Vision Zero for Britain?

[ViolentPanda]

Swedish policies are stupid and offensive.

So are you.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

So are you.

Nah. He lacks the gravitas to be offensive. He's too inconsequential.

 

[Roadkill]

It's an aim, for sure - I don't think there's a huge point to it tho. Go back 150 years and look up the limited data there is for people dying under the feet of horses! I suspect that like many things, it's possible to reach a certain threshold, but then every life saved from that point increases in costs (financial and other) at some horrendous logarithmic rate.

The problem with stats is that they can't tell the tale of every accident - for example, how many of the 124 kids that died stepped out from behind a parked vehicle without looking? How many of the motorcyclists were weekend warrior types in their middle age taking a bike that's vastly overpowered for them out on country roads? As cybertect points out, many of the peds killed were drunk - how do you design out idiot drunken behaviour?

I also have a basic issue with the concept that you can design in perfect safety anyway, no matter how much money you throw at something...plus I find the whole mentality of obeying traffic lights in that way, even of the road is completely clear, weird and slightly freaky...

Agree with all of the above.

If contemporary figures are to be believed, 200 people died in traffic accidents in 1868, in London alone. That's the best part of 20 years before the internal combustion-engined car was even invented.

Reducing road accidents is obviously a good thing - no-one would dispute that - but I can't see how zero deaths and injuries is a realistic aspiration. Road transport involves vehicles moving at speed, be they cars, bikes, motorcycles, buses, vans, lorries or whatever else. I can't see how the risks inherent in that can be eliminated entirely with any form of transport, on or off the roads. In other words, the idea upon which Vision Zero is predicated, that there need be no trade-off between safety and mobility, seems flawed.

Some of what VZ involves is eminently sensible: more 20mph speed limits in built-up areas, measure to reduce car use etc. The emphasis on design is interesting as well. IMO there are limits, though. Some attempts in the past to segregate vehicle and other traffic haven't been outstanding successes: no-one likes the dingy underpasses and raised walkways that featured so heavily in post-war town planning. On the other hand, there clearly is scope for design improvements in many places, particularly in busy urban areas, in terms of altering the layout of some junctions, better provisions for cyclists etc.

The other point that should be made is that Sweden will invest a lot of money in trying to make this happen, which is unlikely to be available in this country, not because people here won't accept the high rates of tax the Swedes pay.

I've not voted on the poll because, unsurprisingly and as a few other posts have pointed out, the options are ridiculously loaded.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nah. He lacks the gravitas to be offensive. He's too inconsequential.

Ah, he has delusions of adequacy, then.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

You can't have your cake and eat it.

We should be trying to reduce road transportation as much as possible.

 

[XR75]

Why and what would you replace it with?

So are you.

You must have dropped this.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Why and what would you replace it with?

Why? Deaths, injuries, pollution, wasted fuels, loss of green belt etc. and (you may disagree but) I don't think roads look very pleasing. And it's not like we could replace it any time soon, but there are all sorts of ways it can be reduced, from improving public transport to drastically cutting the needless use of road vehicles.

 

[BlueSquareThing]

Why and what would you replace it with?

There are ways we could reduce reliance on road transport for longer journies if we thought about it enough. That'd have a chance to be more efficient in many ways.

Rail freight has much potential - I've seen all those trucks barrelling down the A14 going to the Midlands or London or the North.

 

[bi0boy]

Go the Swedes - they also like the Germans, mentioned recently on here, also wait by the roadside when the red man is lit even if there are no cars in sight.

It's certainly the case in Germany that if you get run over when crossing under a red man you are likely to be prosecuted and the driver get commiserated for having an idiot cross the road in front of him.

In the UK you have a duty of care to peds in the road as long as you could reasonably be expected to see them and react in time.

 

[8115]

I would love policy to be made with the aim of zero deaths.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why and what would you replace it with?

The same old systems we used before the advent of road haulage, for a start. Using the canals, rivers, rail and sea to transport freight that isn't time sensitive would reduce the carbon footprint and bring employment to places where there's currently not a lot.

You must have dropped this.

Nope, must be yours. Probably fell out of your pram last time you had a tantrum.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There are ways we could reduce reliance on road transport for longer journies if we thought about it enough. That'd have a chance to be more efficient in many ways.

As I said above, using the canals, rivers and the sea routes would all use less fuel (one loaded barge under power, for example, can pull 3 or 4 loaded barges) and provide some jobs.

Rail freight has much potential - I've seen all those trucks barrelling down the A14 going to the Midlands or London or the North.

The biggest issue, as far as I can work out, is one my father mentioned years ago: Road hauliers aren't as well-organised in terms of union membership and activity as seamen and railworkers are, so both the government of the day and "big business" see road haulage as a more amenable form of freighting, in that it's less likely to be affected by pesky striking workers, and hauliers have proved themselves willing to be shat on by the people they sub-contract from, and to scab in far greater prevalence than other possible freight-movers.

I still think that containerisation is a great way to ship freight internationally, but having lorries deliver to and pick up containers from the docks and perhaps transport a single container halfway across the UK seems foolish when rail or water-borne transport would be more resource-efficient.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's certainly the case in Germany that if you get run over when crossing under a red man you are likely to be prosecuted and the driver get commiserated for having an idiot cross the road in front of him.

They'll also be fined anything from a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand euros for jaywalking, depending which of the lande they're in.

 

[Cobbles]

There is some data to be found; I've mentioned it before. Urban roads were dangerous for children even in the late middle ages:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5627670&postcount=124

Indeed and back then they didn't waltz around with a phone clamped in their paws, absorbing all their attention or a digital noise generator destroying their concentration.

 

[weltweit]

I like the experiment they did in a Scandinavian country where in a city square they removed all evidence of road markings and or pavements and let the users of the square proceed with common sense.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I like the experiment they did in a Scandinavian country where in a city square they removed all evidence of road markings and or pavements and let the users of the square proceed with common sense.

If you want a country without [enforced] traffic regulations go to Libya - sure, it still works, but it's very, very dangerous.

 

[weltweit]

If you want a country without [enforced] traffic regulations go to Libya - sure, it still works, but it's very, very dangerous.

I have been to Bali where it seems as if there are no regulations. It is chaos and very scary..

But that, and your Libyan example are interesting because, in the Scandinavian experiment, accidents and incidents went down, significantly.

So why not in Libya?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I have been to Bali where it seems as if there are no regulations. It is chaos and very scary..

But that, and your Libyan example are interesting because, in the Scandinavian experiment, accidents and incidents went down, significantly.

So why not in Libya?

Well, all they did in the Scandinavian example was remove the markings, and that was just in one city.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

As I said above, using the canals, rivers and the sea routes would all use less fuel (one loaded barge under power, for example, can pull 3 or 4 loaded barges) and provide some jobs.

Just consider how much could have been done using the @ 500 billion that was spent propping up the banking sector.

Makes you fucking weep, it really does.

 

[Giles]

As I said above, using the canals, rivers and the sea routes would all use less fuel (one loaded barge under power, for example, can pull 3 or 4 loaded barges) and provide some jobs.

The biggest issue, as far as I can work out, is one my father mentioned years ago: Road hauliers aren't as well-organised in terms of union membership and activity as seamen and railworkers are, so both the government of the day and "big business" see road haulage as a more amenable form of freighting, in that it's less likely to be affected by pesky striking workers, and hauliers have proved themselves willing to be shat on by the people they sub-contract from, and to scab in far greater prevalence than other possible freight-movers.

I still think that containerisation is a great way to ship freight internationally, but having lorries deliver to and pick up containers from the docks and perhaps transport a single container halfway across the UK seems foolish when rail or water-borne transport would be more resource-efficient.

I don't think the primary reason for using road for a lot of freight is fear of union activity.

I think it is because:

1) trucks have got bigger and more efficient over the years.

2) distances in the UK a so short that the extra cost involved in moving goods by road from factory or farm to railhead, onto rail, then BACK onto road for the final few (dozen) miles, when the whole drive would only take 4 hours or so, outweighs the saving.

In bigger countries, the benefits of long-distance rail shipment start to count.

3) relating to the last one - they've closed so much of the rail network that you would have to drive the goods for miles to find a railway to put them on in a lot of the UK.

4) about canals - although a lot of stuff isn't really time-sensitive, people have got used to quicker deliveries - like when you mail order stuff, you often used to wait weeks for it, now you don't, generally. It would take a big shift in attitudes for people to

When the oil runs short and gets loads more expensive, we will go back to moving freight by canal and rail, not before.

Giles..

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just consider how much could have been done using the @ 500 billion that was spent propping up the banking sector.

Makes you fucking weep, it really does.

Yep.
And think how much British Waterways (or whatever they're now called) could have pulled in via passage fees, lock fees etc for commercial traffic. They could have made parts of the system unsubsidised.
You can bet that the billions that the Treasury gets back from selling off the banks won't be used for fuck-all constructive, either.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think the primary reason for using road for a lot of freight is fear of union activity.

I think it is because:

1) trucks have got bigger and more efficient over the years.

Marginally. Internal combustion engines are innately inefficient. Now, that's fine as long as fuel is (in relative terms) cheap, but when it isn't...

2) distances in the UK a so short that the extra cost involved in moving goods by road from factory or farm to railhead, onto rail, then BACK onto road for the final few (dozen) miles, when the whole drive would only take 4 hours or so, outweighs the saving.

In some case it may, in others it may not. You may or may not have noticed, but until Beeching, rail was the most efficient method, and maintenance of rail infrastructure was far cheaper and easier to achieve than maintenance of roads and motorways is.

In bigger countries, the benefits of long-distance rail shipment start to count.

3) relating to the last one - they've closed so much of the rail network that you would have to drive the goods for miles to find a railway to put them on in a lot of the UK.

4) about canals - although a lot of stuff isn't really time-sensitive, people have got used to quicker deliveries - like when you mail order stuff, you often used to wait weeks for it, now you don't, generally. It would take a big shift in attitudes for people to

I'm not talking about the post, I'm talking about the same sort of stuff that used to be transported by water and is now transported by road: Bulk goods, raw materials, that sort of thing.

When the oil runs short and gets loads more expensive, we will go back to moving freight by canal and rail, not before.

Giles..

At which time we'll be scrabbling round in a frenzied attempt to repair 30 years of infrastructure under-investment, and failing miserably. Much better to think ahead and start rebuilding that infrastructure NOW.

 

[Giles]

Marginally. Internal combustion engines are innately inefficient. Now, that's fine as long as fuel is (in relative terms) cheap, but when it isn't...

In some case it may, in others it may not. You may or may not have noticed, but until Beeching, rail was the most efficient method, and maintenance of rail infrastructure was far cheaper and easier to achieve than maintenance of roads and motorways is.

I'm not talking about the post, I'm talking about the same sort of stuff that used to be transported by water and is now transported by road: Bulk goods, raw materials, that sort of thing.

At which time we'll be scrabbling round in a frenzied attempt to repair 30 years of infrastructure under-investment, and failing miserably. Much better to think ahead and start rebuilding that infrastructure NOW.

I'm not disagreeing with most of what you wrote. I was just pointing out why things have changed.

I think that you will find that since the 50s and 60s, the delivery cost per tonne by road has gone down in real terms because trucks have got bigger, faster, more reliable and more fuel-efficient.

The problem now if you did set about re-opening or opening new rail freight lines would be making them cost less than the cost of road.

With hindsight they shouldn't have closed all the little branch lines, or at least kept the track and stuff mothballed just in case.

When oil costs a lot more - assuming that something else doesn't come along and change the game in the interim - it will be worth spending the big sums needed to build new freight lines, but probably not before.

Re bulk goods - they still DO use rail for a lot of these, don't they? Gravel, sand, cement, aggregates, coal etc. It isn't practical to use lorries when you are moving 1000s of tons at a time.

I don't know if people will go back to canals though. Canal transport died out because of railways, didn't it?

Giles..

 

[bigbry]

When the oil runs short and gets loads more expensive, we will go back to moving freight by canal and rail, not before.

Giles..

Hope they use horses again - that will totally fuck the fishermen !

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not disagreeing with most of what you wrote. I was just pointing out why things have changed.

I think that you will find that since the 50s and 60s, the delivery cost per tonne by road has gone down in real terms because trucks have got bigger, faster, more reliable and more fuel-efficient.

But mostly because we've built/widened so many roads and constructed bypasses.

The problem now if you did set about re-opening or opening new rail freight lines would be making them cost less than the cost of road.

I think that would be a problem, but I suspect that the biggest issue would be the roads lobby going garritty.

With hindsight they shouldn't have closed all the little branch lines, or at least kept the track and stuff mothballed just in case.

In some places the track is still there, in others it isn't. It's obviously a vexed issue, but enhancing public transport and re-building a decent infrastructure for freight is a fairly straightforward way of reducing emissions and creating employment that serves everyone, whereas keeping to a road and air-freight system serves only the hauliers and the road-builders in the long run.

When oil costs a lot more - assuming that something else doesn't come along and change the game in the interim - it will be worth spending the big sums needed to build new freight lines, but probably not before.

We're already looking at industrial scale distillation of petroleum from coal again, which isn't economic unless oil hits a steady $120 per barrel, so I suspect that the day may arrive sooner than we think when new infrastructure is deemed a "good idea".

Re bulk goods - they still DO use rail for a lot of these, don't they? Gravel, sand, cement, aggregates, coal etc. It isn't practical to use lorries when you are moving 1000s of tons at a time.

True, but there's no longer the kind of unitary delivery system that there used to be. Once upon a time all the companies that retailed those materials had depots on the rail lines, so that delivery was really just the last few miles by road (maybe 10), whereas now depots are regional, and delivery can be from a depot up to 100 miles away, and much of that heavy travel is on crowded urban roads.

I don't know if people will go back to canals though. Canal transport died out because of railways, didn't it?

Well, given that the apogee of rail (in terms of miles of track) was the late 19th century, and canals didn't really expire until the early 1960s (and the arrival of the motorway), then no.
I remember being told by an old-timer up in Sheffield how the canals were far more handy than road or rail for many of the foundries, because "unusual"-shaped industrial equipment could be craned onto a barge and taken to virtually any port, whereas if it went by road it'd have to be escorted by the police, and if it went by rail the route would have to be arranged so that the load didn't have to transit any tunnels or narrow cuts, so they still had a use as long as we had an inland heavy manufacturing industry.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hope they use horses again - that will totally fuck the fishermen !

Given the rising cost of diesel, it'll probably soon be cheaper to feed 4 horses than to run a four-hp marine diesel unit.

 

[Giles]

I remember being told by an old-timer up in Sheffield how the canals were far more handy than road or rail for many of the foundries, because "unusual"-shaped industrial equipment could be craned onto a barge and taken to virtually any port, whereas if it went by road it'd have to be escorted by the police, and if it went by rail the route would have to be arranged so that the load didn't have to transit any tunnels or narrow cuts, so they still had a use as long as we had an inland heavy manufacturing industry.

This may be true of some canals, but it seems to me that there are quite a few canals with bridges over them, and tunnels and other obstructions - just like there are on some rail routes, and indeed roads.

Most canal boats ("narrow boats") wouldn't take things much wider than you could move on a train or truck - although you are right that to move big stuff on roads you need an escort and even road closures etc.

Giles..

 

[roryer]

Should we substitute 'drunks' for 'children' in roryer's poll? Would it make any difference to a loaded poll?

Yes, I would also like to make the roads safe enough to walk home drunk. Children or drunks, are about the same in terms of road safety objectives.

The more detailed analysis of the policy is good, Vision Zero is a starting point, not a solution, and there is a question of how far we would take it, in the UK we have already been confronting the problem of road safety targets being archived through discouraging walking and cycling. The links to deaths from obesity are therefore very appropriate, as many if not more people currently also die primarily from a lack of physical exercise.

I would therefore make pedestrians and cyclists the priority, rather than in car safety.

So yes, we need to be careful over how to articulate and develop Vision Zero, but for me the current thousands of KSI pedestrians and cyclists is unacceptable, and must be addressed.

My list of things we could do immediately at very low cost:
1. 20mph limits on all residential and shopping streets, near schools etc.
2. Automatic responsibility resting on the motorist involved in any accident which leads to serious injury of pedestrians or cyclists in a residential or shopping / entertainment street.
3. Much stiffer penalties for motorists breaking the law, and especially for those involved in accidents
4. Bicycle training made freely available, and before receiving a driving licence or in order to renew one, drivers must also attain bikeability level 3.

 

[cybertect]

In some case it may, in others it may not. You may or may not have noticed, but until Beeching, rail was the most efficient method, and maintenance of rail infrastructure was far cheaper and easier to achieve than maintenance of roads and motorways is.

The railways were suffering competition from road haulage from the 1920s onward. Arguably, competition regulation with government-fixed pricing implemented when they had a near monopoly on freight transport didn't help their position, but even if they had been able to adapt more to the market, the profitability and long-term sustainability of railway freight is in doubt.

The railway companies themselves operated some of the largest road haulage fleets in the country. Pickfords' parent company, The Hayes Wharf Cartage Company, was owned by the big four railway companies after 1933.