UK resists EU road safety plans -- what's going on?
Discussion
On today's Times website:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2185685,00.html
The article also contains a very useful graph on road deaths and safety improvements across the EU, that shows that the UK improvement rate is almost the worst in Europe.
So the question is, does our government approve of ever more restrictions on drivers -- in line with the EU -- or not? And if not, can it actually hold out against an EU that is hell-bent on implementing ever more anti-car measures in the name of safety but with the real aim of restricting mobility?
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2185685,00.html
The article also contains a very useful graph on road deaths and safety improvements across the EU, that shows that the UK improvement rate is almost the worst in Europe.
The Times said:
Britain blocks EU safety move on speeding and drink-driving
By Ben Webster
The Government is accused of hypocrisy in trying to thwart measures that it has supported in public
BRITAIN is blocking pan-European road safety measures, including reducing the drink-drive limit and installing speed limiters on cars, according to leaked documents obtained by The Times.
The Department for Transport has intervened in the drafting of a landmark statement on road safety due to be agreed by European Union transport ministers in Brussels next month.
The department has deleted references to several measures it had previously claimed to support, including speed limiters, steps to reduce the number of crashes caused by elderly drivers, and systems for monitoring driver attentiveness. It has also removed a section on harmonising drink-drive laws across the EU.
Road safety groups have accused the Government of hypocrisy for publicly supporting the measures but behind the scenes seeking to undermine progress by the EU in introducing them.
The introduction to the statement, entitled Council Conclusions on Road Safety, has also been weakened at Britain’s insistence. The original version stated: “The Council of the European Union stresses the importance of the community legislation on issues of road safety where harmonised standards are desirable.”
The new version, rewritten by Britain, substitutes the word “recognises” in place of “stresses” and says that harmonised standards are “advantageous” instead of “desirable”.
In a memo to the EU council, the transport department makes clear that it is reluctant to make commitments. “We do not think it is desirable or necessary to be more specific than this about individual measures,” it states.
Britain’s intervention has angered the European Commission and several member states, including Spain and the Czech Republic, which have traditionally looked to Britain to take the lead on road safety.
The rest of Europe has lagged behind Britain in the past two decades in reducing road casualties. Britain still has the second best road-safety record, beaten only by Sweden, but progress has faltered in recent years and other countries are catching up fast.
Since 2001, Britain has had the lowest rate of reduction of road deaths among the 15 member states before EU enlargement. Deaths have fallen by only 6 per cent compared with 14 per cent across the EU 15 and 32 per cent in France.
Rob Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: “It is extremely disappointing to see the UK weakening the text when this country has always sought to be the leader.
“It seems hypocritical to try and fetter progress on issues such as speed limiters when the UK has already acknowledged that they have a role to play.”
The department is spending £2 million on trials of car speed limiters at the University of Leeds. Preliminary results show crashes involving death or serious injury fall by a fifth among drivers who have limiters fitted. A report commissioned by the department has also recommended introducing cognitive tests for drivers aged 75 and over.
Stephen Ladyman, the Road Safety Minister, who will represent Britain at next month’s meeting, has been caught speeding three times and has a passion for sports cars and powerful motorcycles. He has encouraged police and local authorities to consider alternatives to speed cameras.
But he admitted in March that Britain’s failure to reduce the death toll from drink-drive crashes might force the Government to reduce the alcohol limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to the European level of 50mg.
A department spokesman said: “We do not comment on leaks but understand this is a draft working document still under negotiation.”
So the question is, does our government approve of ever more restrictions on drivers -- in line with the EU -- or not? And if not, can it actually hold out against an EU that is hell-bent on implementing ever more anti-car measures in the name of safety but with the real aim of restricting mobility?
tigger1 said:
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
Einion Yrth said:
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
Indeed. Reducing the alcohol limit is needless. It would seem to be set at a reasonable level already.
You can't make it Zero - is it possible to check an adult who is not a teetotaller and get this reading?
Given that - all it has to do is make drunk-driving illegal. It does. Arguing about how illegal is a bit pointless.
Another point is that around Europe the penalties for DD vary considerably. In some countries (mostly the ones with a 50mg limit) you get three points and a £60 fine (equivalent) for DD - up to, say, 80mg - then the penalties scale up.
At least with our system you know where you are: You can enjoy a drink on a Friday and drive home safe in the knowledge that you will be legal. Have two drinks and, if caught, your life will be made shit for years.
Very little graduation in punishment - but hey - if it keeps people to just the one whilst allowing British culture to persist I'm happy with it.
Einion Yrth said:First we need to know how many crashes involving drivers over the current limit were caused by those just over, and those well over. What they are I have absolutely no idea.
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
If they decided to adopt the european limit, and that limit = half a pint, and that was widly advertised to the general public, it might make a number of drivers think a little harder before having a "couple of pints" before driving home, and it just may reduce a number of accidents, all speculation of course. Although we currently still have a number of accidents attributed to drink, I dont recall any current adverstising campaign, however we do see absolutely loads of ads on TV for either "If theres blame, theres a claim", and all those irritating "Consolidate all your debt" type of things.
Furthermore I think they need to increase the penalities for those caught over the current limit.
Rome wasnt built in a day, every little bit helps though.
Have a nice day
Can we have some motorway tuition and higher motorway speed limits as per other parts of the EU please?Einion Yrth said:
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
Quite.
This is typical of a ruling that "seems to make sense" when you don't apply any thought to the reality of a situation.
In my view the current drink drive limit is fine. I've never had a problem having one pint before driving. I'm sure that driving whilst tired or on illegal drugs is more of an issue.
Anyway the real problem, whether its drunk/drug driving is that IT'S RARELY ENFORCED (where I live anyway). I'm so tired of people just constantly calling for tougher penalties hoping that will solve a problem. It won't. It's increased enforcement that will help.
Anyway the real problem, whether its drunk/drug driving is that IT'S RARELY ENFORCED (where I live anyway). I'm so tired of people just constantly calling for tougher penalties hoping that will solve a problem. It won't. It's increased enforcement that will help.
Indeed. You can have the most draconian punishments in the world for DD, however if the only method of traffic enforcement is a bright yellow box, it hardly merits consideration does it......
Personally I don't think one pint affects many people enough to prevent them driving safely, there are plenty out there who don't drink at all and are f****ng hopeless on the roads.....
Personally I don't think one pint affects many people enough to prevent them driving safely, there are plenty out there who don't drink at all and are f****ng hopeless on the roads.....
countryboy said:
In my view the current drink drive limit is fine. I've never had a problem having one pint before driving. I'm sure that driving whilst tired or on illegal drugs is more of an issue.....
But illegal drugs are harder to test for than alcohol. It's a bit like speeding vs dangerous driving, isn't it? Measure what you can rather than what's important.
Einion Yrth said:
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
Now done with reasonable success in Germany, they reduced from 0,8 to 0,5 parts per thousand, and it scares people into not drinking at all..... even the half pinters don't any more IMO
The alcoholics are NOT being caught though as they're not in the UK!!!
Einion Yrth said:
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
I'd love to see you back this up with some stats - makes a mockery of all those ad's about "not having another pint" and so on if you're right. Sadly though, I think your not. I think far too many people will chance it on two or three, assuming that so long as they don't get caught it was ok. Allowing us to have one beer legally puts people in the position of being tempted to have another, if we reduce the limit to 50mg then we all know that one is pushing our luck legally, and although the chances of being pulled specifically for DD is slim, if you did have a prang / pulled speeding etc then you'd be right royally rogered.
Yes, people getting caught DD ruins lives...sadly too often its the families of those killed that are ruined.
tigger1 said:
I'd love to see you back this up with some stats - makes a mockery of all those ad's about "not having another pint" and so on if you're right. Sadly though, I think your not. I think far too many people will chance it on two or three, assuming that so long as they don't get caught it was ok. Allowing us to have one beer legally puts people in the position of being tempted to have another, if we reduce the limit to 50mg then we all know that one is pushing our luck legally, and although the chances of being pulled specifically for DD is slim, if you did have a prang / pulled speeding etc then you'd be right royally rogered.
Yes, people getting caught DD ruins lives...sadly too often its the families of those killed that are ruined.
Again, people chance it on 2 or 3 pints because of the lack of enforcement, not because the current legal limit is one pint.
tigger1 said:
Reducing the alcohol limit is a good idea.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be true, how can you reduce the number of crashes caused by people over the blood alcohol limit by reducing that limit? Most such crashes are caused by people who are way in excess of the current limit anyway, it's a nonsense.
I'd love to see you back this up with some stats - makes a mockery of all those ad's about "not having another pint" and so on if you're right. Sadly though, I think your not. I think far too many people will chance it on two or three, assuming that so long as they don't get caught it was ok. Allowing us to have one beer legally puts people in the position of being tempted to have another, if we reduce the limit to 50mg then we all know that one is pushing our luck legally, and although the chances of being pulled specifically for DD is slim, if you did have a prang / pulled speeding etc then you'd be right royally rogered.
Yes, people getting caught DD ruins lives...sadly too often its the families of those killed that are ruined.
This is nonsense. You could just as easily say that allowing us to have a half pint puts people in the position of being tempted to have another. We know that having more than a pint is pushing our luck legally now, what changes?
Try a bit of logic next time.
Trafpol, WTF are those...and they are going to get rid of 25000 police according to the Beeb website this morning.....and possibly replace them with Community service peeps.... This government is REALLY MENTAL....!!!!!!!
"Hard on Crime and hard on the causes of crime" I seem to remember weasel phony tony repeating ad nauseum.....
"Hard on Crime and hard on the causes of crime" I seem to remember weasel phony tony repeating ad nauseum.....
I mentioned this just this morning to the other half. Heard the latest radio ad about drug-driving, the focus being that if you get caught, your life will be screwed.
Why not focus on the fact that drug-driving is a fecking stupid thing to do that could kill you and destroy families?
An accident whilst drinking under the influence is extremely likely, getting caught is not.
Why not focus on the fact that drug-driving is a fecking stupid thing to do that could kill you and destroy families?
An accident whilst drinking under the influence is extremely likely, getting caught is not.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff