The furore that surrounds fatal rail accidents is contrasted sharply by the
reaction to fatalities on the roads, which seem to be far more acceptable to the public. Robert Wright wonders whether this puts too much pressure on railways
Road conditions A
s the lorry drivers, pensioners and ordinary families who would be caught up in the horrific M5 motorway crash headed out on 4 November, many must have heard radio reports of the conclusion that day of Margaret Masson’s inquest. Alongside reports of the accidental death verdict
of the inquest on Mrs Masson, the only fatality in the February 2007 Grayrigg derailment, many news reports carried calls for the railways to become still safer. The RMT union predictably used the occasion to claim
management cut-backs were imperilling passengers. At the time of writing, Mrs Masson is the only passenger to have died as a result of a railway-caused accident since Network Rail took over the national railways in October 2002. Yet in the weeks leading up to November’s crash, some of those involved will have been listening – possibly with approval – to discussions of the Department for Transport’s plans to raise the motorway speed limit to 80mph. The previous government rejected such a policy because it would have caused so many deaths for so little extra benefit. Many will also surely have been aware of the
The formula for deciding the viability of road safety schemes is usually stated at around £1m per fatality avoided. Some rail schemes have cost £5m per fatality avoided
current government’s mostly popular campaign to cut funding for road safety cameras. A study commissioned by the RAC Foundation, the motoring lobby group, concluded that the complete absence of speed cameras – an eventuality that cannot be discounted at the current rate of decommissioning – could lead to an extra 800 annual deaths or serious injuries. The public’s apparent acceptance of road danger may explain
why controversy over the M5 crash, which killed seven people, is subsiding far more quickly than that over Grayrigg’s single fatality. Mass-casualty road accidents seem to be regarded as a sad inevitability – while any rail passenger death is seen as avoidable. The public are even apparently ready to accept substantial worsening of road travel dangers on the flimsiest pretexts – an absence of speed cameras increases their freedom; a higher motorway speed limit will take them marginally faster to meetings. It seems reasonable to ask why attitudes vary so much between
modes. The railway industry must also, surely, consider how it can better explain the risks to encourage more rational thinking about safety risks.
PAGE 16 DECEMBER 2011
Shutterstock/Steve Mann
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44