Road Safety Culture

[safespeed]

Following on from TonyRec's thread: "SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT CAMERAS - ANSWERS PLEASE" I want to bring up the issue of road safety culture.

In outline, we didn't earn ourselves the safest roads in the World by luck or magic. We were clearly doing something that was precisely correct. I searched for the cause and soon realised that our road safety culture was superior to that in all other countries.

Then I looked for the source of the superior culture and I reckon it's down to just one thing. From the 1930s to the 1990s we had the only centre of driving excellence in the World. And that was the Police driver training establishment. (especially Hendon)

Hendon ideas permeated the whole system because Hendon was top of the list for consultation whenever the government wished for safe driving information. Hendon ideas have been incorporated in advice to drivers, legislation, the driving test and even things like the design of road signs.

The ONLY thing that makes the UK roads three times safer than the roads in Belgium (for example) is our superior safety culture.

But modern speed kills road safety undermines many of the Hendon principles. We're destroying our superior safety culture and making our roads more like those in Belgium. So it should be no surprise that speed cameras cost lives.

See this Safe Speed page for more detail:

www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[james_j]

Yes, it seems that with automated forms of "safety" enforcement, we are experiencing the labouresque "easy solution" which, on the face of it to anyone who doesn't think about it too much, seems like a good idea.

Look at the BIB training manual for class 1 drivers - I don't think you will see that speed is mentioned as a danger - "making (smooth) progress" is important as is speed for the conditions.

Ah, but you will say, the bib can drive faster because they are trained. So, it's down to driver training is it? Well, yes, as many of us have been saying many times - improve driver training, toughen up the test and you will reduce KSIs. Making the bad driver watch out for speed cameras will not improve safety - look at the statistics - it's the safer drivers who are getting caught!

The "authorities" don't seem to understand that there is no automated solution to reduce KSIs - it takes time and a better driver training infrastructure, not a soundbite solution so beloved of Labour's marketing department.

[Le TVR]

Surely part of the problem is that there has never been any real incentive for drivers to learn and improve?

What would you think of a system that had:

Provisional DL = 3pts
DL = 6pts during first 12 months
DL = 12pts after 12 months of 'clear' record
Advanced test DL = 15pts

And any ban for total exceeding 12pts on a normal DL can be negated by passing the Advanced DL. (licenced restored at 0pts but not for cases of DIC etc)

Then negotiate better max NCD's for Advanced DL holders?

Oh and then make all penalties fixed so that the courts cant make such huge variations between identical offences?


Edited for better grammar

>> Edited by Le TVR on Thursday 18th December 09:36

[Swilly]

Thats a good point.

The 'Speed Kills' type campaigns and the trend of electronic policing is actually stripping away from drivers the personal responsibility to not simply follow what the road signs say and then switch off, but to also apply a degree of skill and knowledge of driving beyond the minimum lawful and sign-posted requirements.

[meldrewlives]

Le TVR said:

Oh and then make all penalties fixed so that the courts cant make such huge variations between identical offences?

Entirely agree that there are some highly unjust sentencing variations but the problem with fixing penalties is that you can not then take into account the circumstances of the offender. For example, in another thread it is suggested that in exchange for a much less restrictive speed limit policy on non-urban areas, fines in areas where speed limits do apply should be much tougher. Maybe so, but for some offenders the suggested £160 is no big deal - for others it would be significant.

Surely the problem with Magistrates's sentencing policy can be fixed if there is any political will so to do? Maybe BobtheBench will comment.

[haggishead]

haggishead on another thread said:

I looked at the BRAKE web site a few minutes ago, and I think that, no matter what the original motivation, what they are trying to do, through driver education etc, isn't that far away from what we PHers would like - ie educate the numpty, remove the dangerous idiot, etc etc. I have read all of the threads on this but haven't said much, for various reasons. One is that I have a professional interest in transport, traffic and road safety, one of the three e's (education, engineering and enforcement). I am also very keen on cars and driving - always have been. I was an IAM Observer and Rospa Gold for a long time - drifted away from active participation but still drive by the principles. I am not in any way condoning the events of the past few days - not at all - because the misuse of statistics, and over-reaction to comments made here, does BRAKE no favours, as we have seen. The fact that this misinformation was swallowed hook, line and sinker by the Times is even more worrying, if anything. We are not silly wee boys and girls in silly cars. Most of us are here as ENTHUSIASTS - real enthusiasts - who want to look after our vehicles, ourselves, our families, and also realise our responsibilities to other road users. Admit it, we all make mistakes sometimes, but we are not the sports-car-holligans we are being portrayed as. BRAKE seem to have swallowed the "one third of accidents caused by speed" statistic - but do they realise that this includes classifications such as "failed to judge the speed of an approaching vehicle"? - that means an error of judgement, not necessarily excessive speed. The REAL proportion of accidents that are apportioned to excessive speed, without lumping in various others that have nothing to do with speeding per se, is about 7%. Statistics only tell part of the story. For example, if I said that drunk drivers are responsible for 10% of deaths on the roads (I made that statistic up, purely for illustrative purposes) does that not mean that 90% are caused by drivers who are sober? So why don't we pass legislation to ban these sober idiots from the roads and give the pissed-up safer drivers a fair chance? One single statistic is meaningless unless you look at the overall picture. What about somebody who careens off a corner in an NSL, because they were "going too fast" - well maybe too fast for that corner, but still below the NSL? Is he speeding? No. Is he silly? Probably. What about the bloke who drives past a primary school at leaving time at 29.9 miles per hour? Is he speeding? No. Is he dangerous? Potentially. Will he get away with it? Probably. It is the misuse of speed, in the wrong place or at the wrong time, that can be a danger. The point is, PHers, that "speeding" is not the be all and end all of road safety. We know that. BRAKE seem to know that too, according to their web site. Maybe we are not so far apart in principle, after all. The methods, however, seem to be quite different...

Just thought it was worth adding here too!