|
I read with interest your recent address regarding the conservatives plan to
review speed cameras. However, I can’t help thinking that you may be missing
the key points that every motorist wants addressed. Speeding related accidents
account for less than 4% of fatalities according to recent research revealed to
the Department for Transport. Excess speed (going too fast for the conditions)
also only accounts for less than 10% of fatalities. Within this figure we have
joy riders, bank robbers and those unfit or unlicensed to drive, so the true
‘speed’ issue is massively overstated.
Nobody can argue that the speed has an effect once an accident is certain, but
surely the key approach should be to reduce the number of accidents rather than
focusing purely on speed?
Over the last 3-4 years the government has been systematically replacing
national speed limit roads with lower (sometimes 30mph) limits. It is unclear
if this is to create ‘honey traps’ for speed cameras or to address a misguided
view that the slower we drive the safer we are. Inappropriately lower speed
limits create undesirable driver behaviour ranging from ignoring all limits as
too slow to paranoid speedo watching and inattention.
With an estimated 3 Million drivers prosecuted this year for speeding (14,000
per fatal speed related accident), the conservative have a huge opportunity to
implement real road safety policies that move away from the vastly over
simplified ‘Speed kills’ message.
I’d like to see a conservative road safety plan include and address the
following:
1) Driver assessments (not retests) every 3-5 years with those scoring the
lowest being referred for further training and those scoring the highest being
issued a certificate that is recognised by insurers (in the same way the IAM
and RoSPA tests are).
2) More use of voluntary speed limits to encourage people to respect local
residents desire for quieter roads (the real reason for most speed limit
reductions). People are more likely to do something if you 'ask' rather than
'tell'. Voluntary limits can still be enforced on the grounds of due care and
attention.
3) The gradual phasing out of mobile and fixed speed cameras in favour of
vehicle activated signs only in speed related accident black spots (which are 3
times more effective at reducing speed).
4) The use of variable speed limits on urban roads where there are high hazard
times (e.g. schools, parks etc) as already proposed.
5) Speed limits set according to the 85th percentile of driver speed. The
actions of the majority should not be illegal particularly given the low number
of speed related accidents. This would see many dual carriage ways restored to
back to sensible limits.
6) A greater focus on uninsured/unlicensed drivers who are 10-15 times more
likely to be involved in an accident than any other person and place a huge
burden on the motorist and tax payer.
7) Targets for motorcycle manufacturers to have ABS available on at least 50% of
their models. Mercedes Benz claimed a 15% drop in accidents by introducing
Brake Assist and Anti lock brakes across their range. Given that motorcyclists
make up <3% of traffic and account for 20% of fatalities, even a 10% reduction
is worth having. While modern motorcycle brakes are superb, few riders have
the skill to maximise their effectiveness.
8) Scrap the motorcycle twin headlight rule that requires bikes manufactured
after 2001 to have one headlight switched out (on dip) as per EU harmonisation.
Since Motorcyclists need the same amount of light to see at night as any one
else, many are now choosing to ride with main beam on all the time. Apart from
causing dazzle it severely limits an oncoming drivers ability to judge speed
and distance, even in daylight.
I honestly believe that these steps would have a much greater impact on road
safety than the ludicrous ‘speed kills’ policies championed by labour.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
