MP's completely f**king clueless and believe their own tosh.

[cheezemonkhai]

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs demand action on road deaths

So lets make everyone drive everywhere at 5mph with a man carrying a flag walking infront of the car to reduce accidents.

Sod sorting out speed, how about sorting out idiot drives and people who shouldn't be on the road?

[mattandy]

Yep, an overhaul of the driving test to include more A road experience, introduce Motorway driving and mandatory retests every 6-8 years. For everyone, irrespective of how long they've been driving.

[expostmanpat]

Strange that speed is discrimanate in relation to wealth, OK so poor people buy older and less safe cars, but wealthy folks are more likely to buy FASTER cars, and don't rich kids walk anywhere, or maybe their not daft enough to hang on street corners and be found running round estates doped up at god knows what time, or terrorising neighborhoods on ****ty 10cc motorbikes without helmets but of course for the country to do something about these little darlings would be too much like hard work, when they can just blame the motorist

]Maybe when everyone as stopped smoking and stopped driving, and everyone who can afford as buggered off abroad they will be finally happy and turn this sceptred isle into a ch*v concentration camp. [rant off]

[yegnold]

They also recommended that the drink-drive limit be lowered

Wholeheartedly agree.

roadside breath test devices approved

Wholeheartedly agree, again.

More 20mph speed limit zones should be in place, it added.

Put them in sensible places - outside schools, hospitals, universities... and I agree on this point too.

[philc]

It was higlighted on the radio this morning how they're wanting to pump lots of money into this scheme, but the number of stillborn babies in this country is still the same as the number of deaths on this hasn't changed for 10 years -and no new money goes into maternity services.

It's just whatever hits the headlines, I suppose.

Phil

[Blade404]

It also heard evidence that the poorest children were 21 times more likely to be killed as pedestrians hit by cars than those from the richest families.

Less well-off drivers and passengers were also at greater risk of death than the more affluent.

Is it me or is that just stating the bleeding obvious! Given that there a fewer 'more affluent' drivers/pedestrian?

Ms Ellman' date=' Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said if 3,000 people a year were killed in train crashes there would be a national outcry.[/quote']

But at least we might actually have a rail service worth using!

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Mark Hunter said: "It is a travesty that drunk drivers still kill as many people now as they did a decade ago.

"The government should be ashamed that it has failed to make a dent in this problem."

I agree.. surely by now they should of developed a camera to 'prevent' drink driving...

Edited 29 October, 2008 by Blade404

[Interphase]

Pop quiz - which single entity forces every driver to behave sensibly when it's present on the road, and would therefore lead to the reduction of *all* causes of dangerous driving?

Answers on a postcard to:

Police Car Quiz

Common Sense Lane

Underfundedshire

999 MIA

[swedishskoda]

How unpleasant it might be to swallow, speed is a crucial factor. There's good evidence that if people kept within existing speed limits, 100 lifes per year would be saved in Sweden and of course a lot more in the UK (maybe not correct to multiply with 6 for population, probably more miles per driver here, but still.

As long as only the driver had to pay the price I wouldn't mind if speed limits were abolished (there are probably lots of candidates for the Darwin Award out there). But sadly others have to suffer too.

[Gillywibble]

It was higlighted on the radio this morning how they're wanting to pump lots of money into this scheme, but the number of stillborn babies in this country is still the same as the number of deaths on this hasn't changed for 10 years -and no new money goes into maternity services.

It's just whatever hits the headlines, I suppose.

It's not about headlines, it's about who is to blame. The government can absolve themselves of all responsibility when it comes to motoring offences.

[auroan]

How unpleasant it might be to swallow, speed is a crucial factor. There's good evidence that if people kept within existing speed limits, 100 lifes per year would be saved in Sweden and of course a lot more in the UK (maybe not correct to multiply with 6 for population, probably more miles per driver here, but still.

Totally Totally disagree with that comment !!!.

Inappropriate speed is the crucial factor. I can be doing well with the speed limit, but If the conditions are bad or I'm driving like a knob then I may well have an accident. But I was within the speed limit.............

[robmawer]

Inappropriate speed is the crucial factor. I can be doing well with the speed limit, but If the conditions are bad or I'm driving like a knob then I may well have an accident. But I was within the speed limit.............

Yes, but if you weren't driving like a knob but were exceeding the speed limit, you reduce your ability to react successfully to avoid an "accident".

So if everyone stuck to the speed limit or less then they would improve their chance to react to hazards in such a way as to not cause fatalities - and the reduction in speed would mean that any impacts which did occur would have lower forces, making the injuries sustained less likely to be fatal.

QED, enforcing the speed limit would lead to a reduction in fatalities - as swedishskoda said, there is evidence to support this, and it is a fact.

Won't totally eradicate road fatalities and it won't combat any other bad driving habits, but I don't think that's the point ss was making...

Rob.

[swedishskoda]

Totally Totally disagree with that comment !!!.

Inappropriate speed is the crucial factor. I can be doing well with the speed limit, but If the conditions are bad or I'm driving like a knob then I may well have an accident. But I was within the speed limit.............

I agree with you... but speed above the limit is often (not always, I grant you that) also inappropriate speed. So if people stayed within limits there would be less instances of inappropriate speeding.

Which of course doesn't mean that fatal accidents due to speeding disappear altogether. Speed limits are maximum limits,nothing else. Doing 70 on the motorway in a blizzard is inappropriate, for instance, even if it's "legal" according to the road signs.

EDIT: superfluous rant, thanks robmawer for the backup/clarifying

[KLM]

(goes off to look for jobs in another country)

[Aspman]

For MPs it's better to be seen to do something, anything, than to put some thought into it and do the right thing.

Que lobbyists, pressure groups, journos with an axe to grind etc etc. A bandwagon is a wonderful thing to a politician even if it screws the rest of us.

[sidewaze samm]

So what constitues - and I mean sensibly, not legally - the act of speeding? 41 in a 40 limit? 43? 45? 49? Depends on conditions?

And why is that stretch of road a 40 limit anyway? Who decided 40 was OK but not 50? If 30 is needlessly slow, then why not 35?

Limits are arbitrary levels set (now) by pen-pushing local government 'officials'.

Why have so many roads been downgraded from 50, or even national speed limit, to 40 or even 30? And I mean roads that have not had a substantial number of 'incidents' - there's more than a few examples of this round my way. Many of these just seem to cause reckless overtaking - often across the hatchmarks that have turned a previously wide, free-flowing road into two narrow lanes of follow-the-tractor traffic.

[ScoobyChris]

So what constitues - and I mean sensibly, not legally - the act of speeding?

But "speeding" only has a meaning legally. Speeding is defined as driving above the posted speed limit and so 1 mph over is breaking the law.

Whether the driver is driving at a "safe" speed is another matter entirely and mostly comes down to that driver's perception of risk. An example would be something like "On a clear, dry summer's night at 3am, what is a safe speed to drive down an empty stretch of motorway?"

Chris

[yegnold]

An example would be something like "On a clear, dry summer's night at 3am, what is a safe speed to drive down an empty stretch of motorway?"

Just for an interesting point, I'd say 85mph.

[robmawer]

So what constitues - and I mean sensibly, not legally - the act of speeding? 41 in a 40 limit? 43? 45? 49? Depends on conditions?

Speeding is the act of exceeding the speed limit...so there isn't really any "non-legal" definition.

Limits are arbitrary levels set (now) by pen-pushing local government 'officials'.

Also known as Traffic Authorities. If these aren't supposed to be setting speed limits then who is?

Why have so many roads been downgraded from 50, or even national speed limit, to 40 or even 30? And I mean roads that have not had a substantial number of 'incidents' - there's more than a few examples of this round my way.

This is because "number of incidents" isn't the only factor taken into account when determining a reduction in speed limits.

You might find the budget for the maintenance of these particular roads has been eroded by the massive number of compensation payouts people keep putting against councils - once the road surface starts to deteriorate, it is usually cheaper to keep the road safer by reducing the speed limit rather than repairing it.

Or you might find the noise pollution from the stretch of road was attracting several complaints - a reduction in speed also reduces the noise pollution.

Those are just a couple of examples - there are loads of factors taken into account by Traffic Authorities when determining the speed limits for roads. Of course, I'm sure we'd all like to believe it's some little office-bound worm of an individual spoiling all our fun by restricting how fast we go because they're not getting any, but (un)fortunately the truth is somewhat different and the decisions made are usually after lengthy consideration of a myriad of factors, and the solution an attempt to achieve majority satisfaction.

Rob.

[sidewaze samm]

Of course, I'm sure we'd all like to believe it's some little office-bound worm of an individual spoiling all our fun by restricting how fast we go because they're not getting any, but (un)fortunately the truth is somewhat different and the decisions made are usually after lengthy consideration of a myriad of factors, and the solution an attempt to achieve majority satisfaction.

Rob.

Hmm... not forgetting those purely politically motivated objectives of course

[robmawer]

Hmm... not forgetting those purely politically motivated objectives of course

Fortunately the Traffic Authorities don't get voted in, they're employed based upon their credentials - they have nothing to gain politically or financially by reducing a speed limit.

Rob.

[VWD]

And suspicious old me wonders what other bad/embaressing news is being covered up by this smokescreen .Or is it to cover up the total c**ck up that Brown is making ? -or perhaps there's some fire in the smoke about Govt ministers and russians -or has some celebrety donated a large sum to avoid sanctions after a certain program ?

Most likely nothing to do with road safety ,else the SCPs would have been binned years ago .Might as well call in Bin Laden to oversea road safetty

[cheezemonkhai]

Having experience of the stupid 20 zone down this way I can assure you it's a right royal pain in the proverbial. People don't stick to it and rather than making all cars do 20mph, they would be better off spending the money used to change signs etc teaching kids to not play in the road and to stop look and listen rather than just running out from between parked cars.

If in doubt blame a motorist rather than a lack of common sense.

I'm not suggesting residential streets should be 40's but they are missing the real cause of the problem for an easy solution that won't work when compared to getting the idiots off the road.

If an idiot does 40 in a 30, the idiot will still do 40 in the 20 in their ch*ved up sh*tmobile!

Edited 29 October, 2008 by cheezemonkhai
typo

[VWD]

If in doubt blame a motorist rather than a lack of common sense.

If an idiot does 40 in a 30, the idiot will still do 40 in the 20 in their ch*ved up sh*tmobile!

:thumbup:

[FOZ1]

Pop quiz - which single entity forces every driver to behave sensibly when it's present on the road, and would therefore lead to the reduction of *all* causes of dangerous driving?

Answers on a postcard to:

Police Car Quiz

Common Sense Lane

Underfundedshire

999 MIA

:thumbup::thumbup:

[FOZ1]

Having experience of the stupid 20 zone down this way I can assure you it's a right royal pain in the proverbial. People don't stick to it and rather than making all cars do 20mph, they would be better off spending the money used to change signs etc teaching kids to not play in the road and to stop look and listen rather than just running out from between parked cars.

If in doubt blame a motorist rather than a lack of common sense.

I'm not suggesting residential streets should be 40's but they are missing the real cause of the problem for an easy solution that won't work when compared to getting the idiots off the road.

If an idiot does 40 in a 30, the idiot will still do 40 in the 20 in their ch*ved up sh*tmobile!

Ooooh & I thought it was just me who thought that.:thumbup:

When will the powers that be realise that educating people that roads are for cars, lorries, busses etc, & that they hurt when they hit you if you stand in their way, would have a far greater effect on injuries & deaths,

instead of blaming the motorist for everything.

Has anyone else come across the idiot who looks round sees you coming along the road, still crosses & dawdles on purpose as if they are indestructable & you have no right to be there. :mad: T00$$er$:mad:

Plus there is usually a pelican crossing 50yds up the road, but that would be too much effort to go to.

(Rant mode off, & breath)