Safe Speed Forums

The flawed and dangerous road safety bill is before Parliament again on Monday.

I have to analyse it in it latest form and prepare comments. The Tories have just supplied their latest amendments, which is good, but I need much much more information.

Can anyone help? Links to the latest draft? Analysis? Particular problems?

This is URGENT right now!

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

Is this link of any use?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

PERFECT! THANKS!

Get reading folks!

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

Road Safety Bill and amendments here.

‘In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in paragraph 5(2)(b)(iii), column 3(c), leave out “40” and insert “45”.’.

Does this mean HGV 40 is now going to be HGV 45? I am not sure which class of vehicle it belongs to. Insisting on HGV limits be raised to 50 would make a proper contribution to road safety. Slower speeds aren't always safer. The paragraph about vehicle data recording seems to allow for future compulsory data recorders in any class of vehicle.

The banning of radar detectors should also be considered contrary to the HRA as we are allowed as citizens to reasonable data gathering and banning those excludes this.

‘(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on three or more occasions in a manner which contravenes section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 he shall have the powers set out in subsection (2).

(2) These powers are—

(a) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;

(b) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be.

What on earth is that about? Is it suggesting only on the opinion that someone may have done something contravening the rta 3 times they should have their car seized? If they make not indicating an offence then it could mean a lot of seized cars!

There's also another paragraph in there about extending BST to be all year round, which is bad news for those that live up north and don't want pitch black mornings.

The graduated penalty system for speeding should be struck out as it further increases the obsession with speeding to the disregard of the real causes of accidents. All prosecutions for speeding should only be allowed within the ACPO guidelines ie 10% + 2 mph or there should also be a public safety or interest argument added to prosecutions so only the dangerous speeders ie that speed in bad weather would be prosecuted for example rather than just anyone just over the limit.




Could the provision for those with advanced training be used by a member of the general public with class 1 or equivalent? It's obviously there to exclude speeding policeman



Looks like the failure to name driver is getting a points hike to 6 to further intimidate registered keepers to name names contrary to the right to silence.

Seems to be lot of removal of constables and substitutions with 'or vehicle examiner' or relevant authority either instead or as well as.

I've issued the following PR at 14:45, and I'm heading down to London on Sunday to pick up broadcast work on Monday:

PR376: Road Safety Bill - Dangerously Muddle Headed

NOTE: PAUL SMITH WILL BE IN LONDON ON MONDAY 9th OCTOBER AND AVAILABLE FOR
INTERVIEW.

NEWS: STRICT EMBARGO 00:01am Sunday 8th October 2006

The Road Safety Bill will get its final reading in the House of Commons on
Monday. Safe Speed described the bill as 'dangerously muddle headed' because,
simply, it gets all of its priorities wrong.


Graduated fixed penalties for speeding

These are now unopposed and will go through on Monday. But they give out the
dangerous false safety message that 36mph past a school at 3:50am and 3:50pm
are an equal offence, while in reality 36mph may be perfectly safe at 3:50am
and perfectly deadly at 3:50pm.

It will become commonplace for drivers to lose their licence after just two
camera detected offences.



Causing death by careless driving

The proposal to create a new offence of causing death by careless driving is
being strongly opposed because it will criminalise responsible drivers who make
a simple human error with tragic consequences.

Safe Speed estimates that the new law will result in about 1,000 ordinary
drivers each year receiving prison sentences because they have displayed
nothing more than human fallibility.



Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I'm sorry to say that the road safety bill is
dangerously muddle headed. It is based on flawed thinking from a flawed
government department and will consequently make road safety worse."

"I am especially concerned about the graduated penalty for speeding offences
that sends the message that the NUMBER is more important than the quality of
the behaviour; we're asking drivers to be LEGAL when we should be asking them
to be SAFE."

"Causing death by careless driving will have no deterrent effect because no one
sets out to be careless. It's just state sanctioned revenge. It's ugly,
needless and will result in more lives destroyed."

"The bill misses the opportunity to 'get tough' with the underclass of 'rogue
drivers' who cause much of the danger on our roads."

<ends>

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

Never had to think about this until recently and have realised how inept our current laws are. They appear to penalise the wrong people. Can anything now be done individually to change how this is set up.

I do not feel that Parliament is acting in my best interests anymore.

Regards

Welcome to the next level of understanding of the real world! Or is it the development of cynicism? Parliament has never acted in your best interests. Ever.

Some principled MPs will try to do so because they believe in it, but the majority will only pretend to do so because they need your vote. Not yours specifically of course, but enough of the unthinking electorate to get re-elected. All MPs have a tricky balancing act between career progression (i.e. doing what the party leader wants), and doing what is right, so if there is a "plausible" way to support what you are told to vote for that allows you to tow the party line, then most will support it without even bothering to attend a debate.

That is if Parliament even gets involved at all these days; many things are steamrollered through by the Government (vote for us or we will find a replacement next election) or even worse by Europe where none of the electorate have any say at all. Add in the lobbying system which is not much short of "cash for legislation", and you will find that your real level of influence is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from it.

Democracy is a fraud.