A potentially very informative article in the Leighton Buzzard Observer is marred by stupid comments by someone who likes to think they have authority. They don’t.
The article starts out with some statistics, showing how compliance with urban speed limits is improving and pedestrian fatalities are falling (data covering 2003-present). So far, so good.
But then, IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) gets involved and the focus shifts somewhat.
Bearing in mind that the statistics show that fatalities are falling, IAM says:
In the UK, between two-thirds and three-quarters of fatalities occur on rural roads, yet driving on rural roads still isn’t a mandatory part of the basic driving test.
Most young drivers get plenty of exposure to urban hazards but often their first experience of a rural road comes after the test when they are on their own. This is unacceptable.
It doesn’t matter if 10,000 people are killed, or only 10. Three quarters remains three quarters as a statistic, and it reflects the relative safety of rural roads. Nothing will alter the fact that rural roads contain more hazards – other than filling them all in, or converting them all to A roads and straightening them.
And as for rural roads being mandatory on the test… how? Many test centres and cities have no rural routes within 40 minutes’ drive, so how would they do it?
I’m not saying rural roads shouldn’t be covered where possible (and some Nottingham routes do contain such roads), but demanding that they be mandatory? Someone is out of touch with reality again.