|
stuving
|
 |
« on: November 18, 2021, 19:33:07 » |
|
This came out a month ago, but I only just noticed it. The consultation document doesn't have a short summary, but the web page has this description: This consultation seeks views on the desirability of establishing an RCIB and how it might operate.
An RCIB is suggested to carry out thematic investigations and probe specific incidents of concern to establish the causes of collisions and make independent safety recommendations to help further improve road safety across the country. The closing date is 9th December. Two things strike me initially. One is that other kinds of accident, most obviously fires, should not be excluded. The other is that the relationship between investigations of individual accidents and these thematic studies is very unclear. In fact "probe specific incidents", quoted above, is more explicit than anything in the consultation document itself. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2021, 20:19:36 » |
|
Two things strike me initially. As long as neither of them were cars, then the new body is doing its job already. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2021, 20:42:18 » |
|
If ot’s aanything like the RAIB▸ , I can imagine the ire they’ll get from motorists when their investigations mean rosds closed for hours/days while they are carried out
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2021, 22:47:45 » |
|
Kind of already exists https://expertwitness.trl.co.uk/ Not sure a RCIB would have as clear cut roll as the AAIB▸ , RAIB▸ and MAIB |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
CyclingSid
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2021, 06:51:24 » |
|
I thought RCIB was initially to focus on electric and self-driving cars.
Whatever, will anything be done as a result of its findings?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2021, 12:20:15 » |
|
I thought RCIB was initially to focus on electric and self-driving cars.
I don’t think the wording used actually puts a focus on those specific vehicles, does it? “dedicated to learning lessons from road traffic collisions, including those involving self-driving vehicles” It seems an unnecessary clarification - it would be weird not to include them by default. Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2021, 17:37:49 » |
|
Road collisions can not be investigated to anything like the same extent as railway accidents, there are simply far too many.
Also in most cases, it is the driver of one road vehicle at fault, in contrast to railway accidents which CAN be fault of the driver but are more usually due to other causes.
Society is very tolerant of road deaths and is not generally in favour of stricter safety measures.
The three most common reasons for road collisions are excess speed, jumping red traffic lights, and driving whilst unfit through drink and drugs.
Excess speed could be dealt with by fitting speed limiters to vehicles, or by far stricter penalties for exceeding the limit. Neither is likely to be widely supported.
Jumping red lights can be detected by cameras, and could be deterred by far stricter penalties, a "new war on motorists" not likely to be popular.
The motoring lobby do now reluctantly accept the breathalyzer but still oppose any increase in police powers or any tightening of the rules regarding drink driving. So improving safety in that direction will be a challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2022, 11:14:24 » |
|
CyclingSid has already reported this announcement, but I've copied it here to stop our threads getting too tangled. Following the consultation, the Government has decided it will set up a Road Collision Investigation Branch. I'm not sure whether the choice of the word 'Collision' in place of 'Accident' has any more significance than it not starting with 'R' like 'Rail'. But there was a slant towards that in the consultation - for example ignoring fire as an issue. Maybe that will become clearer when we have more details: the announcement doesn't say much at all. So, this is the announcement, and behind that is the consultation outcome report. There is also something called a De Minimis Assessment - eh? This appears to be a bit of HMG's decision-making process, so no doubt we'll see more of them. An Impact Assessment on steroids, perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CyclingSid
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2022, 11:48:34 » |
|
I'm not sure whether the choice of the word 'Collision' in place of 'Accident' Possibly something to do with "They encourage media, among other things, to avoid using the word “accident” – “crash” or “collision” not carrying the same association with chance" from https://road.cc/content/news/road-traffic-collision-reporting-guidelines-launched-283429. If it is, it might suggest the Government is listening even if most of the press still isn't. Possibly input from the new National Active Travel Commsiioner? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 5451
There are some who call me... Tim
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2022, 12:38:38 » |
|
The Police stopped referring to RTA's (Road Traffic Accidents) about twenty years ago, according to my research.
I find it increasingly infuriating that the BBC» 's travel news service insists on referring to collisions as 'accidents'. It is, I suppose, possible that Richie Anderson has fast-track access to information that allows them to make this determination. But I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2022, 14:16:09 » |
|
Correct - now known as RTCs - Road Traffic Collisions!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2022, 14:19:04 » |
|
Road collisions can not be investigated to anything like the same extent as railway accidents, there are simply far too many.
Also in most cases, it is the driver of one road vehicle at fault, in contrast to railway accidents which CAN be fault of the driver but are more usually due to other causes.
Society is very tolerant of road deaths and is not generally in favour of stricter safety measures.
The three most common reasons for road collisions are excess speed, jumping red traffic lights, and driving whilst unfit through drink and drugs.
Excess speed could be dealt with by fitting speed limiters to vehicles, or by far stricter penalties for exceeding the limit. Neither is likely to be widely supported.
Jumping red lights can be detected by cameras, and could be deterred by far stricter penalties, a "new war on motorists" not likely to be popular.
The motoring lobby do now reluctantly accept the breathalyzer but still oppose any increase in police powers or any tightening of the rules regarding drink driving. So improving safety in that direction will be a challenge.
This is happening Europe-wide, called Intelligent Speed Assistance. The European Union agreed in 2019 to make an overridable version of ISA, along with a number of other vehicle safety measures, mandatory on new models of car sold in the EU» from 2022. https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/A non-overridable version is supposed to be introduced later in this decade. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
