Road Danger Reduction

Posted on
Page
of 5
/ 5
Last Next
  • Heard of the Road Danger Reduction Forum?

    What an enlightened attitude to assessing transport interventions.

    For any intervention ask these 2 questions.*

    1. Does it promote benign forms of transport (Like cycling and walking)?
    2. Does it reduce danger at source?

    Try it...
    Cycle lanes

    1. Yes people may choose to ride if there is a cycle lane
    2. No may increase danger since source of danger (Car driver) may not see them

    Helmets

    1. No may put people off cycling
    2. No may even increase danger from source (drivers) because of risk compensation

    Cycle Training

    1. Yes people are more likely to ride following training
    2. Yes people ride where they get seen so drivers more likely to see them

    What about 20mph limits, guard-rails around junctions. HGV driver training, TfL HGV blind spot campaign... etc ?

    *Thanks to Richard Ambler of lambeth Council

  • simple

  • That's what I like about it Multi Grooves. Simple to assess the value of any intervention

  • Here is the RDR charter:
    The Road Danger Reduction Charter pledges to:

    • Seek a genuine reduction in danger for all road users by identifying and controlling the principal sources of threat.
    • Find new measures to define the level of danger on our roads. These would more accurately monitor the use of and threat to benign modes.
    • Discourage the unnecessary use of motor transport where alternative benign modes or public transport are equally or more viable.
    • Pursue a transport strategy for environmentally sustainable travel based on developing efficient, integrated public transport systems.
      This would recognise that current levels of motor traffic should not be increased.
    • Actively promote cycling and walking, which pose little threat to other road users, by taking positive and co-ordinated action to increase the safety and mobility of these benign modes.
    • Promote the adoption of this charter as the basis of both national and international transport policy.

    Some local authorities have signed up to this

  • More importantly when I get another of the numerous questions on helmet use I've a got a short reply that gives the enquirer something to think about and apply to so many other areas of our road/cyle infastructure rather than FACTS.

    Brill!

  • Here is the RDR charter:
    The Road Danger Reduction Charter pledges to:

    []Seek a genuine reduction in danger for all road users by identifying and controlling the principal sources of threat.
    [
    ]Find new measures to define the level of danger on our roads. These would more accurately monitor the use of and threat to benign modes.
    []Discourage the unnecessary use of motor transport where alternative benign modes or public transport are equally or more viable.
    [
    ]Pursue a transport strategy for environmentally sustainable travel based on developing efficient, integrated public transport systems.
    This would recognise that current levels of motor traffic should not be increased.
    []Actively promote cycling and walking, which pose little threat to other road users, by taking positive and co-ordinated action to increase the safety and mobility of these benign modes.
    [
    ]Promote the adoption of this charter as the basis of both national and international transport policy.
    Some local authorities have signed up to this

    some local authorities have LTP3 full of cycling walking promotion verbiage too SD,
    that dosent mean they actually have anyone doing any actual work on it.
    Gonna get reading this link though, as always thanks for infos

  • Heard of the Road Danger Reduction Forum?

    Well, yes. :)

    Much to be promoted, and a very useful route into understanding traditional 'road safety' myths. Bob's book is also very worth reading:

    abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Search­Results?an=robert+davis&sortby=3&sts=t&t­n=death+on+the+streets&x=84&y=16

  • Hey,
    anyone know this one British chap that had a book called "death by automobile" or "killed by car" or something.

    He also had a somekind road safety venue and a website that had kinda coherent views including those about cycle training.

    Name and links escape me.

  • no

  • Probably it's this same Robert Davis cat.
    He had a different web site then.

  • like this: rdrf.org/

    rdrf.org/pubset.htm ->** Cyclist Training** Position Paper

            High quality cyclist training for children is essential to achieve              the aims of the Integrated Transport Strategy.
    
  • Are you trolling, chainwhip, or were you genuinely wondering whether the person to whose book I just linked was the one you remembered? (I can't imagine you of all people only remembering this vaguely enough to ask the question non-facetiously. :) )

  • Honestly thought the book title included "car" or equivalent and the .org and .org.uk sites are way different.

  • I think the RDRF changed URL a while back.

    The only recent book I can think of that made waves and had 'car' in the title was Lynn Sloman's 'Car Sick', but she's obviously not a man and it's a very differently-pitched book to the one you seem to remember.

  • I do think the RDRF changed URL a while back.

    Yes:

    Old site: rdrf.org/
    New site: rdrf.org.uk/

    The old site has the remarkable publications section: rdrf.org/pubset.htm

    that has remarkable papers:
    rdrf.org/membarea/rdrfbs5.pdf­
    rdrf.org/membarea/rdrfppn.pdf­

  • Ah, yes. I should ask Bob what the thinking behind that split was. Perhaps he just wanted to make a snappy UK-centric blog in addition to the old site, but that doesn't appear to be being updated any more.

  • Bob is always telling people to visit the new blog site that I linked to in the OP rather than the old one

  • Ah, yes. I should ask Bob what the thinking behind that split was.

    Ring my friend, I say you call Dr Robert.

  • Time to assess some more activities.

    Here's a reminder of the simple questions.

    For any intervention ask these 2 questions.

    1. Does it promote benign forms of transport (Like cycling and walking)?
    2. Does it reduce danger at source?

    20mph speed limits/zones

    1. Yes. Lower speeds feel less dangerous so people more likely to walk and cycle
    2. Yes. Car drivers have more time to react and if the get it wrong, do less damage

    Critical Mass

    1. Yes. People may have a go with friends and enjoy riding enough to take it up
    2. No. May frustrate drivers (The source of the danger) who may take more risks with other cyclists

    Anyone else want a go?

  • Ring my friend, I say you call Dr Robert.

    YouTube - Doctor Robert


    'He's a man you must believe'

  • Well, yes. :)

    Much to be promoted, and a very useful route into understanding traditional 'road safety' myths. Bob's book is also very worth reading:

    abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Search­Results?an=robert+davis&sortby=3&sts=t&t­n=death+on+the+streets&x=84&y=16

    sixty quid, ? dont think I will be reading that...

  • Jason you wish to borrow it?

  • Anyone else want a go?

    Fixing potholes: WIN-WIN!

  • ^Good one CHW

    Building guardrails at crossings: LOSE-LOSE

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Road Danger Reduction

Posted by Avatar for skydancer @skydancer

Actions