The Filter^: Road Safety

February 09, 2004

Road Safety

Have you seen this - shock absorbant lamp posts.
At first this seemed a wonderfully obvious way to reduce fatal road accidents, but with any social proposal we must investigate the unseen effects. Should we be making roads safer? I think not.
Here's a great statistic (and whilst I fundamentally abhore statistics, those which are used to assail other statistics are palatable!) in 1922 there were about 7 child road accident fatalities per 100,000 children. In 1986, there were only about 4. In 1922 there were about 80 child road accident fatalities per 100,000 vehicles. In 1986 the figure was less than 5. A dramatic fall.
(source: Hillman et al. 1990, cited in John Adams, "Risk")
According to government reports, this demonstrates that roads are safer. They completely ignore the fact that since we deem roads to be more dangerous, we're more protective of our children. In fact, fatality rates for teenagers has dramatically risen, suggesting that all the protection given to the young weakens their ability to develop road skills when old enought to have independence.

So returning to lamp posts..... Almost every government study of road safety measures danger to those within vehicles. The government advice to children is to scare them away from roads, and the safety advice to cyclists pretty much mocks you for being foolish enough to dare. The policy is consistently to remove children from the threat of danger, than to reduce the danger itself. The principal measure for road studies is the time-saving for motorists, and making the cacooned safer.

The statisticians tactic to objectify risk cannot work. By insulating people from risk, the propensity to take risks increase. This is why intervention to reduce 'injury hotspots' is likely to increase the chances that the area will become 'fatal hotspots'. In London, traffic moves so slow its almost impossible to be killed in an accident (unless you're a cyclist or pedestrian...) but any measure to increase the flow, ease congestion, and make it easier to drive faster will increase the likelihood of fatal accidents.

And back to lamp posts...... Adams 1992, cited in John Adams, "Risk" shows that the effect of seatbelt legislation has increased road accident deaths in the countries surveyed. It seems that people drive as quickly as they deem safe, and when the environment is adapted to reduce the chance of an accident, speeds will rise.
This all bodes ill for the non-motorist, who's safety is ignored in many of these studies.

Gordon Tullock, Nobel laureate in-waiting at George Mason University suggested that a dagger should be fitted to every steering wheel, pointing to the chest of the driver. That should slow them down!

By aje
Feb 9, 2004 6:15:58 AM | Economics

8 Comments

Man, people screw everything up

Posted by: Prodigal Moon | February 09, 2004 at 07:47 AM

Can anyone shed some light on the increasingly widespread belief that driving fast is safer than driving slowly (or slower, i don't mean sloth pace). I have on more than one occasion been shouted down by friends and colleagues for suggesting that people should slow down to at least within the current speed limit, as this is apparently dangerous. I have yet to hear a logical argument to support this claim and wondered what is was based on.

Any ideas?

Posted by: thomasconolly | February 09, 2004 at 05:44 PM

Try looking for accident figures for Germany's unrestricted autobahn's

Posted by: Greg | February 09, 2004 at 07:59 PM

This refers to my original point about 'safety'.
An autobahn will reduce the chance of accidents, but will increase the severity of accidents that do occur. This seems to be supported by the empirics.
What we'll expect to see is the increase in speeds to deter risk-averse people from using them, and to facilitate a 'formula 1' mentality. The sports cars on the autobahn is evidence to support this view.
People have different risk thermostats. For some, the dangers will stop them from driving on motorways.For others, the rewards of quicker journey times will encourage motorway use.

Posted by: AJE | February 09, 2004 at 10:31 PM

That is very interesting. I suppose also that the faster the speed the less time actually spent travelling; if the risk of accidents is not neccessarily increased by faster speed then the chances of having an accident would decrease, as drivers spend less time in the risk area (motorway). However, i think that there is a direct link between increased speed and risk of accident, because human reaction times would have to increase in proportion to speed for the same safety level to be maintained. Perhaps this is counter-acted by both the decrease in time exposed to risk, and the point above made by AJE.

Posted by: thomasconolly | February 10, 2004 at 11:54 AM

The critical point to realise, which the Department of Transport fails to understand, is that different people ahve different risk thermostats.
I think a skiing analagy is useful - a clear system of coloured runs depending on the pace of the slope. If you watch a green run, you'll see thousands of accidents, as learners tumble over, but never anytihng serious. If you watch a black run, you'll hardly ever see anyone fall, but when they do, it's alot more serious.

Posted by: AJE | February 10, 2004 at 01:41 PM

I've been told that Armen Alchain came up with the 'dagger in the steering wheel' suggestion. Perhaps we can put it down as "one for the commons"....

Posted by: AJE | March 31, 2004 at 06:28 PM

Posted by: helena | December 16, 2008 at 03:36 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Filter^

2004-2010

February 09, 2004

Road Safety

8 Comments

The Filter^

Search

Recent Comments