Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Mar 23, 2025 05:42

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 00:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:36
Posts: 113
Location: Lincolnshire
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... =1770&ct=5


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 00:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
article wrote:
A speed camera on every corner to enforce new 20mph limit

Hundreds of speed cameras should be put up to enforce a reduced urban limit of 20mph, says an influential road safety group.

It also calls for a blitz on motorists more likely to cause accidents - such as fat drivers who are prone to dozing off and elderly drivers who may no longer be safe behind the wheel.

The report from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety - which advises MPs and the Government - says local authorities want to introduce digital cameras which measure speed over a set distance to enforce the 20mph limit.

Such cameras - as opposed to those which log a cars speed at a single point - regularly catch out thousands of drivers at roadworks on motorways.

However, the type requires Home Office approval to be operated at lower speeds. The report says the Government should make it a priority to grant it.

The speed camera measure is one of a number aimed at ensuring the annual number of road casualties starts falling again.

The advisory council argues for more 20mph zones in built-up areas and the setting of a target to reduce deaths on the roads to half the present level - about 3,200 a year - over the next decade.

"One significant impediment to lowering speed limits and expanding the 20mph network is that, at present, standard cameras are not type-approved to enforce limits below 30mph," it says.

Traffic humps and chicanes are used instead but are unpopular, expensive, cause problems for emergency vehicles and add to emissions.

"Time-over-distance cameras offer an effective alternative enforcement tool," it concludes.

"Many local authorities, and Transport for London in particular, are keen to explore the possibilities of using time-over-distance cameras."

The Department of Transport said it was up to local councils to make decisions on cameras and 20mph zones, and up to the Home Office to grant typeapproval for camera equipment.

A camera blitz on speeding must be accompanied by a war on motorists' dangerous lifestyles - with the very fat, the very old, and the very young to be targeted, adds the report.

It says the Government must even tackle poverty in its efforts to reduce road deaths - pointing out that children in the poorest areas are five times more likely to be killed in a road accident than those in the wealthiest areas.

The report says "sedentary lifestyles" make drivers more prone to an accident.

On the problem of older drivers it notes: "The UK population is ageing and likely to keep driving further, in larger numbers and for longer than previous generations.

"With the increased frailty and potentially declining capabilities, an older population poses a significant challenge to the road safety profession."

The report, called Beyond 2010 - a holistic approach to road safety in Great Britain, says all new residential developments must pass a "pint of milk test" - whether a resident can reach a shop to buy a pint of milk in under ten minutes without using a vehicle.

Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, said: "Motorists will accept 20mph limits where they make sense - but they don't want them everywhere."

The AA Motoring Trust said: "The question drivers have to ask themselves is this - are they prepared to meet some pretty draconian measures and loss of freedom to achieve these extremely tough road safety targets."

"It also calls for a blitz on motorists more likely to cause accidents - such as fat drivers who are prone to dozing off and elderly drivers who may no longer be safe behind the wheel. "
How the fudge will they accomplish that? Will there now be 'fat cameras'?

"The speed camera measure is one of a number aimed at ensuring the annual number of road casualties starts falling again. "
Errm, your reliance on such cameras is what caused the deviation from the established, long-term fatality fall trend.


What a joke, almost deserving of an SS PR!

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 01:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
It's on the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
Quote:
Cameras 'to catch 20mph speeders'
Image
The report argues for more to be done to improve road safety
Drivers breaking 20mph limits could be caught out by new speed cameras if the government accepts advisors' proposals.

Local authorities are keen to introduce the cameras, a report by the government's advisors on transport safety says.

The devices measure a driver's speed over a certain distance and should be a priority for the Home Office, it says.

The report also argues for more 20mph zones in built up areas and a target to cut road deaths by half.

Early approval

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts) said the devices need Home Office approval and priority should be given for this to happen.

The report, called Beyond 2010 - a holistic approach to road safety in Great Britain, also recommends that all new residential developments should be subject to a "pint of milk test".

This is whether a resident can reach a shop to buy a pint of milk in under 10 minutes without using a vehicle.

There are currently around 3,200 road deaths annually, compared to more than 7,000 a year in the 1960s.

Deaths preventable

This improvement is due to a number of factors including seatbelts, improved car design, the breathalyser and traffic-calming measures.

The government has a target of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the roads by 40% by 2010 compared with the average figure for the mid-1990s.

Pacts' executive director Robert Gifford said: "Improving road safety is not an academic exercise. Deaths on our roads are preventable occurrences where society could and should do more to prevent them.

"Every year, the inhabitants of a town the size of Nottingham or Belfast are killed or injured on our roads. This report highlights the actions that need to be taken to reduce this level of death and injury."

And how many inhabitants of Nottingham or Belfast succumb to smoking related illnesses, heart attacks, strokes, or die in dirty hospitals I wonder?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 01:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I have been working on this on Monday. Safe Speed has now issued two PRs:

At 16:11 Monday afternoon:

PR553: PACTS Report: Misunderstanding and missed opportunity

news: Embargo 00:01am Tuesday 16th October 2006

On a brief read of the new PACTS report on "Beyond 2010 - a holistic approach
to road safety in Great Britain", Safe Speed notes a tragic misunderstanding on
the nature of road safety and a missed opportunity to drive the debate
forwards.

Commenting on the report, Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "PACTS
have fundamentally misunderstood the role of drivers in road safety. Drivers
manage risk in real time. It is changes in the quality of drivers' risk
management that will dominate road safety changes in the next 20 years."

"Presently we are seeing a serious and ongoing decline in average driver
quality which has caused the 'trend failure' that the road safety industry is
becoming painfully aware of."

"PACTS had a golden opportunity to place 'driver quality' at the heart of the
road safety debate where it belongs, but that opportunity has been tragically
missed."

"They call it holistic approach - but they have missed the most important
factors. Road safety depends on driver quality."

"We don't need more regulation. We don't need more speed management. These
policies have failed in spades. We need better drivers through education,
information, and above all improved road safety culture."

<ends>


And at 00:36 this morning:

PR554: The 'fog' created by average speed cameras

news: for immediate release

With average speed cameras in the news, the Safe Speed Road Safety
Campaign warns that such cameras interfere with drivers' visual scan.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Drivers have told us that
driving under the gaze of average speed cameras is like driving in fog. At
first it seemed like a bizarre claim, but then we realised that average speed
cameras alter drivers' visual search pattern. The speedo becomes much more
important and the need to set an appropriate speed is subdued if not
eliminated. When driving under the gaze of average speed cameras, drivers
simply can't see so far ahead. No wonder they liken it to driving in fog"

"Make no mistake - average speed cameras change everything. Drivers' visual
search is compromised. Our assessment is that it's extremely unlikely that the
changes are for the better."

"Almost all claims of crash reductions at speed camera sites have been
dominated by a statistical error called 'regression to the mean' (RTTM). Once
RTTM has been allowed for the benefit is massively downgraded or lost
altogether."

"We won't get road safety back on track until Department for Transport admits
that the speed camera programme has made matter worse and pulls the plug. As of
right now Department for Transport knows the awful truth, but would rather save
face than save lives."

<ends>

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 07:47 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
You should have heard the waffle on BBC News this morning here in Suffolk. Someone spouting how the government have cut road deaths by half, and that these 20mph limits will cut them even further. They want us all at a standstill.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 07:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
The report, called Beyond 2010 - a holistic approach to road safety in Great Britain, says all new residential developments must pass a "pint of milk test" - whether a resident can reach a shop to buy a pint of milk in under ten minutes without using a vehicle.

Excellent. All housing development in rural areas stopped at a stroke.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 08:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 15:49
Posts: 393
Dixie wrote:
You should have heard the waffle on BBC News this morning here in Suffolk. Someone spouting how the government have cut road deaths by half, and that these 20mph limits will cut them even further. They want us all at a standstill.


I notice that they've started comparing current road deaths with the figures from the 1960's, in order to show a 50% reduction. It's factually correct but extremely misleading.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 08:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 22:19
Posts: 23
How do people THIS stupid get allowed anywhere near the jobs they're in. Seriously.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 08:24 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
malcolmw wrote:
Quote:
The report, called Beyond 2010 - a holistic approach to road safety in Great Britain, says all new residential developments must pass a "pint of milk test" - whether a resident can reach a shop to buy a pint of milk in under ten minutes without using a vehicle.

Excellent. All housing development in rural areas stopped at a stroke.

Surely you mean more out of town supermarkets! :roll:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 08:36 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Oh you should have heard the muppet on Radio 4 at just past 6:30 this morning – man I’m glad I wasn’t driving at the time.
Below is paraphrasing of what I recollect.

Interviewer: Is there any evidence that such reductions will lead to an X reduction of casualties?
Spokesperson: There might be some evidence. [WTF?] I’m at Queen Street in Portsmouth where in the 3 years prior to the 20mph reduction there were 3 KSI. Since then there has been a 61% reduction. [blatant RTTM (Queen Street was reduced to 20 before the citywide drop)]

He also went on to say that where there are streetlamps, the limit should be 20 even if 30 signs are erected.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 09:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 00:45
Posts: 1016
Location: Mighty Tamworth
article wrote:
"Many local authorities, and Transport for London in particular, are keen to explore the possibilities of using time-over-distance cameras."


Sorry I know this petty but time over distance sounds worng, i spend a few hours a year explaining to chlidren Speed=distance over time.

Anyway how would using them in housing eastes? work as this is where 20 mph limits are mostly at the moment.

Example I enter housing estate at 5:00pm after I finish work, and leave at 8:00am to go to work. I could whiz around my estate at 50 mph if I wanted to.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 13:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 00:42
Posts: 310
Location: North West England
Hats off to the Councillor from Kensington on 'Today' this morning to argue agains the 'jack boot method" of traffic control.

He quite rightly said this should be a local issue, and that lower KSI statistics will only come about by winning hearts and minds. He also talked about trying the Dutch model - less signage etc - using the analogy of how we drive through busy supermarket car parks being something to aspire to.

Though I haven't read the report I'm not hearing anything holastic in it so far, just draconian measures. Are they seriously suggesting blanket 20mph where there is street lighting, or are we going to be faced with yo-yoing limits and even more signage to keep any eye on?

And just who will be identifying the old and fat? Traf Pol? Ha Ha. Nope I'd guess at another load of hi-vis wearing petty Hitlers with a weekly targets.

The only sensible suggestion is the pint of milk test. We've had endless 'discussions' about how taking pensioners car off them can leave them isolated. And it will if we keep building huge estates with no facilities, where everyone drives and all the shops are out of town hypermarkets.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 13:22 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Chimera wrote:
How do people THIS stupid get allowed anywhere near the jobs they're in. Seriously.

It's a prerequisite to working in Govt/LA...

Unfortunately :(

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 14:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Barkstar wrote:
The only sensible suggestion is the pint of milk test. We've had endless 'discussions' about how taking pensioners car off them can leave them isolated. And it will if we keep building huge estates with no facilities, where everyone drives and all the shops are out of town hypermarkets.

You can provide a building for a shop, but you can't force people to run a grocery store. In many suburban areas small local shops have closed down as people have rejected their high prices and limited range and chosen to drive a couple of miles to the nearest supermarket. The premises have then been taken over by hot food takeaways.

Having said that, there does seem to be a revival of neighbourhood stores at the moment with a lot of new Tesco Expresses and similar opening up (often vigorously opposed by local residents) :twisted:

If you want to be able to walk to the shops, buy a house within walking distance - simple as that :P

_________________
"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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 14:29 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
orange wrote:
Dixie wrote:
You should have heard the waffle on BBC News this morning here in Suffolk. Someone spouting how the government have cut road deaths by half, and that these 20mph limits will cut them even further. They want us all at a standstill.


I notice that they've started comparing current road deaths with the figures from the 1960's, in order to show a 50% reduction. It's factually correct but extremely misleading.


Exactly! They where on a steady decrease before so, why use them now. They've nothing else left.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 14:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
smeggy wrote:
It also calls for a blitz on motorists more likely to cause accidents - such as fat drivers who are prone to dozing off


Since when has it been acceptable to pick on fat people, as it seems to be all of a sudden? There have always been big and small people, but when I was young it would have been just as unacceptable to make a remark like this as it would have been to say 'indians will be targeted as they are likely to eat curry all the time behind the wheel'.

Making an ignorant and offensive generalisation about larger people is no better than that, so why is it seen as so acceptable?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 15:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Safe Speed issued a 3rd PR at 9:41 this morning:

PR555: 20mph speed limits have bigger crashes than 30mph speed limits

news: for immediate release

With a proposal for 20mph speed limits in the news today, Safe Speed accuses
the proposers of ignoring the evidence.

Latest national figures indicate that average accident severity is far higher
in 20mph zones than in 30mph zones.

* In 20mph zones in 2006 17% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
* In 30mph zones in 2006 13% of injury crashes were fatal or serious [1]

What these figures tell us:

* The authorities are ignoring important road safety evidence by pressing on
without explaining the figures.

* The simple 'a lower speed limit lowers crash severity' is proved false.
(Other factors must be considered.)

What these figures DO NOT tell us:

* Changing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph makes crashes worse. (we might,
for example, have applied 20mph zones ONLY to exceptionally dangerous places.)

* Anything about changes to the numbers of crashes

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "The authorities are ignoring
their own evidence. Instead they are working on the basis of belief. No more
20mph zones should be rolled out until the figures are fully explained."

"The figures destroy the general argument that driving slower means smaller
crashes. Obviously the national picture is telling us something completely
different. In 20mph zones we're having worse crashes than in 30mph zones."

"We're shifting the balance from responsibility to regulation and it simply
does not work. We need more responsibility, not more regulation."

"Modern road safety policies haven't proved effective. Neither road deaths nor
hospitalisations have fallen as expected - and road safety policy must take the
blame."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Previous PRs:

The dangerous 20mph zone mystery:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/281

[1] Calculated from Table 4, RCGB 2006 DfT national figures.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/172974/173025/221 ... les120.xls

Safe Speed spreadsheet showing the simple calculations:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr555.xls
***

We're doing very well today with the PACTS story. News 24, lots of Radio, Reuters, AFP, ITN, Telextext, etc. I'll get some time to update SSitN&M later I hope.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 15:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
PACTS Report wrote:
It says the Government must even tackle poverty in its efforts to reduce road deaths - pointing out that children in the poorest areas are five times more likely to be killed in a road accident than those in the wealthiest areas.

This is pretty good for a laugh as well.

- It might show that hapless parents who are poor by their own laziness or stupidity might be incapable of teaching their offspring how to cross the road properly.

- It might show that poor kids who walk more are more likely to walk under vehicles. Unfortunately, they are also advocating walking more as a good idea.

- It might show that poor kids steal cars and crash them more than rich kids.

Of course, it would be rude to query any of these points. :D

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 15:56 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
...or are poor kids more likely to be passengers in older vehicles with fewer safety features and potentially less roadworthiness? More likely to walk near roads, if the family doesn't have a car at all. More likely to live in less desirable locations such as adjacent to busy main roads/DCs/M'ways?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
We've had 10 years of Speed limit reduction and increased traffic calming. There is no evidence at all that these policies improve road safety.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.024s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]