BMF blows gaff on new 'National Motorcycling Council'

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

YOUR motorcycling?

What about everyone else?

My first reaction was fuck em, but a more sensible answer is that I can only speak from my own experience, and in the last 20 years I've had better things to worry about than motorcycling, for me it's a hobby, not a way of life.

[Horse]

At times, you're like someone trying to sell me a car... me saying "there are faults with this vehicle"... and your response is "that's as maybe and what are you going to do to fix it, did you expect me to sell you a car without faults"?

That's been your response to the smart motorway issue (you keep asking "what would you do that's better?") and the autonomous cars issue (where you keep asking me "how would you reduce accidents?").

If I can find an issue it's NOT MY JOB to come up with solutions... though I did suggest two ways of engaging.

As you know, there are some people who are vociferous about the 'safety' industry. Perhaps with some justification. But, despite having what some of us do explained, with examples of things we have done, the response is often "Ah yes but do it differently!"

Here's an example of 'new thinking', the 'pre mortem'. Supposed to be done as a group exercise to a format. Actually, it's a major part of what we* do when generating a safety case. We have done for years.

I've used impact protection vehicles (IPVs) as a challenge; the industry has altered working practices to reduce risk to crews and drivers, looked at addition protection (seat, harness, neck protection for drivers, education for road users (many incidents involve HGVs, so targetted there), additional rear lighting to emphasise the vehicle's size and position, approaching driver warnings, crew warnings of potential impacts. Still, 30 or so crashes each year just on HE roads ... But I was told (by someone else, in another public forum - not here) "Ah but, you need to consider surprise". WTF does that mean in 'real' terms? Give us some ideas.

Or do we just accept that crashes will happen and, eventually, more people will die? What's an acceptable rate of crashes and fatalities?


* Other practitioners may vary

Remember, in the early days of 'No Surprise', when I suggested that, however good the ideas were, what you could consider would be generating alternative lesson plans (or whatever) to show how the ideas could be implemented.

[Horse]

I've used impact protection vehicles (IPVs) as a challenge; the industry has altered working practices to reduce risk to crews and drivers, looked at addition protection (seat, harness, neck protection for drivers, education for road users (many incidents involve HGVs, so targetted there), additional rear lighting to emphasise the vehicle's size and position, approaching driver warnings, crew warnings of potential impacts. Still, 30 or so crashes each year just on HE roads ...

Or do we just accept that crashes will happen and, eventually, more people will die? What's an acceptable rate of crashes and fatalities?

And just in case you were wondering, there is the understanding that 'not being there' is the best option, so the industry has ...
- eliminated live lane crossings, so reduced duration on the carriageway or hard shoulder
- alternative lane closure taper, 40% reduction in time to install
- installation of automatic lane closure barriers
- automated IPV, so no driver to be knjured
- cone laying machines
- removal of some lamps, so reduced time (and ergonomic & environmental benefits)
- mobile barriers instead of cones
- using electronic signals instead of temporary signs

And more.

[Cousin Jack]

I think we all have to expect that idiocy will lead to deaths and injuries.

Back in the 'good old days' (when a BH death toll of 30+ was considered about par for the course), an obstruction on a fast road had a red flag in the hedge 40 yards back, a single small red sign (saying something useful like "Road Works" perhaps 20 yards away. We could, and have, done better.

What we have now is a culture of anyone can drive, it is considered so easy that everyone thinks they can do other things too. Standards of driving are abysmal, despite power steering being almost universal, few drivers bother t turn the wheel more than 1/2 a turn. I experience people cutting the corner when turning right on a daily basis. Using a phone on the move is universal, texting whilst driving is pretty common too. Applying mascara in the RVM whilst driving on the motorway, typing e-mails on a laptop, reading the newspaper, I have seen all of these on the M1. Clipping cones has become an art form.

So yes, we (or rather you) will have to accept that crashes will happen and people will die. People get the road safety they deserve, and a large proportion of the driving public are twats. They court disaster on a daily basis, the wonder is that they don't crash more often. Nothing you can do will stop them crashing into a massive lane closed vehicle with huge flashing lights, they are just not looking.

The alternative is that politicians grow a pair, introduce stringent periodic testing for all, and draconian penalties for driving without a licence or DLAC. Please don't hold your breath for politicians to act.

[Horse]

I think we all have to expect that idiocy will lead to deaths and injuries.

It doesn't have to be idiocy but, yes, crashes will always happen sooner or later, one way or another. (And it's odd that people can't accept that will still happen however good automation gets.)

Clipping cones has become an art form.

Sadly, the guys (and a few gurls) who put road closures out get a bit, not blase, accepting of cone strikes. You can have 135m of cones and lamps, but people do often crash into them, so often that the crews won't always log them.

For context, in the USA they have hundreds of roadworks staff die every year. I also occasionally work with the breakdown and recovery industry, and HE Traffic Officers. In the USA last year they had over 40 'responder' (police, fire, ambo, recovery) fatalities.

In the UK, we're 'lucky' and rarely see more than a couple of fatalities. A really bad year was 6 roadworker deaths. That said, there are people I know who will tell you the names of some of the people who have died.

In fact, one of the people pushing for safety improvements, particularly for IPVs, can tell you the name of one fatality because it was his son.

So yes, we (or rather you) will have to accept that crashes will happen and people will die.

My personal views on road safety are slightly unconventional. I won't go on the record (she says, on a public forum where several people know my real name), but I have said before that we have achieved all of the 'big wins' (seat belts, drink driving, NCAP5* testing) and we may not see any major dips in casualty numbers however hard we try. That's not to say we shouldn't try.

However, the comment was prompted by the suggestion that our thinking is fundamentally wrong.

[Cousin Jack]

I think the collective thinking is a bit OTT. If idiots want to crash I think we should give them something REALLY solid to crash into, something that won't give an inch, that will wreck their car and perhaps kill or injure them.

Cone strikes are frequent, drivers know that cones usually flip out sideways and cause minimal damage to their car, and virtually none to an HGV. The US style barrels are visually much more solid (I have no idea if they really are), and don't encourage clipping. Barriers in the UK always err on the side of being flimsy, we have the technology to make them robust enough to actually stop an HGV at full tilt. Have a look at the barrier they use on aircraft carriers to stop a jet crashing into parked aircraft if it misses all the wires.

The problem with the 'Zero' approach is that no risk usually involves no reward either.

[Horse]

There was an 'incident ' on the M4 several years ago where police wanted to stop a stolen car. So they commandeered three HGVS and parked them side by side. It worked. There were no prosecution costs either, only inquests.

Sadly, people will often only react when there's something solid in front of them, but even then not always.

[Unfortunately?] We're not allowed to 'transfer' risk, ie make it safer for one group at the potential expense of another.

[Horse]

Professionally, I have driven into cones at speeds from 10 mph up to 60 mph ("What did you do at the office today, Daddy?"). A cone and lamp can do a fair bit of damage!

[Horse]

Do you get a free beard and Derry boots if you sign up?

Congratulations

If you remember Derry boots, you're old enough for discounted membership

[Skub]

Your memories are borkened, I remember Derri boots.

[Horse]

Your memories are borkened, I remember Derri boots.

Remember them and correct spelling? You have instant access to to 'Fellow' membership status