Zero Harm
We walked through Bristol streets today, as we often do on a Sunday. Three times we were shocked to see and hear people driving cars at truly excessive speeds on streets where people walk or cycle, where children spend time and where the next obscured junction or road obstruction is only yards away. I was noting, as we walked, all the aids to "traffic flow" (faster driving) that push hazards and inconvenience onto people walking , onto people cycling and onto people with specific mobility needs.
Then I saw this "zero harm" sign near to Temple Meads Station. Construction site managers seem to take "zero harm" as a practical goal. In the spaces where they are responsible, they take every care to have no damage done to people working or to people passing by. But on the city's streets the Department for Transport and the Local Authority just hope that this year won't be as bad as last year and accept that a constant small fraction of the population will carry on acting irresponsibly so the rest of us must learn to anticipate and maybe avoid the consequences. Vroom vroom…
In Bristol, in the year 2013, twelve people died on the roads. This maintained the "one a month" average that has afflicted the city since 2005.
In the same year (the last one we have accurate data for) there were 94 reports of serious injuries (nearly two a week) and 1,004 of "slight" injuries. "Slight" means treated in A&E but not kept in overnight. It still includes some pretty horrid things that would not feel "slight" at all.
1,004 is 19 a day.
Perhaps the speeding lunatics we saw and heard today serve a useful function by reminding everyone of the danger that befalls anyone who is crossing the wrong road, turning the wrong corner or walking along the wrong pavement at an inconvenient time?
Today I did wonder what would need to happen if we seriously wanted to take "zero harm" on ordinary streets as a serious goal?
In such a small and pleasant city is it acceptable to have 20 people hurt (or worse) every single day of the year on our streets? We already know where they happen and we know pretty much what contributed to each one. Instead of trying to work out whose "fault" they were we might start changing things to make less of them happen in the first place and to reduce the severity of the injuries that they cause.
Zero Harm
We walked through Bristol streets today, as we often do on a Sunday. Three times we were shocked to see and hear people driving cars at truly excessive speeds on streets where people walk or cycle, where children spend time and where the next obscured junction or road obstruction is only yards away. I was noting, as we walked, all the aids to "traffic flow" (faster driving) that push hazards and inconvenience onto people walking , onto people cycling and onto people with specific mobility needs.
Then I saw this "zero harm" sign near to Temple Meads Station. Construction site managers seem to take "zero harm" as a practical goal. In the spaces where they are responsible, they take every care to have no damage done to people working or to people passing by. But on the city's streets the Department for Transport and the Local Authority just hope that this year won't be as bad as last year and accept that a constant small fraction of the population will carry on acting irresponsibly so the rest of us must learn to anticipate and maybe avoid the consequences. Vroom vroom…
In Bristol, in the year 2013, twelve people died on the roads. This maintained the "one a month" average that has afflicted the city since 2005.
In the same year (the last one we have accurate data for) there were 94 reports of serious injuries (nearly two a week) and 1,004 of "slight" injuries. "Slight" means treated in A&E but not kept in overnight. It still includes some pretty horrid things that would not feel "slight" at all.
1,004 is 19 a day.
Perhaps the speeding lunatics we saw and heard today serve a useful function by reminding everyone of the danger that befalls anyone who is crossing the wrong road, turning the wrong corner or walking along the wrong pavement at an inconvenient time?
Today I did wonder what would need to happen if we seriously wanted to take "zero harm" on ordinary streets as a serious goal?
In such a small and pleasant city is it acceptable to have 20 people hurt (or worse) every single day of the year on our streets? We already know where they happen and we know pretty much what contributed to each one. Instead of trying to work out whose "fault" they were we might start changing things to make less of them happen in the first place and to reduce the severity of the injuries that they cause.