Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 08:54

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Manifesto
PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 05:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This topic relates to the Safe Speed road safety manifesto:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

Our proposals for improved road safety are set out in detail.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 14:05 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
I'm sure a lot of comments will be posted here, so I'll keep this brief. Thanks, SafeSpeed, for this manifesto. You have put a lot into it. Here is my first feedback. You assert that speed limits serve three good purposes.

Quote:
They firmly guide inexperienced road users away from exceeding safe speeds by wild amounts. They provide an easy-to-use method for the Police to prosecute those using speed carelessly or dangerously. They provide a useful warning to experienced drivers about expected hazard density.


Can you clarify the last one? Are you alluding, in a careful way, that speed limits influence or set to some extent the expected speed, i.e. by prescribing the upper limit, the driver sets his or her expectation around or slightly below that (in ideal circumstances)? And if not, how should a driver sets his or her expectations, assuming they are on a unfamiliar road? Also, if not, what exactly does "They provide a useful warning to experienced drivers about expected hazard density" really mean?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 15:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
basingwerk wrote:
Quote:
They provide a useful warning to experienced drivers about expected hazard density.


Can you clarify the last one? Are you alluding, in a careful way, that speed limits influence or set to some extent the expected speed, i.e. by prescribing the upper limit, the driver sets his or her expectation around or slightly below that (in ideal circumstances)? And if not, how should a driver sets his or her expectations, assuming they are on a unfamiliar road? Also, if not, what exactly does "They provide a useful warning to experienced drivers about expected hazard density" really mean?


It's very simple, actually. It does mean exactly what it says, and there's no hidden anything about it.

These statements will illuminate it I think.

* Crashes happen when drivers fail to negotiate hazards safety.
* There is no hazard that exists exclusively in 30mph zones (for example).
* It follows that 30mph zones are distinguished, not by the presence of hazards, but by their density.

For example when driving along a country road, the 30mph signs may frequently be the first warning of entering a village. They are a warning of increased hazard density, and that warning is useful to experienced drivers.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 17:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
In the manifesto SafeSpeed wrote:
It will be possible for a court to remove higher training scores from an individual's driving licence if they are convicted of a motoring offence.
This sounds like a good idea, but if other things are introduced, and I'm thinking particularly of the performance restriction here, that could have knock on effects for a driver. For example, say we've got an advanced driver with something powerful that requires an advanced licence or a higher score than whatever the regular L test would put on your licence. Let's say he then get's caught doing something he shouldn't and has enough points knocked off to prevent him from driving his performance car (for the sake of argument let's imagine it's either the only car he has access to or his alternative is subject to the same performace restriction). What are the options? Far as I can see they are
a - tough, he shouldn't have been doing (insert offence)
b - he pleads hardship and get's let off more lightly than he really should
c - he can go do some advance training again and get his points back fairly quickly, depending on what his wallet will put up with

An alternative might be to allow the courts to fine according to disposable income and apply points according to the maximum perceived deterrent which doesn't actually screw his life up. This would mean kicking fixed penatlies out the window and getting the magistrates to deal with it all, but that might actually work better. What if the usual fine for a given offence was a month's disposable income, and for advanced drivers sufficient points to take them back down to the bare minimum needed to drive their car? That would be a fairly serious offence, but the penalty would be similar regardless of wealth or licence.

Or would it be better for advanced drivers to be treated more harshly? After all, they should know better.

In the manifesto SafeSpeed wrote:
Consider scrapping VED... Consider charging a premium on fuel tax to fund third party motor insurance
Why not merge those two ideas and simply have the VED fund 3rd party insurance? I'm sure the Aussie contributers will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of the costs of the "rego" there is used this way.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
A substantial conversation about how we pay for motor insurance developed. Since it's far from central to the Manifesto, I moved it to "Improving Road Safety":

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1204

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 23:42
Posts: 200
Location: Milton Keynes
The SafeSpeed manifesto wrote:
Subjects areas that are NOT mentioned further in this manifesto, such as the basic driving test and drink drive legislation[,] are adequate for the time being [and] should be allowed to continue as they are.


I have to applaud this manifesto, it is common sense put forward clearly and eloquently. While reading it I did notice one apparent typo which I've quoted above. But well done on the manifesto, I would be really pleased to see this put into effect.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 20:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Subject[s] areas ..... <as well as the above>. How on earth did we miss those in our marathon?!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 : 0.610s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]