BBC NEWS | UK | 'Most dangerous' road pinpointed

So what's new? - Bike riders have been falling off on the Cat and Fiddle for donkeys years and it's always been one of the worst. But haing driven it regularly for many years, with my wife using it to get to work every day I class it as no worse than any other generally.

That and it's a road famous for being what it is - a challenge. And that's why so many riders fall off it. They're pushing it a bit and either meet something that eludes their skills or meet somebody coming the other way doing the same thing as them. How many people on here will have gone for a drive up there because the road is good to drive?

ban the motorcyclist from it, simple solution

How many people on here will have gone for a drive up there because the road is good to drive?

Err... Me!

But OK relevant point!

I use to go on the road quite often about 10 years ago to go to the Buxton Opera House, quite often in the autumn and winter there is drizzle. One particular night my car was sliding around every bend but when I got down into Macc my car was OK.

The morning after when I come to get into the car I noticed that the inside of the tread on my tyres was very worn and the wire threads wer poking through.

I decided not to drive to a garage but get them to come out to me. By the time he came the tyre had completely collapsed.

Since then I have regularly checked my tyres.

No roads are Dangerous...........It's the people who use them..........:sofahide:

No roads are Dangerous...........It's the people who use them..........:sofahide:

Correct, some people will ride and drive above their ability. I have openly admitted that I dont push the vRS that much as I know its beyond my ability/reflexs etc.

The cat and fiddle is a lovely scenic road and with a ideally located pub at the top makes a good meeting point for bikers and other drivers alike.

Of course as it will attract a lot of tourists who seem to drive with no brain while in holiday mode they wont be as aware of the bikers around so maybe that is partly to blame.

Steve

No roads are Dangerous...........It's the people who use them..........:sofahide:

I totally agree

No roads are Dangerous...........It's the people who use them..........:sofahide:

Drive /Ride to that and the other good old maxim "the bloke/blokess coming the other way is an idiot " and live a long life -and if you drive/ride slightly below you're limit - you'll enjoy it as well .

I've been up there a couple of times and it just seemed like a normal road, don't know what all the fuss was about. Try driving in Sardinia, its better all round.

Macclesfield and Buxton - two places to avoid entirely IMHO.

Macclesfield and Buxton - two places to avoid entirely IMHO.

A lot of rich people live in Macc and Buxton, I'm not one of them unfortunately.

No roads are Dangerous...........It's the people who use them..........:sofahide:

I disagree.

Much of the program was drivel , but there were some bits that clearly showed how better road design can reduce the chance of accidents and the severity of them if they do occur.

It's quite possible for roads to have more hazards than others , and if they are sufficiently hazardous then they can be fairly described as dangerous.

The C&F has a problem because people aren't adjusting their driving to take into account the hazards , or are in fact doing exactly the opposite

I disagree.

Much of the program was drivel , but there were some bits that clearly showed how better road design can reduce the chance of accidents and the severity of them if they do occur.

It's quite possible for roads to have more hazards than others , and if they are sufficiently hazardous then they can be fairly described as dangerous.

The C&F has a problem because people aren't adjusting their driving to take into account the hazards , or are in fact doing exactly the opposite

Sorry I must Disagree with you.

No road is Dangerous, Hazards or Not. If people adjust there driving style accordingly then the road is perfectly safe. It's people that cause dangerous roads not hazards..........

Ok , lets take a really extreme example - that cliff side road in south america with the sheer drop and no barriers.

No matter how much you adjust your driving there will always be a huge element of danger - the road *is* dangerous

Ok , lets take a really extreme example - that cliff side road in south america with the sheer drop and no barriers.

No matter how much you adjust your driving there will always be a huge element of danger - the road *is* dangerous

But if you drive at a speed where you can control your car so you don't drive off the edge you will be perfectly safe, It's others that can cause you to crash/go over the edge, If they drove like you there wouldn't be a problem. It's like having an Accident " sorry I ran up the back of you " " if you drove a bit slower, watched what you were doing and didn't tailgate " I wouldn't have happened......

Sorry I must Disagree with you.

No road is Dangerous, Hazards or Not. If people adjust there driving style accordingly then the road is perfectly safe. It's people that cause dangerous roads not hazards..........

It's the difference between a 'hazard' and a 'risk', and making the assumption that 'danger' is lay-speak for 'risk', then both you and Dr Z are correct, but in different ways.

Both C&F and Dr Z's mountain road have hazards (all roads do), and at the end of the day, ploughing head-on into another car at a closing speed of 120mph will kill you just as surely as plunging off a cliff. Knowing this, steps can be taken to reduce the danger / risk of this happening through the use of crash barriers, lane markings, speed restrictions or whatever.

But there's a point where the balance is struck between the affordability of the improvements and the level of danger / risk. So in S. America, there may not be much money for Armco, so you take your chances. In the UK, however, I believe road improvements are subject to cost-benefit analysis based on statistical costs of deaths and injuries (a fatality being equivalent to £2M, IIRC); the difficulties being firstly that the improvements need to be implemented by someone who knows WTF they're doing (are rare thing in local authorities IME) and secondly they need to have as low an impact as possible on traffic.

Take things too far, and as Dr Z intimates, people get frustrated and start introducing new risks like attempting to overtake long lines of traffic etc. etc.

Totally agree with ag.morley on this one.

Totally agree with ag.morley on this one.

It's not a simple as that though, 'cos although I agree that everyone being limited to 3mph and having their footman 20 paces in front carrying a red flag would have a tremendous impact on road safety, people want to get from A to B in a reasonable space of time.

Certain measures can allow higher speeds to be used without entailing excessive risk, however these can also be taken too far, causing frustration and leading to an increase in the collision rate.

With the best will in the World, I doubt neither you nor ag. have never overtaken a tractor on a country lane. You may have taken all the precautions necessary to allow you to pass safely, however by simply being on the wrong side of the road, you can be said to be one of the 'other drivers' creating all the risks...

If I create a risk to other people in my driving, it is me at fault, not the road.

People make a dangerous road. I can hold my hand up and say yes I'm to blaim if something goes wrong on a road that I may have caused. Moral strength is so lacking in todays socitey. So many "it's not my fault it's the road" etc etc etc

like mentioned above its the driver and not the road. ive seen people who crash on the same corner time and timeagain because they approch it too fast. it has chevrons and a warning sign before the corner yet they still crash.

Moral strength is so lacking in todays socitey. So many "it's not my fault it's the road" etc etc etc

That's a sweeping generalisation if ever I read one. Does human psychology not come into it at all for you? How about, for example, a B-road near me where the first straight worth overtaking at has a hidden T-junction, obscured by hedgerows. There is a sign warning of that, and I know to keep back until I'm past the hazard.

But let's say for the sake of argument the sign wasn't there and I've been stuck behind a tractor for a mile or so, keeping back, until the road straightens up. I make to overtake, giving all my attention to the road ahead and the tractor, pull across and then *blam* hoon into the front of a car edging out of the junction that I couldn't see and couldn't see me. Who's to blame there? I'd've had right of way, but then I was on the wrong side of the road...

I don't think it's fair to say that people should never overtake lest they end up in that situation, and neither that they suffer from a lack of moral fibre for wanting to.

The road in my examples isn't especially busy, and in its case, the sign may be enough to suitably reduce the risk by highlighting the presence of the junction and relying on drivers to act accordingly. But it's still a tacit acknowledgement that it's in human nature to want to travel as quickly as possible, and also that people are neither omniscient nor capable of processing several streams of information at once...

PS: Don't get me wrong, I'm still generally on the side of "roads don't kill people; people kill people", it's just that there are certain instances where the unmitigated risks on a particular piece of road may be too high for the average person reasonably to deal with.

That's a sweeping generalisation if ever I read one. Does human psychology not come into it at all for you? th.

My comment was aimed at the ever increasing "it's someone elses fault/problem" that seems to be endemic now a days when some one has an accident. "It was icy", "hit a patch of mud", "skidded on tree sap", " the road is dangerous" etc etc. If there are things that can be done to a road that increases the ability of the driver to judge what is going on then fine.... but that doesn't make the road less dangerous if the idiot riding/driving along it chooses to ignore them.

Thus a road is as dangerous as the driver/rider using it.

If there are things that can be done to a road that increases the ability of the driver to judge what is going on then fine.... but that doesn't make the road less dangerous if the idiot riding/driving along it chooses to ignore them.

Agreed!