johno1066 wrote:
ndp wrote:
Whilst clearly it is true that drivers have to take responsibility and work out things for themselves, that isn't the be-all-and-end-all.
Sometimes, a hazard may be subtle and drivers may not be able (or simply aren't) inferring the presence of the hazard from the environment. So warning signs etc are used to assist. Sometimes, people disregard the sign on the grounds.
And thats on top of the issues of damage limitation and the need to have a mechanism to deal with the cretins, as discussed elsewhere.
Of course warning signs where practicle should be used but again, not to an extent that the onus is taken away from the driver which is the case now.
I agree - but changing that is difficult when motorists will simply blame a lack of a warning sign for their accident when they mess up. Again, this comes down to people refusing to shoulder any responsibility.
Quote:
The biggest hazards on the road are other motorists, many of which are through drivers reversing onto main roads when they can't see,
AIUI not a major cause of injury accidents,
Quote:
misreading the conditions
Sometimes this is because the conditions are difficult to read from the drivers POV. This is why we have limits, but then drivers sometimes ignore these because they cannot see the reason for them. So we have enforcement to give them a reason they can see to comply with limits.
Quote:
and not paying attention. Speed in reality (again Paul's work backs this up) has little to do with being a causation factor in many crashes.
As I have said its one factor. Sometimes its a common one at a particular site. Sometimes it isn't.
Quote:
The cretins as you put it, come in all shapes and sizes, from the nutters who haven't registered their cars, the nutters who just don't care, the druggies, the inexperienced, the stupid, Doris who hasn't a clue and who thinks that the only responsibility to driving safely is keeping within the speed limit, the over confident. Unfortunately, speed cameras and the over enthesis on speed will not help or deter these groups of drivers.
No - but then its not meant to. There are other mechanisms for dealing with that. Sadly we don't see the traffic police dealing with this any more.
Quote:
Quote:
It isn't really an easy one. There seems to be an general attitude of buck passing and excuse making (indeed the "bad signs" page is an example of this - of course the signs are illegal and thus the affected limits are rendered unenforceble - but when its a pedantic difference like a backing board having a border, surely its a poor excuse, given the limit was conveyed clearly (if not legally)?)
But then that's what's going to happen when people perceive a system to be unfair. They're going to look at the legislation and they're going to hammer it. Why? because they can and it is their way at getting back at the system. Childish? maybe, but unfortunately for traffic engineers, the highways, the councils etc, it makes them not only look stupid, but they have to spend the time putting it right.
No-one is disputing they *can*, I merely suggest if they take responsibility they would think better of it.
Nothing here excuses the authorities for putting up incorrect signs - but if the signs do accurately (if not legally) convey the legal requirement, then drivers should know what the limit is and drive accordingly. If they have failed to do so, then in this instance the authorities failure isn't an excuse for their failure.
Lets face it, people (usually) don't know about these things. All to often they look for any excuse they can get at. People just don't want to take responsibility.
Obviously it is different when signs are missing, obscured, ambiguous, misleading etc.
Quote:
If the Government at all levels want to play the law, then i'm afraid the motorist can too, with success I might add.In short, the public are arming themselves and using the law to beat a law that is perceived to be unjust. A reality i'm afraid, human beings aren't robots and we aren't automated like cameras. Therefore, you can hopefully see, that with all the Governement's tinkering, a detriment to road safety has been born.
I'm not sure the public really are TBH. Certainly, they're not trying very hard if they are
Ultimately, this problem stems from the confrontational nature of the debate. I think both sides are in glass houses in this regard.
Quote:
Quote:
The only thing the authorities can do is turn around and wash their hands of responsibility beyond what they should be responsible for. Thats hardly likely to go down well with the public or the lawyers, however.
Agreed and this is already the case, the authorities have screwed up, they know they've screwed up and they are squirming.
Eh?
Quote:
Quote:
To be fair, thats simplistic. What has happened is that speed issue appeared as one issue, and speed cameras were experimented with as one mechanism to deal with this. People then got excited because they were being caught speeding, and started to complain. The authorities then had to justify cameras, and one way they went about it was publicity campaigns. This then reinforced peoples concerns regarding speeding problems (real or percieved), which created pressure for more cameras, completing the vicious circle. Its simply escalated from there.
Quote:
Yes, but I think the system has imploded, it was a good idea that until the camera partnerships got their grubby little hands on it, MAY have possibly worked as a tool. The way they have implemented and created a one issue message came from the camera partnerships i'm afraid, they are responsible for much of the problems we face today and is backed up profusely by Paul's work.
But this isn't an issue with cameras per se, but with the administration thereof.
Nevertheless, it is an issue.
Quote:
Once you have lost public confidence you have lost the war.
Its not a war. The fact that people think it is is a problem.
Quote:
Quote:
Theres clearly room for improvement - but (AFAICS) no-one has offered any way forward beyond vague statements like "real policing".
I think you're wrong with this statement, honestly, if you could look through this site with an open mind, I think you'll find that copius amounts of options have been explored including that of roads engineering, which comes quite high up the list. Please, I urge you to have a look with an open mind, you may well be surprised by what's being said. You may not agree with everthing, hell i don't agree with everyone on this forum but for the most part, I know that my own driving and knowledge has improved considerably as a result of this site.
Oh certainly there is alot of sensible discussion - however, there doesn't seem to be alot of consideration regarding what should be done where the problem is people driving too fast - and least, not any which acknowledge limitations in resources.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
