Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 269 posts

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#161

Post by hnlmorg »

lmm wrote: post #146
tialaramex wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the…

> You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. You are supposed to drive 60mph where appropriate, e.g. on straight stretches with good visibility and no junctions. It's very possible to fail your driving test for not going fast enough on a single carriageway.

It’s equally possibly to fail for going too fast while still under the speed limit.

What you’re supposed to do is drive at a speed that gives you chance to react to dangers given your visibility and road surface conditions.

For country roads, they’re typically winding rather than straight. So more often than not, that means you shouldn’t be travelling much past 30mph.

But you are right that straight stretches do exist. They’re just not as common on such roads.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#162

Post by hnlmorg »

sas224dbm wrote: post #97
berryg wrote: post #82

Driving in the UK can be quite a shock when you're used to the roads in the Netherlands. The speed at which people navigate roundabouts can feel terrifying, and the maximum speed in the countryside is something else. Going *60 mph* on narrow roads with limited visibility is just crazy. The locals just speed by. I guess it's just what you're used to.

A favorite past-time back in the day was driving at night from pub to pub along the 'back roads' (B-roads specifically in the UK) as fast as 'possible'. There were typically no street lights, however lights from other vehicles showed up alerting you to any possible danger. It was fun at the time, but i wouldn't do it now .. lol ..

That’s great just so long as your county roads doesn’t have any dog walkers or wildlife like deer.

The best case scenario then, is that you write off your car with a deer shaped hole in the front. The worst case scenario is you have a death on your conscience for the rest of your life.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#163

Post by IneffablePigeon »

cjensen wrote: post #83

The article says "safest roads," but the statistic used to demonstrate that is deaths per 100K people rather than deaths per kilometer driven. Seems to me the latter would be a much better metric for the safety of the physical roads.

Not sure I completely agree (if the definition of vehicles is cars). That disregards miles travelled by cyclists and pedestrians etc. If 10% of the population switched from driving to cycling to work but the death numbers stayed the same, that metric would go up but really nothing would have changed, either mortality wise or in terms of number of people using the roads.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#164

Post by IneffablePigeon »

protocolture wrote: post #141
avianlyric wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because bigger cars carry more energy, have poorer driver visibility, and are more likely to result in pedestrians going under the vehicle due to higher bonnet lines. Big cars make drivers feel safer. But the stats are quite clear, they kill more pedestrians, and, ironically, are more likely to kill their drivers due their roll over risk. The safety features might help, but they’re just compensating for all the addit…

I mean in terms of driver visibility, you can absolutely improve that. My forward camera is below a toddlers head height and fisheyed like no ones business. And thats before the sensors. The question of IF a collision occurs, will the larger car do more damage, obviously it will. Well maybe not obviously, if the sensors are throwing on my breaks earlier than I can react there can be substantially less energy on that…

A camera is no substitute for actual visibility, at best it’s a mediocre workaround to the problem. There is no evidence at all that I’ve seen that there are fewer pedestrian collisions in modern large vehicles - I would be interested if you have any such data.

Regardless, all of these “extreme measures” could be applied to a smaller car (or even just one with a smaller wall at the front) for the best of both worlds. And collisions will happen regardless, sensors and cameras are not a magic solution.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#165

Post by bluehatbrit »

lordnacho wrote: post #38

But why is it that countries that are culturally close to Britain (eg colonies) have much higher fatality rates? You'd expect them to have implemented some of the same policies. Singapore and Malta have similar rates, but the others are much higher. Regarding roundabouts, it makes sense when explained like in the article. But I've always felt like they were dangerous, especially the ones they have in Britain where yo…

Large roundabouts are pretty safe, if you've gone through the learning process we have in the UK. I did about 30-40h of practical lessons with an instructor, over half of which would have included multi-lane roundabouts.

The lights control the flow, so no need to worry about giving way. You pick your lane in the lead up using the signs and road markings. Then you follow your painted lane, the markings of which guide you all the way through. The markings and lights do all the work for you, unless you're in the wrong lane at the start. All your awareness is focused on looking for hazards of people who are in the wrong lane because your route is dictated by the road markings.

I will admit, they look complicated - especially if you've never driven one before. My first time around one was a bit nerve-wracking, but they quickly become second nature.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#166

Post by stevekemp »

dotwaffle wrote: post #103
philjohn wrote: post #48

Our driving test standards are also high, having spoken with US colleagues, much higher than state-side (although I imagine that varies from state to state). The theory test you must pass before taking your practical also now includes a hazard perception test - you are shown multiple videos and must click when you first perceive a hazard - the earlier you click after the hazard presents the higher your score - but if…

> also now includes a hazard perception test I took my test nearly 25 years ago, and this was present then -- for the avoidance of doubt, the UK test has always been very thorough, though not quite as thorough as those in places like Finland where apparently they have skid pans and similar!

Makes sense that Finland has such things though, when the roads are covered in snow and ice for a lot of the year.

Though this year we did good in our capital: "Helsinki has not recorded a single traffic fatality in the past 12 months, city and police officials confirmed this week."

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#167

Post by CalRobert »

Symbiote wrote: post #117
CalRobert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have Individual Vehicle Approval? It’s shocking how many gigantic Dodge Rams (which do not meet EU safety rules) are driving around the Netherlands. One killed a 23 year old cyclist a few weeks ago.

I hope there's progress being made to close the import loophole: https://www.ecf.com/en/news/eu-commission-acknowledges-regul... Meanwhile, there's a group (mostly in Britain) that sometimes lets the air out of the tyres of inappropriate vehicles [1] and sometimes drills holes in them [2]. From [3], "My mother is in palliative care and I came to the car to go to her, but because of your vicious act, I am stuck trying…

Unfortunately the EU is caving apparently. I worry these monster trucks will kill thousands of Europeans. https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/eu-cave-in-on-...

One small bit of good news is the Netherlands FINALLY closed the tax exception for these things. Until this year you’d pay no import tax if it was for “business” (NL has a huge number of self employed people who just lie about what the truck is for). It made a dodge ram ridiculously cheap. Notice they all have V plates signifying a business vehicle.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#168

Post by ninalanyon »

dotwaffle wrote: post #103
philjohn wrote: post #48

Our driving test standards are also high, having spoken with US colleagues, much higher than state-side (although I imagine that varies from state to state). The theory test you must pass before taking your practical also now includes a hazard perception test - you are shown multiple videos and must click when you first perceive a hazard - the earlier you click after the hazard presents the higher your score - but if…

> also now includes a hazard perception test I took my test nearly 25 years ago, and this was present then -- for the avoidance of doubt, the UK test has always been very thorough, though not quite as thorough as those in places like Finland where apparently they have skid pans and similar!

Same in Norway. Skid pans and also motorway driving. The course also includes a piece where the instructor picks a place an hour's drive away and tells the student to get there and demonstrate that they can not only drive under instruction but also plan their own route and react properly to challenges along the way.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#169

Post by neillyons »

tialaramex wrote: post #127
zdragnar wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is true in the US. Most (all?) states have state-wide speed limit "defaults" for town/city roads (i.e. 25 mph), highways and rural roads (i.e. 55 mph) and freeways (i.e. 70mph). Instead of having a speed limit sign after each and every intersection, they're placed periodically. If you enter a road and there's no sign, that's the speed limit. If there's a different speed limit than the default, and you cross…

The UK does have default rules, for example if there are houses directly facing onto the street (no front garden or similar maybe hard to imagine in most of the US but common in some UK towns) then the limits are low, if there are no houses at all the default limits are much higher. You are taught some rules of thumb for this when learning to drive. The posted limit signs are in addition to these rules, though they'r…

I did a speed awareness course as I got caught speeding and was told if there are lamp posts the speed limit is 30mph unless stated otherwise.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#170

Post by ninalanyon »

bigfudge wrote: post #159
dotwaffle wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> also now includes a hazard perception test I took my test nearly 25 years ago, and this was present then -- for the avoidance of doubt, the UK test has always been very thorough, though not quite as thorough as those in places like Finland where apparently they have skid pans and similar!

Interestingly, I saw data from a road safety programme for young people that showed skid pan training actually made young men less safe not more, because they became even more overconfident about their ability to “react quickly” if bad things happened. Turns out that a bit of humility and slowing down are the main skills needed to avoid accidents!

That's true, on the other hand it made young women safer. This happened in Norway when the skid pan was made a compulsory part of the course a couple of decades ago and the insurance companies soon noticed an increase in reckless driving among young men but the opposite in young women.
Post reply on HN