Soap box The WHO report – same old? Phil McFadden decries the status quo of tactics in safety thinking
The National Assembly of Wales has in its wisdom decided to allocate a portion of the pocket money that is bestowed by Westminster to the province for the purpose of introducing 20mph zones, as well as implementing road re-design and construction programmes. Councils across Wales are setting up consultations groups that, I
imagine will be attended by well meaning retired folk and officials. This could have been a chance to rethink road design and layout, but in common with almost every local authority the Welsh Assembly has simply recycled the ideas that local councils have already used, and which in the world of tick box zombies, has been ‘shown’ to be effective.
Fast forward to towns with blanket 20mph limits, where roads can’t
be better laid out but instead will be littered with speed humps, rumble strips, narrowing/chicaning sections where there is even less room to negotiate recessed and worn manhole covers and potholes. Naturally the onus to be seen will be placed on vulnerable road users, while the idea that those who attempt to control vehicles should exercise their eyes and common sense will also continue to be spread thinly in late-night TV ads and perhaps occasional advertising hoardings which may distract people from looking at the road. What has driven all this? I suspect that it’s because the World Health
Organisation (WHO) has recently put a lot of effort into producing an international manual to advise road safety groups and authorities on best practice for ways of making towns and cities safer for pedestrians. This manual has been translated into several languages. The words follow each other in structures that make sentences. The sentences infer that logical intelligent procedures have been utilised to describe facts which may be obvious to everyone else, but have cost a great deal of time, effort, and money to assemble in a document. I wonder if that money and effort could have been put to better use than in systematic repetitive word constructions which create an apparently structured case to justify blanket 30kph limits, road narrowing, speed bumps, rumble strips and chicanes?
The manual and studies do not betray any evidence of being sponsored by manufacturers of shock absorbers, road surfacing companies, etc but one has to wonder. Randomised Control Trials (RCT) and analysis of cost benefits to
identify what solutions have already been found are offered as most valuable evidence, rather than looking at fundamental issues and creatively reconsidering entirely new answers.
It is noted that in the UK 46% of injured pedestrians are found to have a high blood alcohol level, but also that drivers as well as pedestrians are distracted by mobile phones, headphone music etc. Legislation to deal with these factors is inadequately enforced but instead of spending money on policing that legislation, it is to be spent on speed bumps, rumble strips, etc.
Unfortunately there are no suggestions as to how to address the reality that males are far more likely to have accidents than females, or that the frequency of accidents is higher among the socially deprived or low income groups.
The suggestion that everyone should have a reasonable income is not
made, nor that anyone who drinks alcohol should be made to drive or paraglide instead of walk. It doesn’t appear to have occurred to those who concoct reports like the latest one from the WHO, that people should not be allowed to grow old, even though old people are shown to have more accidents. Sorry, I am being facetious. ‘Realistically,’ I am angry that other solutions have been neglected.
Why can we not expect to see the redesign of vehicles so that drivers are placed in a fragile shell in front of the bonnet and why can we not see bull bars banned? And what about limiting the thickness of door pillars to guarantee that motorists enjoy better peripheral vision? Rumble strips are popular though, and speed bumps. These ridiculous so-called calming measures continue to cause erratic driving, brake lining pollution, excessive fuel-consumption and vehicle wear. While trying to avoid them, drivers and riders place themselves and others in greater danger.
‘And what about limiting the thickness of door pillars to guarantee that motorists enjoy better peripheral vision’
The WHO manual advises the establishment of working groups of diverse membership to discuss what solutions to apply to situations. If we can get MAG activists to join these working groups and prepare them with good data we have a chance to stop some more of the sillier measures being introduced. The depressing likelihood is that we are looking at: rumble strips – speed bumps – more rumble strips.
Phil McFadden, South Wales STOP PRESS
Since writing this I am hearing of Welsh Councils, my own included, showing signs of wisdom. It seems that rather than ordering more speed humps, they are arranging genuine public consultations and actually listening to input from those who attend. There is evidence to suggest that they are beginning to realise that blanket 20mph speed limits might not be the total answer. MAG members have been attending these meetings and it would seem, are actually influencing thinking. Hope springs eternal!
Ed: If you want to get a clearer idea of what Phil is talking about, see the World Health Organisation report here
www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/pedestrian/en/
82 The ROAD
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 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84