believe it would be strongly in the interests of road safety if we could
direct the law at drivers causing actual danger rather than those exceeding
an arbitrary numerical speed limit. Police discretion, a power they already
have, can do this.
||There is no need and no benefit to catching
good safe drivers with enforcement action intended to make the roads safer.
Dumb speed enforcement catches all drivers, and fails to make the required
This would take the form of "standing instructions" to prosecute "moving
traffic offences" only where danger has been caused. (we say "moving traffic
offences" so that the Police can continue to prosecute important offences
like driving without insurance)
should consider raising the motorway speed limit.
||Everyone seems to exceed the motorway
speed limit without danger. The law should catch up with the reality.
don't advocate removal of speed limits, but we do not wish to see them
enforced when there is no danger caused. Speed cameras cannot make this
sort of judgement, so in general they will have to go.
||Speed limits provide useful guidance for
would like to see aggressive policing of dangerous speeds.
||Where excessive speed causes a danger
it should be punished.
would like to see aggressive policing of tailgating. Tailgating is a real
cause of danger.
||We simply don't understand why tailgating
isn't prosecuted. See our guide to tailgating here.new
We would make a new specific driving offence of tailgating thereby ensuring
that a) everyone knew what was expected of them, b) the courts could easilly
determine guilt and c) to raise awareness of the issue.
advocate much more demanding driver education as an alternative to dumb
speed enforcement. We believe it would be far more effective.
||Even those accidents attributed to excessive
speed have their roots in a poor decision made by a driver. If we can improve
standards in these key areas we will see a real road safety improvement:
hazard perception, observation, anticipation and planning.
would strongly agree with a proposed law which limited the class or performance
of the car until "certain experience and qualifications" had been attained.
||Such a plan would incentivize advanced
driver training and also reduce those horrible 17 year old in a Porsche
high speed accidents.
any woodentops who just couldn't make the grade (and this might be 20%
or more of the driving population) would be subject to restrictions, possibly
lower speed limits, no powerful cars, no night driving or no motorway driving
for example. We could argue that this was fair because they had not achieved
the required standards.
||By restricting the poorest drivers we
improve safety for everyone.
the fools could be improved to some extent by training. Skid pan training
especially is of massive benefit (even to the stupid), and we don't understand
why we don't do much more of it. It's said that 95% of accidents involve
||Skid pan training should be available
to all drivers. We should work towards compulsory skid pan training for
all new drivers, to be taken within one of passing their DSA test.
would make driving skill something to be measured and something to be proud
of. There would be social pressures to actually improve, not simply to
survive. Drivers who achieved certain standards would earn privilege points
on their licences, these points would help to promote pride in driving
achievements. You might say; "Advanced licences for advanced drivers."
||The present driving culture in the UK
is all about fast cars, speed and enforcement. Genuinely skilled driving
barely gets a mention. If legislation provided privileges for well trained
drivers that would provide a message and a basis for cultural change.
should not continue to reduce rural speed limits on the basis of whim or
||Speed limits should only be set by skilled
traffic engineers with safety and traffic efficiency in mind. Speed limits
created by unqualified councils, and encouraged by pressure groups, tend
to reduce road safety and inconvenience road users.
valuable new evidence arrives we will adapt our proposals to take advantage
accident reduction without speed limits comes to mind, but it's early days.
who share responsibility for accidents or who are caught otherwise causing
a danger should be sent for compulsory training. This is a positive way
to help them avoid repeating mistakes.
||This item might be the true key to fast
and effective road accident reduction. We suspect that 20% of the drivers
cause 80% of the accidents. We need to find these people. See the comments
page for much more information. (click the paragraph number) new
The police would be given the power to send for training with a lower standard
of proof of offence than we use at present.
speed limits are required they should be set properly using the well known
85th percentile rule.
||Read about the 85th percentile rulehere
should have a large publicity campaign to explain to drivers that incidents
and mistakes forwarn of accidents, and that repeats of mistakes can be
prevented with training. Drivers in general do not know this and would
be open to improving their own safety.
||This is an important idea that can make
a real difference. It also helps to promote pride in driving; we can well
imagine pub conversations about what has been learned on the courses.
accidents are to be reported and considered by the police. This will enable
compulsory training as per claim 5.13.
||Training bad drivers is the key. Having
each accident reported will enable the police to identify bad drivers.
Create a new offence of "obstruction of traffic" which has the effect of
requiring the lane 2 and lane 3 hogs to move over.
||This should reduce accidents by spacing
vehicles out better and should coniderably improve traffic flow. Alternative
new offences about "keeping left" would outlaw some excellent driving practices
on clear or lightly traffficked roads.