Sustrans boss calls for safer streets as survey reveals "truly shocking" extent of short-hop school runs

don_don; Now you are asking! I think that a huge number of factors are significant. Like a change in attitude to drinking and driving; years ago people would have a few an take it easy on the way home. Getting done (fined) for drinking and driving had little stigma then. Today, try and get some sympathy! A similar pr campaign is going on against speeding. Improvements in medical science; more and better ambulance staff are all significant. It is also possible that motorways allow huge mileage to be racked up without worrying about pedestrians, cyclists, horses etc.
I think that if I could find the statistics for non-motorised casualties they would have reduced. But; why? Because the roads are safer or because less people chose to walk/ride? (because the roads are too dangerous?) As well as improvements in medical support. But I think that when the peak of fatalities is 7,985 (1966) a reduction of 76% is significant and suggests the roads are safer!
My original arguement was where people are protecting themselves from the dangers on the road by driving, when they could ride or walk, they are exposing themselves to the very real, and more likely, health related dangers of inactivity!

I knew things would go tits-up when the working classes were allowed cars.

The behaviour described in this survey, along with the amount of speeding, mad overtaking etc, proves my point that petrol is still not too expensive for most people. The cost is not modifying behaviour.

We live close to our kids' primary school. A significant number of parents drive from other streets nearby to drop their children off. A good proportion of them ignore the school's request made at the start of every term to use the large car parks by the nearby shops or the back of the local pub and to not to block driveways or park their 4x4s where people cross the road, making it quite dangerous on both main approaches to the school. Utterly selfish and unnecessary.

I suspect most are on their way to work and can't bring themselves to walk the short distance back to their house or the parking area to then get in the car. As there is plenty of parking nearby I would be happy to see a 'no fly zone' on the narrow roads near the school.

I have also seen people I know drive the short distance to the local Co-Op/chippy/ATM. I can walk there in roughly the same time using the footpath that cuts through while drivers have to go to the end of the road and turn right out of a T-junctions crossing 40mph traffic on a busy arterial road and similarly on the way back.

Sorry Sedgepeat, I don't agree. However, my CV as an experienced driving, cycling and walking participant and observer of behaviour of many years probably means nothing so I'm sure you are right and I am wrong.

I think people are missing the message. The article I think is talking actually walking WITH your kids to the school gate. So all those people worried about peadophiles etc, shoving your kids out the front door and expecting them to navigate the perils to the school is almost is bad as driving them when you could walk.

It's pretty simple really, walk with them, supervise and teach them as you walk, and low and behold you keep your kids safe, teach them skills and spend more quality time with them.

And by the way Sedgepeat the roads are safer now than they have ever been! 4886 fatalities in 1926 to 1901 fatalities in 2011!

I hear what you are saying; back in the good old days when people believe children were safe, the reality was is was paedophile heaven. People believed that children tended to tell tales about adults they did not like. These days we realise that no-one is above suspicion and that children are more likely than not to be telling the truth. But in order to protect children from the highly unlikely chance of abuse/abduction we are exposing them to the very real chance of health problems due to inactivity. I believe that better awareness of abusers means that children are safer than ever. I have 4 children and do my best to keep them safe, but driving them everywhere is not the solution.

This has bugged me for years. Give the kid a brolly and make them walk to school.

More anti car anti driver ideology. When will people get it? 20 Limits are counter productive. Drivers who would normally select a lower speed around schools and BUA will focus on their needle instead of the road where we want them focussing. When they do that they are more likely to miss seeing the child or sudden movement and like all limits pinch a mile or two too. And low and behold all over the country accidents are up 24% in these areas but so are average speeds too.

But why assume parents are being idle? The roads are now much more dangerous as its not 1912 anymore added to which the car & the van has allowed paedophiles to travel far and wide too. That's why schools are all barred up and gated in where known parents have to meet the kids. What's the point of all that if the kids are just going to be loose there and back. Are any of you parents? Have any of you got large families to manage? Well you sure can't do all that on pushbikes.

Statistics eh? So, taking the glass half-full view, 90% of kids living within 500m of their school walk or cycle. That's pretty good isn't it?

Absolutely shocking. I see so many people using their cars to drive a few hundred metres. These short journeys actually take longer by car than walking or cycling, but they are totally addicted to their car habit.

We require highways engineering solutions (parking restrictions, 20 mph zones, no-entry restrictions to reduce permeability) so that driving is less convenient for shorter journeys and traffic speeds and flows are reduced making cycling to school more attractive.

I don't why people are so short of time anyway. More likely just disorganised or wasting time online or watching breakfast TV.

I found this interesting fact today. A Professor Frank Booth has estimated that inactivity costs America one thousand million dollars a year...the entire annual budget deficit in the US. This story tends to underline the likleyhood that inactivity is a problem in this country as well. Inactivity is linked to obesity and type II diabetes and must cost the UK a huge sum; I think these people are storing up future health problems that could cost this country the NHS as we know it. Having said this would you want to walk or cycle near a school at opening or closing time? We really do need measures to combat this menace

Might as well just say '10% of parents are twats' - they're not the ones that are likely to be suggestible to changing habits, or that have genuine concerns over safety or health, they just don't give a toss.

Ive seen parents who can quite literally see the school from their houses drive their kids to school.
Unsurprisingly its usually the same parents who do this who park selfishly and sometimes dangerously when they get to school after this mammoth journey.
If i had my way i would ban all vehicle movements within 500m of schools for 15 minutes around the start and end of school. Totally unworkable i know but it would certainly get the some of the lazy feckers out of their cars once in a while.

To be fair it is probably not a very accurate result: self-selected users of a single website !!