http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8117911.stm

More than half of Britain's A-roads have failed to be rated as safe.

Experts call for better signs, lines, junctions and road surfaces.

I would agree with this as I believe, from empirical experience and observation, that a change in the way the roads are constructed would lead to a significant drop in the number of accidents, e.g. having a central reservation which is solid so that you cannot see the contra-flow traffic or their lights.

The report makes little mention of recommending speed reduction as a way of improving safety on these roads. This is hardly surprising as official statistics reveal that only around 5% of road traffic accidents are attributable to exceeding the speed limit (I cannot recall where I read this statistic but I am sure that someone here can cite this for me!).

What is the Department for Transport's response? They will reduce speed limits on the roads. Is it just me who feels disheartened by the Government's absolute obsession with speed, despite it being responsible for only 5% of accidents?

using cats eyes that last more than three weeks post installation would help.

I know some very dodgy unlit A roads with barely a working cats eye. switchback bends and hils, crap unreflective line markings. At night its quite an adeventure !

Just about the greatest contribution to road safety and they use cheaper and cheaper ones, the current crop are rubbish.

indicative.

And yet......

The number of people killed on UK roads has reached a record low, according to government statistics.

There were 2,538 people killed on Britain's roads in 2008, which is the lowest annual total since records began in 1926.

That is 14% down on the 2007 figure. The highest recorded post-war annual total was nearly 8,000 in 1966.

The drop came despite half of Britain's A-roads failing to be rated as safe in a European survey.

Department for Transport statistics, based on casualties in accidents reported to police, showed that 28,567 people were killed or seriously injured last year.

This was 7% fewer than in 2007.

It means the government has hit its target of reducing by 40% the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads by 2010, compared with the mid-1990s average.

"If this trend continues the UK will soon restore its position as one of the safest countries in the world "

Andrew Howard, AA

try the M1 near Sheffield, they are terrible, at one time councils used to lift and clean them but cost cutting has put paid to that maintenance activity.

We're lucky in the UK to have cats eyes in our roads. I drive quite a bit in Europe, and there cats eyes are unheard of. That may explain why in Belgium for instance they have such a high death rate.

In my view, there are far too many signs on our roads. One junction on the A40 in west London I counted over 240 road signs during the course of a day driving a bus service round there. What warrants that number of signs at one junction??

The A2070 in Kent has quite a high death rate, especially amongst motorcyclists, but never a speed camera in sight.

Of course, everybody ready for the 50mph NSL to be touted again as the great cureall for road safety. You can guarantee that the experts thoughts on signage, junction layout, etc will be buried.




http://www.a140.org.uk/ shows there is more to a safer road than lowering limits. It covers the A140 from near Ipswich to Norwich, two counties two very different road safety policies. Suffolk with its dangerous blanket village=40 policiy, and Norfolk with their good roads= safe roads ideas.

Indeed, they have reduced the speed limit on the 'Cat and Fiddle' road between Macclesfield and Buxton to 50 mph as a result of the number of motorcyclists killed there. The fact that most were doing over twice that speed seems to elude them and that reducing the speed limit, therefore, has no effect. Except, of course, it improves the opportunities to raise revenue from people driving at safe speeds.

There is a road near here where following a fatal accident, at an estimated speed of 100 mph, the limit was reduced from NSL to 40. Following another fatal accident (est. speed 90) the limit was reduced to 30.

Recently another serious accident occurred (est. speed 90). I fully expect the speed limit to be now reduced to 20. Should be a real gold mine.

The website of the Assosciation Of British Drivers contains some work by a highways engineer, JJ Leeming, that constanly states low speed limits are dangerous, far more can be done to improve road safety by surfacing, design, junction layout etc.

Perhaps the most telling quote is "This is an example of the attitude of mind which thinks that because something 'could' or 'ought' to cause accidents, argal it does. " Admittedly this quote refers to 3lane roads back in the 60s, but seems just as apt today when talking about speed.

Another good one on that website is "height kills" the logic is infallible given politicians and some pressure groups in this day and age.

The problem is that genuine road safety measures don't provide a lucrative revenue stream.

You can't tax safety barriers, road layout and signage.

I can't understand the obsession with signage. I was on London Road near Knutsford, Cheshire the other day looking for an address I had never been to before - so extra care required i.e. looking for my destination whilst keeping an eye on the road at the same time. I'm then confronted with white-on-red warning signs which simply stated the number of accidents on that road over the past three years. Aside from ruining the view of an otherwise lovely country road, these are completely pointless and do nothing except actually distract your attention from the road, therefore actually making it more dangerous.

Likewise in a different way the ridiculous number of signs you see in town and cities these days just doesn't make any sense. I firmly believe that if people were taught to drive more sensibly and intuitively instead of blindly following signs like zombies, the roads would be a much safer place.

As for speed cameras, making drivers check their speedos and hitting the brakes when their eyes really should be on the road in what has been deemed to be a hazardous area, often in 'panic' at potentially being nicked for speeding rather than calmly whilst checking their mirrors first, often on bends, often in areas where there are other hazards, often in poor weather when they are less readily visible, well if somebody can explain how that is safer I'd love to hear it.

Decent Cat's eyes are in theory self cleaning, every time something runs over them. Of course that assumes that cars *can* run over them and aren't in the middle of miles and miles of double whites (where once there was a single dotted) or been replaced by cheaper nasty alternatives.

cheaper nastier alternatives I think. I did poke around the sparce info a whileback and came to that conclusion fwiw.

but it seems there are double standards (unbelieveable eh ?).
On some roads the cats ares are rubbiish/dead and then you get a section that covers a fairly dodgy junction on a fast A road and for a very short stretch the cats eyes there are much better. before and after and its 'heart of darkness' again.

Try fnding out who is responsible for them...but you will have to change your name to Parisfal for that quest.