, what can you do? There is
the design of the road itself. Arguing about the morality/carelessness
of what drivers do anyway is pointless.

I don't drive, I don't own my own house or car; I suspect this might
have something to do with my university education, but I'm not sure.

Angus

You miss the point. I am quoting your source to show that the stats you
have shamelessly used to back your point are hopelessly flawed. If you
are going to count deaths you have to normalise to the number of driver
miles driven on the road. A longer road is more likely to have more
deaths on it simply because it will be used more. It is also probably
used by more people driving longer distances, who are more likely to
have a lapse of concentration or want to get to their destination
faster, than a road in the urban areas.

That's debatable. From Perth, the A9 does not pass through any towns
until you get to Golspie. It barely touches Inverness and there are
plenty of pedestrian bridges over it there.

Are you saying pedestrians are the cause of accidents then?

I'm not defending the government, just your choice of stats.

TTH

Possibly, are you an arts graduate?

;)

Graeme

Just as well I wasn't drinking coffee there.

No, I did a real man's degree -- physics, the stuff to put hair on your
chest: not that would've done any good, since there were bugger all
female physicists around at the time to appreciate it. No, not for me
the getting-up-after-watching-Neighbours-in-bed, the wooly-headed
thinking, the highly favourable male-to-female student ratio...

Still, I'm not bitter. I could vector-calculusify arts graduates any
day of the week, and still have linear algebra to spare. That's got to
count for something, right?

Angus

Just make sure you don't expose your vector in public where it
might give offence, or even cause an accident.

Well it's better than growing my hair long..

http://www.improb.com/projects/hair/hair-club-top.html

Angus

No, you miss the point. It's about urban roads versus rural roads. More
serious casualties occur on rural roads, because people drive faster on
rural roads.

From Key 2004 Road Statistics
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/06/0795141/51432#5

6. Casualties by Type of Road ( Table 6)

6.1 In 2004, "non built-up" roads (see the definition in section 10.3)
accounted for about two-fifths of the total number of casualties (43%:
7,766 out of 18,246). However, perhaps because average speeds are
higher on non built-up roads than elsewhere, they accounted for over
two thirds of those killed (69%: 212 out of 307) and for over half of
the total number of killed and seriously injured combined (54%: 1,642
out of 3,019).

6.2 Compared with the 1994-98 average, the fall in the total number of
casualties has been greater for "built-up" roads (22%) than for non
built-up roads (12%). The difference between the two types of road is
less when one compares the falls from the 1994-98 averages for the
numbers killed (down by 17% for built-up roads compared with 19% for
non built-up) but not the numbers killed or seriously injured (falls of
44% for built up roads and 31% for non-built up roads).

No, drivers are the main cause of road accidents. However pedestrians,
cyclists and motor cyclists are much more likely to be killed in a road
accident. In 2004, 7% of car users involved in accidents were killed or
seriously injured: this compares with 24% of pedestrians, 39% of
motorcyclists, 16% of pedal cyclists, and 13% of bus passengers.

It is fairly clear just which group is mainly responsible for killing or
seriously injuring other road users.

Defending? I thought you were criticising...;)

But they both have a considerable lethal potential.

When you put a human, (optimistically) capable of a reaction time of
100ms say, in charge of 1/2 a tonne of metal capable of moving at
speeds well in excess of what they can react to sensibly, then, like
guns, shit will inevitably happen.

You can't change the essence of people, or guns, or cars -- but you can
change the circumstances under which they are used: and people will
adapt their behaviour accordingly. And so, when "the road is dangerous"
implicitly this means that the combination of human nature, automobile
and road has failed: especially if we can do precious little about the
first two.

Angus

For safety.

One of the many dangerous aspects of arbitrary speed limits is that they
encourage dangerous bunching.

If you catch up with slower traffic it is far safer to pass and
re-establish separation than to travel in close convoy.

A

[...]

>> Thus you think it's OK to break the speed limit to overtake? You
>> concur with my driving instructor, then.
>
> From what you've posted, yes I would indeed agree. But I believe
> that I am breaking the law when doing so!

Yes you are braking a bad, arbitrary, dangerous law. Lobby for its repeal.

A

[...]

An overtake has two participants.

I would always ease off if being overtaken glacially.

A

And it's safer still to leave a safe distance between yourself and the car
in front instead of "travelling in close convoy" (aka "tailgating").

If the car in front is just below the speed limit, assuming you got in
front of it what time advantage will that give you? If you go 60mph, and
the car behind continues at 59mph, 10 miles further down the road you're
about 10 seconds/300 yards ahead of him. Why bother, are you saying you
won't be going at 60 or are you saying that the overtaking manoeuvre
mystically makes you safer somehow? Or are you saying that it'll make the
other driver safer from you?

Graeme

Are you sure that's still true? I also thought the number was higher
and on a per year basis.

It is not littered compared to the Dundee-Aberdeen road though. Neither
road features on the AA's list of most dangerous either. The A77 does.

TTH

> about 10 seconds/300 yards ahead of him. Why bother [?]

That's true if there is no other traffic on the road. In reality, it's
likely that you will both come up behind somebody going at 58mph (or
less) within those ten miles. The later you catch up with him, the more
you will miss safe opportunities to pass. Thus the unfortunate 58mph
driver will develop a "tail". That's how bunching develops.

If we all followed the principle of "don't overtake somebody going 1mph
slower, but drop back and allow a decent gap", then we would indeed be
safer, but average speeds would drop far more than 1mph, and road
capacity would be reduced. I don't think it's likely to happen.

On the other hand, if you are annoyed by somebody overtaking you 1mph
faster than you are going, the merest touch on your brakes will quickly
and safely solve the problem, and lose you only a second or so on your
journey.

John Wexler

I think that for me to miss the point, you have to make it in some way.
Where did you make it?

I accept that.

But the A9 does not appear in the AA's top 10 of dangerous roads.

Are you sure you aren't quoting the percentage of fatalities by travel
mode rather than percent of car users (etc) involved in an accident
dying? You seem to be saying that if in an accident, you have a 7 per
cent chance of dying. Since your figures add to 100% (nearly) I'd say
you are dividing deaths into travel mode.

That aside, your original statement did imply built up roads were more
dangarous - not what you are saying above.

Jetlag.

TTH

It's also worth remembering that the statistic that counts is "Killed or
seriously injured".

KSI sounds bad but at one point (that is, I'm unsure if the definition
has changed) the "Seriously injured" definition included anyone who'd
required an overnight stay in hospital.

So if you fall off your pushbike, get a bang to your head & get kept in
overnight for observation then you fall into the "killed or seriously
wounded" statistic.
Personally I qualified as KSI after I needed an athroscopy to pull a
fragment of bone out of my knee - only reason it was an in-patient
appointment was that the op was scheduled for 6am - if it had been a
10am op 'd not have qualified as KSI.

The other really blatant abuse of statistics I remember from my days
analysing RTA stats was that if anyone involved in the accident was
under the influence of alcohol then this was recorded as, IIRC, an
accident where alcohol was a factor - all well and good until the same
figures got reported as drink driving accidents. So if a drunk
pedestrian fell under a car & died the published stats included it as a
drink-driving death. Misleading & not especially useful.

I didn't think these recommendations were binding.
--
Bob Scott