Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:41

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 17:48 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
Katie Shephard, acting general manager, Brake says: “Speed is the number one killer on our roads. In communities, traffic must travel at no faster than 20mph and slower outside schools and homes, to give children a fighting chance. Road Safety Week is a fantastic opportunity to help raise awareness of this vital issue. Brake is delighted that Recognition Express Nottingham have chosen to support us for the second year running and are demonstrating an ongoing commitment to helping us spread road safety messages to school children.”

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 17:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4362
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I'm not sure being associated with Brake is going to do them much good:

http://www.re-nottinghamwest.co.uk/

... and probably vice versa.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 17:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Is there no way they can be brought to account for spouting this nonsense in a quasi-official role?

What is the point in sending this message to school children? Surely it would do them a better service to teach them how to protect themselves on the roads!

Near my home, road signs have been erected that have been designed by children, presumably at the nearby school, urging drivers to slow down. These are the same children who, come home time, are meandering and messing about several abreast, off the pavement and into the road despite narrow roads, blind bends and a humpback bridge! Still, they spent their class time designing those signs, so they should be ok!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 18:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
RobinXe wrote:
What is the point in sending this message to school children? Surely it would do them a better service to teach them how to protect themselves on the roads!

And there was me thinking I was the only one who was wondering what became of these other useful options :roll:

Those who make such demands towards motorists, while ignoring the alternatives such as education/enforcement of other road user groups, can rightly be labelled as anti-motorist.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 18:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Steve wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
What is the point in sending this message to school children? Surely it would do them a better service to teach them how to protect themselves on the roads!

And there was me thinking I was the only one who was wondering what became of these other useful options :roll:

Those who make such demands towards motorists, while ignoring the alternatives such as education/enforcement of other road user groups, can rightly be labelled as anti-motorist.


+1
I was beginning to think that those that remember being taught something of the ilk of the Green Cross code, as a child were a dying breed .
I'd go so far as to suggest that perhaps motorists ,rather than road safety experts are responsible for the toll amongst children not being higher .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 18:59 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
Those who make such demands towards motorists, while ignoring the alternatives such as education/enforcement of other road user groups, can rightly be labelled as anti-motorist.


Whist it is obviously very pragmatic to teach children road safety in order to preserve their lives on the current motorist dominated roads I can see no moral imperative giving the motorist the right to be the dominant force on the road; and for the motorist to expect others to modify their behaviour to suit his impatient convenience.

Other than the very real reason of the enormous lack of symmetry between the each groups ability to kill the other, why do you think that motorists should usually expect to have priority over pedestrians? Why, for example, should a pedestrian be expected to wait to cross the road until there are no vehicles using it rather than the motorist be expected to stop when a pedestrian wishes to cross the road. Why, for another example, at PeliCon crossings do pedestrians rather than motorists have to press the button and wait?

And this is not an anti-motorist diatribe; these are genuine questions to which there might well be good answers.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 19:12 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Not teaching kids how to cross the road is not about stopping motorists holding all the power, it's idiotic dogma and risking children's lives in order to play anti-car politics.

Like not giving fighter pilots ejector seats so that they don't crash their planes. :loco:

It's almost like Brake want a few kids to die, just to help them persuade everyone 'cars are evil', after all nobody would listen to them if there were no accidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 19:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Whist it is obviously very pragmatic to teach children road safety in order to preserve their lives on the current motorist dominated roads I can see no moral imperative giving the motorist the right to be the dominant force on the road; and for the motorist to expect others to modify their behaviour to suit his impatient convenience.

I certainly haven't expected such a thing. Did you know I walk and cycle a lot, as well as drive?

Why not modify the behaviour of both/all road user groups?

dcbwhaley wrote:
Other than the very real reason of the enormous lack of symmetry between the each groups ability to kill the other, why do you think that motorists should usually expect to have priority over pedestrians?

Why do you misrepresent my position in the matter?
I have not asked, implied or hinted at such a thing. Please show otherwise or retract your implication.

Why are discussions about equalising the balance somehow interpreted as anti-non-motorist?

Am I being pre-judged - again?

dcbwhaley wrote:
Why, for example, should a pedestrian be expected to wait to cross the road until there are no vehicles using it rather than the motorist be expected to stop when a pedestrian wishes to cross the road.

I'm not asking for one or the other; focussing on one group is not the best way to achieve road safety. All parties should be made responsible. Focussing demands on one party, when further improvements can be made by focussing on both/all, shows bias - that was my underlying point, do you understand this?

dcbwhaley wrote:
Why, for another example, at PeliCon crossings do pedestrians rather than motorists have to press the button and wait?

Do they always wait, or is the pedestrian phase actually quite quick if not used for a while? The answer is the latter (at pure Pelicons; combos are usually timed).

And what about zebra crossings?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 20:26 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Not teaching kids how to cross the road is not about stopping motorists holding all the power, it's idiotic dogma and risking children's lives in order to play anti-car politics.


Which is why I said "it is obviously very pragmatic to teach children road safety"

Quote:
It's almost like Brake want a few kids to die, just to help them persuade everyone 'cars are evil', after all nobody would listen to them if there were no accidents.


That is an unsubstantiated and perverse assertion

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 21:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
dcbwhaley wrote:
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Not teaching kids how to cross the road is not about stopping motorists holding all the power, it's idiotic dogma and risking children's lives in order to play anti-car politics.


Which is why I said "it is obviously very pragmatic to teach children road safety"

I wasn't responding to something you posted.

Quote:
Quote:
It's almost like Brake want a few kids to die, just to help them persuade everyone 'cars are evil', after all nobody would listen to them if there were no accidents.


That is an unsubstantiated and perverse assertion

Note the word "almost". No one would be that obsessed with cars being evil, one hopes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 21:11 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
I certainly haven't expected such a thing. Did you know I walk and cycle a lot, as well as drive?


Steve. Despite being a reply to your post I am not attacking you or anyone else. I am trying to stimulate a debate on the interaction between motorists and pedestrians that goes beyond the simplistic "kids should be taught how to cross the road"

Quote:
Why not modify the behaviour of both/all road user groups?

Why not indeed? But I think that, in order to achieve parity, motorists need to modify their behaviour a lot more than pedestrians

Quote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Other than the very real reason of the enormous lack of symmetry between the each groups ability to kill the other, why do you think that motorists should usually expect to have priority over pedestrians?

Why do you misrepresent my position in the matter?

Steve - I reiterate that my post was not aimed at anyone let alone you who I consider to be the most dispassionate contributor to these forums.. If you feel offended then I apologize unreservedly. But put your hand on your heart and answer this question: how many times in the last month, when driving in free flowing traffic, have you stopped (other than at a designated place such as a zebra crossing) to allow a pedestrian to cross the road in front of you

Quote:
Why are discussions about equalising the balance somehow interpreted as anti-non-motorist?

One could equally ask why Brake's discussions about equalising the balance are interpreted as anti-motorist rather than pro-pedestrian, with the added invective (not from you) that Brake rejoice when pedestrians are killed.

dcbwhaley wrote:
I'm not asking for one or the other; focussing on one group is not the best way to achieve road safety

Again not aimed at you but the general tenor of the thread is that children should be taught to cross the road. Now all the methods of teaching children to cross the road - kerb drill, Mr tufty, Green Cross Code - teach that the pedestrian should be subservient to the motorist: wait until the road is clear before even thinking about crossing. That, as I have already said, is a very sensible and pragmatic approach but it does not explain by what moral right a pedestrian should always be subservient to the motorist


Quote:
All parties should be made responsible. Focussing demands on one party, when further improvements can be made by focussing on both/all, shows bias - that was my underlying point, do you understand this?

Of course I do but with the current huge dichotomy between the two parties I don't think that a single organisation can represent both of them

Quote:
Do they always wait, or is the pedestrian phase actually quite quick if not used for a while? The answer is the latter (at pure Pelicons; combos are usually timed).

I have never seen a PeLiCon Crossing which defaults to pedestrian priority so that a motorist might have to wait even if the road is clear. They always force the pedestrian to wait. They are biased in favour of the motorist. Why?

Quote:
And what about zebra crossings?

At a zebra crossing a pedestrian has priority. Which rather implies that elsewhere the motorist has priority. And there is a damn site more else where than there are zebra crossings.

Don't get me wrong on this. I am only talking about urban areas not trunk and arterial roads. Nor am i asking, as someone is sure to suggest, that a pedestrian should be able to step blindly of the kerb with impunity. But I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the way a town can be cut in two by a river of traffic, none of whose drivers gives a XXXX for the pedestrian stranded on the wrong side.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 22:17 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
dcbwhaley wrote:
I have never seen a PeLiCon Crossing which defaults to pedestrian priority so that a motorist might have to wait even if the road is clear. They always force the pedestrian to wait. They are biased in favour of the motorist. Why?


How about when traffic lights hold all lanes stopped for a pedestrian phase irrespective of the presence of any pedestrians?

dcbwhaley wrote:
how many times in the last month, when driving in free flowing traffic, have you stopped (other than at a designated place such as a zebra crossing) to allow a pedestrian to cross the road in front of you


Given I walk to work and do not scrupulously record such events I will answer this in qualitative terms.

Quite often during urban drives, though I seldom need to actually stop it is more a matter of not accelerating or slowing a little earlier for a junction or other hold up.

I find the whole motorists versus pedestrians thing very odd, it implies a level animosity between the groups and cooperation within that does not really exist. If anything most motorists probably dislike other motorists more than pedestrians.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 22:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Why not indeed? But I think that, in order to achieve parity, motorists need to modify their behaviour a lot more than pedestrians

Why do you say that? I see so many pedestrians step into roads without looking at all, some with ipods, etc; then there are some cyclists who do the same but at speeds far greater than that of foot, so I'm not sure of the validity of your viewpoint.

This wasn't the point. The point was that efforts are apparently focused on one road user group and not others at all - that's more than disproportionate.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
... why do you think that motorists should usually expect to have priority over pedestrians?

Why do you misrepresent my position in the matter?

Steve - I reiterate that my post was not aimed at anyone let alone you who I consider to be the most dispassionate contributor to these forums.. If you feel offended then I apologize unreservedly.

I'm not offended or upset; I'm merely ensuring viewpoints are clear and that fallacious interpretations are not applied.

dcbwhaley wrote:
But put your hand on your heart and answer this question: how many times in the last month, when driving in free flowing traffic, have you stopped (other than at a designated place such as a zebra crossing) to allow a pedestrian to cross the road in front of you

You are needlessly diverting. "why do you think that motorists should usually expect to have priority over pedestrians?"
We've already been here: Any road user already in a road has that [ de facto ] right of way, motor-user or not. A pedestrian has priority/right of way if they are the ones already on the road.


To directly answer your question: I cannot recall an example this month in proper freeflow (don't forget that I hardly drive nowadays) - except when someone has already stepped out, of course. However, there is a place near where I live where I regularly see unimpeded drivers yield to crossing pedestrians, even though there is no crossing.

I think you will find the same applies in reverse - vehicular traffic must wait until there is an appropriate gap in pedestrian traffic, which is typical in busy areas such as precincts.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Why are discussions about equalising the balance somehow interpreted as anti-non-motorist?

One could equally ask why Brake's discussions about equalising the balance are interpreted as anti-motorist rather than pro-pedestrian, with the added invective (not from you) that Brake rejoice when pedestrians are killed.

Brake's manifesto and discussions are anything but balanced and equalised: Warning against driving.
Your question is false and mine has been evaded.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
I'm not asking for one or the other; focussing on one group is not the best way to achieve road safety

Again not aimed at you but the general tenor of the thread is that children should be taught to cross the road. Now all the methods of teaching children to cross the road - kerb drill, Mr tufty, Green Cross Code - teach that the pedestrian should be subservient to the motorist: wait until the road is clear before even thinking about crossing. That, as I have already said, is a very sensible and pragmatic approach but it does not explain by what moral right a pedestrian should always be subservient to the motorist

That didn't address my response: focussing on one group is not the best way to achieve road safety
Your interpretation is wrong. Any road user must yield to another already in the road. Motorists do not 'go on green'.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
All parties should be made responsible. Focussing demands on one party, when further improvements can be made by focussing on both/all, shows bias - that was my underlying point, do you understand this?

Of course I do but with the current huge dichotomy between the two parties I don't think that a single organisation can represent both of them

Possibly, but they can be balanced about it; some are!

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Do they always wait, or is the pedestrian phase actually quite quick if not used for a while? The answer is the latter (at pure Pelicons; combos are usually timed).

I have never seen a PeLiCon Crossing which defaults to pedestrian priority

And Zebra crossings? More follows...

dcbwhaley wrote:
so that a motorist might have to wait even if the road is clear.

That makes no sense. To enact this would be clear bias against the motorist. Besides, pedestrians don't have to wait when the road is clear.

dcbwhaley wrote:
They always force the pedestrian to wait. They are biased in favour of the motorist. Why?

Again you are wrong. Like I said, some immediately give the pedestrian priority as soon as requested, depending on prior use. Other crossings don't even require that request.

This is not bias; it is merely a pragmatic response to the prevalent type of road user traffic. Pelicons are the sensible solution where vehicles are prevalent; Zebras are the sensible solution where pedestrians are prevalent. And as you rightly say…

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
And what about zebra crossings?

At a zebra crossing a pedestrian has priority. Which rather implies that elsewhere the motorist has priority. And there is a damn site more else where than there are zebra crossings.

Your implication is strange logic.
Given there is generally more vehicular traffic, is a function of bias that there are more Pelicons, or merely sensible? If there were a damn site more Zebras, the answer would be far more obvious! :yesyes:

dcbwhaley wrote:
Don't get me wrong on this. I am only talking about urban areas not trunk and arterial roads. Nor am i asking, as someone is sure to suggest, that a pedestrian should be able to step blindly of the kerb with impunity. But I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the way a town can be cut in two by a river of traffic, none of whose drivers gives a XXXX for the pedestrian stranded on the wrong side.

Some other posters already bring enough emotionally charged, falsified, imagined assertions to the forums; let's not have more.
Practically all car drivers are pedestrians at some point.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 23:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
Joking apart though and let's face it, BRAKE are getting to be a bigger joke, week by week.

Should we really be letting these people into our schools,teaching kids gross untruths like this, when even the DfT admit that speed isn't the biggest killer?
Surely if kids are taught the wrong facts at an early age, they will be hard pushed to learn the real truth.

So we have a generation growing up to believe, that once they pass their tests and get out on the open road, that by sticking rigidly to a speed limit, they have negated the BIGGEST killer out on the roads and need mainly to concentrate on this small factor in order to be safe.

If I was a parent, I would want these charlatens chased out of the playground wearing dunces caps.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 23:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
graball wrote:
Katie Shephard, acting general manager, Brake says: “Speed is the number one killer on our roads. In communities, traffic must travel at no faster than 20mph and slower outside schools and homes

So 20 mph isn't slow enough outside schools and homes then, they want to tighten the screw even further :o

How long before they're advocating the return of the red flag? :x

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 23:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
graball wrote:
Joking apart though and let's face it, BRAKE are getting to be a bigger joke, week by week.

Should we really be letting these people into our schools,teaching kids gross untruths like this, when even the DfT admit that speed isn't the biggest killer?
Surely if kids are taught the wrong facts at an early age, they will be hard pushed to learn the real truth.

So we have a generation growing up to believe, that once they pass their tests and get out on the open road, that by sticking rigidly to a speed limit, they have negated the BIGGEST killer out on the roads and need mainly to concentrate on this small factor in order to be safe.

If I was a parent, I would want these charlatens chased out of the playground wearing dunces caps.



Graball -- :clap: :clap:

Fortunately ,my kids have grown up - but they can see the lies perpetrated by the likes of BRAKE . My daughter has always taught her kids road safety ( and at 30+,she's a biker) -so my grand kids get taught road safety from being born -something I see the school don't teach )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:08 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
PeterE wrote:
graball wrote:
Katie Shephard, acting general manager, Brake says: “Speed is the number one killer on our roads. In communities, traffic must travel at no faster than 20mph and slower outside schools and homes

So 20 mph isn't slow enough outside schools and homes then, they want to tighten the screw even further :o

How long before they're advocating the return of the red flag? :x


Read their manifesto, some sensible goals but some is quite scary (selected scariness in bold).

Quote:
The road
•Speed limits are no higher than 20mph for villages and towns, and lower limits on residential roads.
•Traffic-free zones are in all communities so children can roam.
•Pavements and safe crossing places are on all community streets.
•Separate cycle paths are next to all road or rail routes.
•Bus services are in all communities, with links to train stations and times.
•Large trucks are restricted in all communities, by size and time and roads.
•Speed limits are no higher than 40mph for single carriageway rural roads, and 20mph for narrow country lanes.
•Speed limits are no higher than 60mph for two or more lane trunk roads.
•High speed rail is available for passengers and freight, for all long distance routes.
There are restrictions on road use, when sustainable, safer transport options are accessible.
The vehicle
Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit (do they know what that actually means? I don't).
•All vehicles are driven by sustainable power with zero emissions.
•Finger-print locks are on all vehicles, so only drivers insured and licensed to drive can do so.
•Speed limit activated speed limiters (ISA), limit vehicles to within the posted speed limit.
•Alcolocks and druglocks are on all vehicles.
•Seat belt locks are on all vehicles, preventing the vehicle being driven unless belts are fastened.
•Occupant crash protection measures are on all buses as well as all other vehicles, such as 3-point belts.
•Occupant and pedestrian safety design measures are required by law to latest, highest standards.
Telematics are in vehicles to record driving style, distance and times.
•Compulsory qualifications are required for vehicle mechanics, renewed in line with technological developments.
•Vehicles must have compulsory servicing, in line with manufacturer recommendations on timing and standards. An on-board clock prevents a vehicle starting if a service date is missed.
•Vehicles can’t be started if the on-board computer identifies a safety critical defect between services.
•Safety-critical design problems are solved, such as temperamental wheel fixings on large vehicles.
The driver
•Compulsory road crash awareness education is in nurseries and schools for all ages, warning against driving.
•Driver licensing age is raised to above the teens, to allow for cognitive development.
•Driver licensing involves compulsory training by a professional over several years.
•Driver training focuses on hazard and crash awareness and prevention measures.
•Driver licensing requires mental as well as physical health assessment, to rigorous standards
•New drivers are banned from driving at night and on the fastest roads.
•New drivers are banned from carrying passengers other than their own family members.
•Health screening for eyesight and impairing medical conditions is required regularly for all drivers.
•There is regular compulsory re-testing of drivers.
•There is a ban on all levels of drink driving, with a trace element of no more than 20mg per 100ml of blood allowable
•There is a ban on use of any impairing drug while driving, legal or illegal.
•There is a ban on mobile phones and pagers of all kinds while driving.
There is a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads.
•Sleep and journey break laws are in line with academic advice on required rest, for all drivers.
Enforcement
•Cameras on roads and in vehicles can identify vehicles, drivers, and any offences that can still feasibly be committed, such as red light running or mobile phone use.
•Large numbers of highly trained traffic police are armed with relevant detecting equipment, to patrol and identify offences that can still be committed.
•Traffic police have the power to seize dangerous vehicles and prohibit dangerous drivers.
•A highly resourced agency enforces company fleet safety, helping companies implement safety requirements.
•A crash investigation agency investigates and records crash numbers and causes and prevents future tragedies.
•Life bans are implemented for life-threatening and life-taking drivers.


I am continuing my boycott of any of their declared supporters and any time I specifically avoid a company for this reason, I tell the company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 17:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Pedestrians being subservient to motorists!? What tripe! This is not a conflict between different user groups, but crap like this and BRAKE's try to make it so! We're all on the same side! That of everyone getting where they are going safely!

Why don't pedestrians have unfettered use of the roads? Why can't drivers drive along the pavements? It's not about one group winning out, it's about making everyone safer through separation of groups with very disparate needs.

The fact remains that teaching kids who will not be driving for as much as a decade or longer that all the responsibility for their safety lies with the driver is to do them a disservice; they would be much better served learning ways to protect themselves on the roads.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Johnnytheboy wrote:
...
Read their manifesto, some sensible goals but some is quite scary (selected scariness in bold).

Quote:
Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit (do they know what that actually means? I don't).




I think what they're TRYING to say is that they want engine capacity limited such that no vehicle can exceed the highest speed limit. Leaving aside the fact that this betrays a staggering level of ignorance on how cars work and the global market for which they are designed, I don't have a problem with this concept (limiting performance to the maximum speed limit in which the car may be used) for as long as Germany retains some de-restricted sections of Autobahn! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:22 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Johnnytheboy wrote:
...
Read their manifesto, some sensible goals but some is quite scary (selected scariness in bold).

Quote:
Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit (do they know what that actually means? I don't).

If vehicles are to be engine power limited to 70mph:
Fancy driving cars of less than 30HP? (the 67HP 1.0L engined C1 is still good for 98mph, and its 0-100kph is still 14 secs).

Acceleration would be non-existent at higher speeds, making joining motorways et al far more dangerous due to the massively increased and prolonged differential speeds.
Drivers will be taking risks to ensure minimal momentum is lost.
Hill climbs will be challenging.
Motorbikes will become disproportionately popular – is that good for road safety?

Or is it a subtle anti-car initiative?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.333s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]