Daily Politics 11:40
Discussion
ricardo g said:
What did you think then? Thought it was quite a good wee section, compared to a lot of the crap that has been going about lately!
I agree. I think it helped that they had a spokesperson from RoadPeace instead of the more zealous BRAKE.
Mark McArthur-Christie gave one of the best interviews I've seen him give.
I even agreed with most of the things the RoadPeace spokesperson said, apart from her incorrect assumption that speed limits are set by experts.
The final question from the interviewer led to a breath of fresh air. The question was "What one thing is the most important to furthering road safety" (or words to that effect). The response from RoadPeace was more Trafpol to catch dangerous drivers. The ABD's answer was more education. No mention of speed from either side.
pmanson said:
Back on again!
Yep! Showing the general public's ill feeling toward motorist persecution by scameras and further taxation.
They also showed the inside of a Talivan briefly. The operator claimed they catch 20 people on average in 2 hours (TVP). Sounds like a slightly massaged figure to me...
The spokesperson from TVP also neatly sidestepped the question as to whether more Scameras result in less trafpol by stating that there needs to be a balance
. He did make one more interesting statement - of the 320 camera sites in TVP's area, there are only 20 fixed cameras and 15 mobile vans.
Interesting that they should involve Roadpeace in this rather than BRAKE - let's face it, Mary Williams has been popping up all over the place lately, so why not on this programme too? Do you think this "death threat" fiasco has resulted in people viewing BRAKE in a slightly different light?
Personally, I'd have no trouble backing a road safety organisation (not necessarily Roadpeace, as I know very little about them) if they were calling for better policing, sensible enforcement, better education of all road users and a reasoned debate about cameras, as that's what most of the people here want too.
Be difficult for the likes of BRAKE and T2000 to smear groups like the ABD or websites such as PH and Safespeed if there was sensible, rational cooperation and discussion with road safety groups of the less hysterical variety.
Personally, I'd have no trouble backing a road safety organisation (not necessarily Roadpeace, as I know very little about them) if they were calling for better policing, sensible enforcement, better education of all road users and a reasoned debate about cameras, as that's what most of the people here want too.
Be difficult for the likes of BRAKE and T2000 to smear groups like the ABD or websites such as PH and Safespeed if there was sensible, rational cooperation and discussion with road safety groups of the less hysterical variety.
hornet said:
Personally, I'd have no trouble backing a road safety organisation (not necessarily Roadpeace, as I know very little about them) if they were calling for better policing, sensible enforcement, better education of all road users and a reasoned debate about cameras, as that's what most of the people here want too.
I reckon you'd have most of PH agreeing with you on that.
PetrolTed said:
A fine point. People seem to think that drivers and drivers' groups are anti road safety. It's a ludicrous point of view. Everyone wants safer roads.
I agree.
Ted, certainly from my brief stint at trawling around the RoadPeace website they appear to be one of the least focused on speeding of all the road safety campaigners I've come across. So, what would be the possibility of PistonHeads approaching RoadPeace to look at getting some interaction between the two organisations? Might work well for both sides.
Alternatively, if Paul Smith's out there, what about a link up between RoadPeace and SafeSpeed?
From the site.....
As a minimum, we would like to see:
Real Government leadership on this issue. Policies must reflect both the road danger and casualty reduction imperative as well as the wider health, environmental and social benefits of reduced speeds. This will require much more effective joined-up government action than in the past, with commitment of ministers from areas such as health, education, employment, environment, urban and rural affairs, working together to make our streets safer.
A review of speed limits across the country, to introduce speed limits which are appropriate for each road. We expect that this would confirm 30mph limits in villages and much wider use of 20mph limits e.g. in residential areas, around schools, on main shopping streets. We would also expect to see significant reductions in the speed limits on a very large number of our rural roads through a lowering of national limits and the re-assignment of roads according to a new rural road hierarchy.
Enforcement of speed limits given a much higher priority e.g. through the use of cameras, more resources for the traffic police, and more frequent and stiffer penalties for speeding offences, to act as a deterrent.
Collection of statistics, which would accurately reflect the true level of death and injury on our roads.
A recognition of the fact of death or injury in the charges brought against a driver responsible for road death or injury.
Increased funding for well-designed traffic calming in town and country and pedestrian priority schemes which take into account the needs of all pedestrians and cyclists, as well as for measures such as safer routes to school and workplace travel plans which reduce overall traffic levels.
Government taking a lead on changing attitudes to dangerous driving (in particular to speed) and more generally to over-dependence on cars, e.g. by making substantial revenue funding available for local and national awareness campaigns on these issues.
It has been suggested that motorists will object to efforts to reduce traffic speeds. What this line of argument forgets is that motorists are also parents, residents, cyclists and pedestrians. Indeed measures to reduce speeds on the rural road network will especially benefit motorists and passengers , who make up the biggest proportion of fatalities, and where progress in reducing casualties has been slowest .
They did speak sense on the interview though!
As a minimum, we would like to see:
Real Government leadership on this issue. Policies must reflect both the road danger and casualty reduction imperative as well as the wider health, environmental and social benefits of reduced speeds. This will require much more effective joined-up government action than in the past, with commitment of ministers from areas such as health, education, employment, environment, urban and rural affairs, working together to make our streets safer.
A review of speed limits across the country, to introduce speed limits which are appropriate for each road. We expect that this would confirm 30mph limits in villages and much wider use of 20mph limits e.g. in residential areas, around schools, on main shopping streets. We would also expect to see significant reductions in the speed limits on a very large number of our rural roads through a lowering of national limits and the re-assignment of roads according to a new rural road hierarchy.
Enforcement of speed limits given a much higher priority e.g. through the use of cameras, more resources for the traffic police, and more frequent and stiffer penalties for speeding offences, to act as a deterrent.
Collection of statistics, which would accurately reflect the true level of death and injury on our roads.
A recognition of the fact of death or injury in the charges brought against a driver responsible for road death or injury.
Increased funding for well-designed traffic calming in town and country and pedestrian priority schemes which take into account the needs of all pedestrians and cyclists, as well as for measures such as safer routes to school and workplace travel plans which reduce overall traffic levels.
Government taking a lead on changing attitudes to dangerous driving (in particular to speed) and more generally to over-dependence on cars, e.g. by making substantial revenue funding available for local and national awareness campaigns on these issues.
It has been suggested that motorists will object to efforts to reduce traffic speeds. What this line of argument forgets is that motorists are also parents, residents, cyclists and pedestrians. Indeed measures to reduce speeds on the rural road network will especially benefit motorists and passengers , who make up the biggest proportion of fatalities, and where progress in reducing casualties has been slowest .
They did speak sense on the interview though!
/quote Interesting that they should involve Roadpeace in this rather than BRAKE - let's face it, Mary Williams has been popping up all over the place lately, so why not on this programme too? Do you think this "death threat" fiasco has resulted in people viewing BRAKE in a slightly different light? /quote
That is because BRAKE are heavily involved in the PR side of things - maybe even they realise they've gone over the top - doubtful having met some of them, but maybe they'd like to rethink certain aspects of their crusade, it would certainly be more constructive to have a decent dialogue regarding road safety rather than the ranting and raving we've had recently..
That is because BRAKE are heavily involved in the PR side of things - maybe even they realise they've gone over the top - doubtful having met some of them, but maybe they'd like to rethink certain aspects of their crusade, it would certainly be more constructive to have a decent dialogue regarding road safety rather than the ranting and raving we've had recently..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff