Take part in my research about congestion pricing!

  • jchoiresearch's Avatar
    Hello,

    I'm a research student at Swansea University, currently running a study on social policies including congestion pricing. I thought it'd be of interest to users of this forum! Take part by clicking the link below:

    https://research.sc/participant/logi...A-82C5E4780AB0

    Thanks.
  • 21 Replies

  • Rolebama's Avatar
    I have completed the survey, and found the true/false real answers a bit hard to swallow. Are there really 30,000 deaths and serious injuries on the road every year in the UK? Anybody have a source for this, please.
  • Nick's Avatar
    Community Manager
    Whilst there's no affiliation with the survey coming out of Swansea Uni and the RAC, this report on gov.uk suggests the numbers are in the right ball park.

    2024
    29,540 killed or seriously injured (KSI)
    1607 were fatalities
    128,920 casualties of all severities.

    Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain 2024. Source: gov.uk
    Last edited by Nick; 14-02-25 at 09:31.
    Thanks,
    Nick


    Got a question or want to start a discussion? Create a new post here. ✍
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    Thanks Nick. I now have no doubt those figures are true but - how? Has the standard of driving really dropped that much, or does it merely reflect, as a percentage, how many vehicles are on the road now. What do you think?
  • Nick's Avatar
    Community Manager
    It's an interesting one to consider @Rolebama, for sure - whilst they seem terrifyingly high to us today, the reduction over the years is quite startling when looking back even just 20 years, never mind beyond that. The table on this Wikipedia page consolidates the data from over the years (and yes I know it's Wikipedia but the sources are all cited :) ). Even going back 25 years to 2020 sees a dramatic reduction.

    I guess this shows that, if anything, that percentage versus the number of cars on the road has dropped significantly.
  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    It's an interesting one to consider @Rolebama, for sure - whilst they seem terrifyingly high to us today, the reduction over the years is quite startling when looking back even just 20 years, never mind beyond that. The table on this Wikipedia page consolidates the data from over the years (and yes I know it's Wikipedia but the sources are all cited :) ). Even going back 25 years to 2020 sees a dramatic reduction.

    I guess this shows that, if anything, that percentage versus the number of cars on the road has dropped significantly.
    Exactly.

    If you look back even further, in the 1930s deaths were running about 7,000 a year with only about 1 million cars on the road. (Figures from memory!)

    The 1933 Road Traffic Act introduced driving tests, 30mph speed limits, etc., which improved things dramatically.
  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    In some discussions about congestion, the prevalence of "Chelsea Tractors" is sometimes cited as a factor, because of their size. Although their height makes them conspicuous, of course the only dimension that really affects congestion is length.

    So, which is longer, a Mini or a Range Rover?

    I knew that cars are tending to become bigger, but I was surprised to read in this week's Autocar that the current Mini Countryman is actually 2mm longer than the original Range Rover.

    NB I haven't checked that, but it does have the ring of truth.
  • jchoiresearch's Avatar
    I have completed the survey, and found the true/false real answers a bit hard to swallow. Are there really 30,000 deaths and serious injuries on the road every year in the UK? Anybody have a source for this, please.
    Hello,

    Thanks for completing the study! Yes, the figure is from official government stats.

    Jimin
  • olduser's Avatar
    In some discussions about congestion, the prevalence of "Chelsea Tractors" is sometimes cited as a factor, because of their size. Although their height makes them conspicuous, of course the only dimension that really affects congestion is length.

    So, which is longer, a Mini or a Range Rover?

    I knew that cars are tending to become bigger, but I was surprised to read in this week's Autocar that the current Mini Countryman is actually 2mm longer than the original Range Rover.

    NB I haven't checked that, but it does have the ring of truth.

    What concerns me about SUV's is the people that buy them because they are safer, because of this many drivers of them take more risks.
    Of course, I don't know they see them as risks they may be unaware.
    To me, high ground clearance = high CG = easy to knock over.
    Also high ground clearance = more drag = higher fuel consumption.
    But if I had to drive off road everyday, then perhaps I would say it was a reasonable compromise.
  • olduser's Avatar
    The questions;
    The congestion questions only offered one solution, which I happen to think is the wrong solution anyway.

    The best solution I have seen and used is park and ride.
    This could be refined by having a charge to enter a restricted area but pre booked, no booking then no entry, or large fine, (providing signage made that clear) booking via phone, internet, local shops.
    This way it is possible to have some exemptions, after all the point is to reduce traffic not stop it.

    The food question:
    Taxing food is not effective, the problem I think, is caused by manufactured foods, therefore limit or prevent their production.

    Evolution has left us with weakness for fat, sugar, and salt.
    Way back, (stone age and before) we lived on a wide range of leaves, grains, fruit, and roots, with very occasional animal flesh, collecting food was a fulltime job.

    Salt, unless we lived near the coast, (coastal plants are adapted to hold salt in special cells) salt was hard to find, so we are attracted to salt, when we found any we ate it.

    Sugar, was a rough indication of 'safe to eat' (bitter is risky) but it also takes very little effort to convert sugar to energy, if we find sugar then, eat lots.

    Fats (vegetable or animal), much more energy than carbohydrates, therefore much less effort to fill yourself, and less work.
    Getting food was hard physical work so the risk of getting fat was low.

    Fats and sugar can be mixed easily, salt can make some fats more palatable, all adding up to what food manufacturers produce for us, and it's no effort to get food we just need money.

    For anyone interested, BBC 4 2024 Christmas Lectures can be found on iPlayer 'The Truth About Food'. 3 x 1hr.
    Last edited by olduser; 16-02-25 at 14:46.
  • jchoiresearch's Avatar
    @olduser

    Thanks for your comments. In the future, I hope to test perceptions of a wider range of transport policies relating to congestion.
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    Someone put a picture of a 4 x 4 SUV stuck in a ditch on another Forum some years ago. The point was that it had slid off the road due to then icy conditions. Within a week there was hundreds of pictures of a variety of these vehicles stuck in a variety of locations across the country. Simply because they were running on unsuitable tyres, yet the owners/drivers believed they could drive 'normally' as they were in a 4 x 4.
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    Exactly.

    If you look back even further, in the 1930s deaths were running about 7,000 a year with only about 1 million cars on the road. (Figures from memory!)

    The 1933 Road Traffic Act introduced driving tests, 30mph speed limits, etc., which improved things dramatically.
    So it's true then, lowering the speed limit does save lives.
  • Drivingforfun's Avatar
    Totally just observation but I’ve noticed similar to the SUV thingy above, but with Volvos. I think I see a disproportionate number of bad Volvo drivers and conclude they choose their brand on their safety premises to compensate for their driving… probably just confirmation bias I guess
    @NMNeil I didn’t think anyone’d said the opposite? I’d argue though it’s the easy option, speed limits reduce the severity, not the frequency of crashes … driver training would reduce both I think, with the bonus of saving time and all that… but harder to implement
  • Drivingforfun's Avatar
    @Rolebama I’m guilty as anyone as only learned (realised) a few years ago that 4WD only affects you when accelerating… I think lots of 4x4 drivers maybe don’t realise? Add that it’s not just useless but probably detrimental (extra weight) when not accelerating - ie when you realise you’re likely to crash and need to brake 🤔
  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    So it's true then, lowering the speed limit does save lives.
    Not necessarily proved by the above. Speed limits were not the only safety measure introduced in the 30s.

    Correlation is not causation.
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    The 1903 Highway Code, which I think I have referred to before, points out the NSL being 20mph. and towns and villages could reduce limits to 5 or 10mph, as they saw fit. There is also instruction to stop and switch off the engine when meeting oncoming horses.
    My guess would be that they had already discovered the downside of mixing cars and other road users.
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    Not necessarily proved by the above. Speed limits were not the only safety measure introduced in the 30s.

    Correlation is not causation.
    True, they introduced other laws to make the public safer from the car.
    The introduction of safety features such as seat belts and airbags were solely to protect the car driver, but reducing the top speed of cars benefits other road users and pedestrians.
    Time to turn on the ISA system that's already in most cars and simply remove the ability to speed.
    https://news.sky.com/story/video-rel...rsuit-12594395
  • olduser's Avatar
    True, they introduced other laws to make the public safer from the car.
    The introduction of safety features such as seat belts and airbags were solely to protect the car driver, but reducing the top speed of cars benefits other road users and pedestrians.
    Time to turn on the ISA system that's already in most cars and simply remove the ability to speed.
    https://news.sky.com/story/video-rel...rsuit-12594395

    I am on the fence on this one, I can see in some circumstances the only escape is to accelerate out of danger.
    But yes the slower the vehicle is going the less damage might be caused to a pedestrian.
    Then another but if a pedestrian is not looking they can injure themselves by running or walking into a parked car, so slow is safe?
    The slower the traffic, the more risks people take.

    In the high speed chase above, there is no mention of anyone being hurt because pedestrians would not risk crossing until the chase had past.

    Doesn't the same logic apply to fire arms, should it be only possible to buy blanks?
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    @olduser Funny you should equate it to firearms.
    Put someone behind the wheel of a 200mph car and if they promise to only use the power to get out of trouble in an emergency would you believe them?
    I have an AK-47 semi automatic rifle. If I made it full auto, AKA machine gun and promised only to put it on full auto in an emergency to get out of trouble would you believe me?
    (The answer should be hell no for both).
  • olduser's Avatar
    I suppose the answer or question in both examples, why make them then, I can hear people arguing we cannot stop other countries making them.
    Well fine but first we don't have to import them, and we could prevent their sale.

    Both can be offensive weapons, give a human a weapon, and they will use it.
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    @olduser True, but how difficult is it to buy a firearm compared to how difficult it is to buy a 200 mph car?