Britain is lagging behind Europe...
Discussion
More and more articles in the press criticising the current road safety policy in the UK. Are we gradually building up to a crescendo that will force them to come clean and rethink their approach? Damned well hope so....
Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting deaths on the road'
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths despite claims by the Government that the roads are safer, a survey has found.
Deaths on British roads have fallen by 7 per cent in the past 5 years, compared with a 35 per cent drop in France and 25 per cent in Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands. Britain lies with Slovakia and Poland near the bottom of the table of European Union states, compiled by the European Transport Safety Council, a Brussels-based campaign group.
The Government claims that it is on course to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.
But ministers say that they are reporting an improving trend because police are recording fewer serious injuries.
A study published in the British Medical Journal questioned the validity of the police figures by comparing them with hospital admissions, which show that road crash injuries have hardly changed since 1996.
The study concluded that the Government’s claim that the road casualty rate was falling “probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries”.
The number of traffic police in Britain has fallen by 16 per cent in the past decade. With forces relying on speed cameras rather than patrols to keep roads safe, there are fewer police on the roads to attend crash scenes and file reports.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We know there is some level of under reporting and we are taking a thorough look at why there appears to be a discrepancy between the figures.”
He said that France had a better record of cutting road deaths because it was starting from a higher level. France had 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared with 5.6 in Britain.
But the council said that Sweden and the Netherlands, which had similar road death rates to Britain five years ago, had improved.
A spokeswoman said: “The UK used to be number one in Europe on road safety but has been overtaken. There is a lot more the UK could be doing, especially on drink-driving.”
There were 520 deaths in drink-drive crashes in Britain in 2004, up from 410 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of roadside breath tests carried out by police fell from 816,000 to 578,000.
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting deaths on the road'
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths despite claims by the Government that the roads are safer, a survey has found.
Deaths on British roads have fallen by 7 per cent in the past 5 years, compared with a 35 per cent drop in France and 25 per cent in Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands. Britain lies with Slovakia and Poland near the bottom of the table of European Union states, compiled by the European Transport Safety Council, a Brussels-based campaign group.
The Government claims that it is on course to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.
But ministers say that they are reporting an improving trend because police are recording fewer serious injuries.
A study published in the British Medical Journal questioned the validity of the police figures by comparing them with hospital admissions, which show that road crash injuries have hardly changed since 1996.
The study concluded that the Government’s claim that the road casualty rate was falling “probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries”.
The number of traffic police in Britain has fallen by 16 per cent in the past decade. With forces relying on speed cameras rather than patrols to keep roads safe, there are fewer police on the roads to attend crash scenes and file reports.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We know there is some level of under reporting and we are taking a thorough look at why there appears to be a discrepancy between the figures.”
He said that France had a better record of cutting road deaths because it was starting from a higher level. France had 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared with 5.6 in Britain.
But the council said that Sweden and the Netherlands, which had similar road death rates to Britain five years ago, had improved.
A spokeswoman said: “The UK used to be number one in Europe on road safety but has been overtaken. There is a lot more the UK could be doing, especially on drink-driving.”
There were 520 deaths in drink-drive crashes in Britain in 2004, up from 410 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of roadside breath tests carried out by police fell from 816,000 to 578,000.
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
No - we're still ahead on the number of cameras though the French are working hard at catching up. Prime minister here has just announced another 500 fixed cameras to be fitted and they're using a new model from Sagem that is smaller, harder to see, more efficient, etc. They're also taking a leaf out of the UK Gatso book and fitting dummy cameras that may or may not have a mechanism in them....
Land of liberty indeed....
Land of liberty indeed....
nel said:
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
This comes up every few months here.
Basically, it is not feasible. There is no advantage
to reducing the limit because there are very few drivers in
the gap between 50mg and 80 mg.
Would it also be the case that if the drink drive limit
goes down from 80mg to 50mg, then the punishment goes down ?
In France, if you are caught just above their low limit,
you only get fined at the roadside. No points, no DD conviction.
dcb said:
This comes up every few months here.
Basically, it is not feasible. There is no advantage
to reducing the limit because there are very few drivers in
the gap between 50mg and 80 mg.
Would it also be the case that if the drink drive limit
goes down from 80mg to 50mg, then the punishment goes down ?
In France, if you are caught just above their low limit,
you only get fined at the roadside. No points, no DD conviction.
Yes, but think of all the cameras they could install to catch all the drivers with the lower levels .... er, oh, hmm, may need some people to do that.
Apart from the Swedish attitude to DUI (it seems to be a hanging offence as I read it) there is always the possibility that both Sweden and Holland, the only 2 european countries apparently with the same low rate that the UK enjoys, are also fudging their numbers.
I have not been to either place for a few years but much of Sweden is unlike anything in the UK for traffic density and has very different driving conditions for much of the year. The vehicle stock also used to be loaded with models that offered more occupant safety than would be available typical in other countries. This may have balanced out by now.
Holland seems to have been hell bent on making as many roads as possible single lanes in each direction with no overtaking possibilities. They have also been quite active I believe in managing young people's attitude to the roads, both as vehicle user and pedestrians.
If the youth of UK are expected to wait an extra year before getting behind the wheel will it work?
Will it simply mean more unlicenced and uninsured drivers?
More deaths and injuries for those constrained to mopeds and scooters to get to college or work?
Or perhaps just defer the problem of inexperience for a year?
According to the figures in the annual reports the involvement of young drivers in injury accidents (17-20) has been falling year on year but not by the same percentage as it has for the late 20's and early 30's. However the rate if improvement is greater than for some of the older ages.
What the figures I have cannot tell us is the proportions based on the number of people holding licences for each age. I don't have those numbers. Moreover we are very unlikely to know how many of the licence holders are active drivers. for instance my daughters have both held full licences from age 17 and drive around 8-10k miles each year. But I know they have friends who have held licences for about the same time and hardly ever get behind the wheel. So trying to assess the level of experience of a driver is not easy at all. Which makes the figures extremely difficult to interpret with any certainty of realism.
In simple terms most young people, as I suspect we older ones remember from our younger days, are not good risk assessors for a number of reasons. Partly because they have not usually gained the experience and partly because that phase of personality development will tend to minimise risks, something that humans (and many other creatures) have needed for survival of the species, or at least the tribe or group, in the past.
Give the average 17 years old male full risk assessment capabilites and you would have no Army to speak of over night. There must be many more examples.
If an individual's propensity to take ill-considered risks are managed by some form of legal constraint they will either find alternative approaches or move the problem elsewhere. We might just move the problem off the roads and see the same number or death and injuries spread elsewhere where it more difficult to measure. (Or in the case of the Armed forces can simply be hidden ....). Discontent with 'society', a normal state for youth in my experience, might lead to aggressive driving or perhaps in much more extreme cases things like suicide bombings. (Or any number of other things the the general public might find threatening and worthy of restictions.) Shifting the problem elsewhere with possibly greater and wider impact on the public might not really improve things.
Still, the government and its agencies are all keen to tell us that we the public 'get what we ask for'. Whether what we ask for is based on real information that we have the skills, en masse, to interpret correctly is a question yet to be answered.
Two PRs that Safe Speed issued yesterday are relevant:
PR400: Young driver proposals miss the point says Safe Speed
news: for immediate release
In the news today are calls for further restrictions on young drivers,
including a 'limited' system of graduated licencing and a proposal to raise the
minimum driving age to 18.
Safe Speed says these proposal misunderstand the nature of the problem. Road
safety is about skills, attitudes and personal responsibility. Restrictions and
regulations have limited effects partly because the most dangerous groups will
continue to ignore them - but worse than that - the numbers working outside the
system will increase.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "We have massive problems with unlicenced and
uninsured drivers. Raising the age bar will simply mean more young people
sneaking underneath. Many of the problems come from groups working far outside
legal norms anyway, so the last thing we should be doing is making those groups
bigger."
"We need to build an inclusive system that welcomes young drivers in and gets
them properly skilled as quickly as possible. We should start by adding road
safety 'skills and responsibilities' classes to citizenship courses in schools.
We need to make it clear that a driving test pass is just the first rung on the
ladder of a driving career - not the end of learning."
"And we need effective roads Policing to deal with the minority groups who
won't observe basic standards of safety and regulation."
"At the moment road safety is caught in a spiral of 'regulate everything', but
the results prove that these ideas don't work. Of course they don't work - we
need to build risk management skills and we're not doing it. Road safety is
already massively dependent on the quality of all our road users as skilled
risk managers. But under an onslaught of regulation we're getting worse at
managing risk."
In terms of improving skills, we need to focus on the 'thinking skills'
described so eloquently in Stephen Haley's recently published book: "MIND
DRIVING". And we're not doing that at all.
If we're going to make our roads safer policies need to be 'psychologically
sound' and evidence based. We're getting precious little of either because our
road safety establishment is regulation obsessed.
<ends>
PR401: Road Safety: Britain lags Europe
news: for immediate release
The Times today reports that Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting
deaths on the road'. Safe Speed says of course we are. Policy is to blame.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I have been highlighting these problems for
years. I know what's wrong. Policy doesn't value the things that matter and
over-values things that matter less."
"Much of our bad policy is founded on speed cameras and the beliefs that go
with them."
"We won't get back on track while a single speed camera remains on our roads."
"The only place for speed cameras is in the history books."
<ends>
PR400: Young driver proposals miss the point says Safe Speed
news: for immediate release
In the news today are calls for further restrictions on young drivers,
including a 'limited' system of graduated licencing and a proposal to raise the
minimum driving age to 18.
Safe Speed says these proposal misunderstand the nature of the problem. Road
safety is about skills, attitudes and personal responsibility. Restrictions and
regulations have limited effects partly because the most dangerous groups will
continue to ignore them - but worse than that - the numbers working outside the
system will increase.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "We have massive problems with unlicenced and
uninsured drivers. Raising the age bar will simply mean more young people
sneaking underneath. Many of the problems come from groups working far outside
legal norms anyway, so the last thing we should be doing is making those groups
bigger."
"We need to build an inclusive system that welcomes young drivers in and gets
them properly skilled as quickly as possible. We should start by adding road
safety 'skills and responsibilities' classes to citizenship courses in schools.
We need to make it clear that a driving test pass is just the first rung on the
ladder of a driving career - not the end of learning."
"And we need effective roads Policing to deal with the minority groups who
won't observe basic standards of safety and regulation."
"At the moment road safety is caught in a spiral of 'regulate everything', but
the results prove that these ideas don't work. Of course they don't work - we
need to build risk management skills and we're not doing it. Road safety is
already massively dependent on the quality of all our road users as skilled
risk managers. But under an onslaught of regulation we're getting worse at
managing risk."
In terms of improving skills, we need to focus on the 'thinking skills'
described so eloquently in Stephen Haley's recently published book: "MIND
DRIVING". And we're not doing that at all.
If we're going to make our roads safer policies need to be 'psychologically
sound' and evidence based. We're getting precious little of either because our
road safety establishment is regulation obsessed.
<ends>
PR401: Road Safety: Britain lags Europe
news: for immediate release
The Times today reports that Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting
deaths on the road'. Safe Speed says of course we are. Policy is to blame.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I have been highlighting these problems for
years. I know what's wrong. Policy doesn't value the things that matter and
over-values things that matter less."
"Much of our bad policy is founded on speed cameras and the beliefs that go
with them."
"We won't get back on track while a single speed camera remains on our roads."
"The only place for speed cameras is in the history books."
<ends>
LongQ said:
I have not been to either place for a few years but much of Sweden is unlike anything in the UK for traffic density and has very different driving conditions for much of the year. The vehicle stock also used to be loaded with models that offered more occupant safety than would be available typical in other countries. This may have balanced out by now.
Re vehicle stock the domestic manufacturers no longer have the market share they did.
Re traffic density , outside cities agreed.
They have been bitten by the camera bug and you get pinged for only a few kph over the limit. Be interesting to see the statistics ongoing as historically they have been far more rigorous in data integrity from what I understand.
What they do differently from us is firstly maintain the roads better.
Also where a single carriageway road has a bad history they have been installing the EU dual 2+1 design fairly extensively, ie two lanes one way one lane the other. Every 1.5 miles or so, unless topography suggests a different layout, the central barrier shifts offset so that traffic in opposite direction gets the two lane stretch. You no longer get the crazy overtakes because drivers know they will get a clear safe opportunity in another mile and a bit. Many roads now being converted, but one I travel regularly before the conversion was known by locals as "The Road of Death." Since the modification there has not been one single serious collision. On top of that the speed limit on that stretch of road went up. Yes you did read that correctly the limit went up.
Also if they have a problem junction they engineer a solution, not just stick a camera in, though now they are tasting the revenue that might change.
Add in bulding of motorways to bypass sections where traffic and collision rates are not good. eg E4 Uppsala > Mehedby, E20 Jönköping > Göteborg.
To sum up an approach which is not the one note samba played by UK powers that be.
safespeed said:
"We won't get back on track while a single speed camera remains on our roads."
"The only place for speed cameras is in the history books."
"The only place for speed cameras is in the history books."
I do appreciate your perspective on this, but if I may suggest that leaving out this sort of sentence might get your message across to those who are not 100% sure about speed cameras, but sort of like the idea.
Most people, even those of us who don't like speed cameras, will feel that some of them are well situated.
nel said:
More and more articles in the press criticising the current road safety policy in the UK. Are we gradually building up to a crescendo that will force them to come clean and rethink their approach? Damned well hope so....
Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting deaths on the road'
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths despite claims by the Government that the roads are safer, a survey has found.
Deaths on British roads have fallen by 7 per cent in the past 5 years, compared with a 35 per cent drop in France and 25 per cent in Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands. Britain lies with Slovakia and Poland near the bottom of the table of European Union states, compiled by the European Transport Safety Council, a Brussels-based campaign group.
The Government claims that it is on course to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.
But ministers say that they are reporting an improving trend because police are recording fewer serious injuries.
A study published in the British Medical Journal questioned the validity of the police figures by comparing them with hospital admissions, which show that road crash injuries have hardly changed since 1996.
The study concluded that the Government’s claim that the road casualty rate was falling “probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries”.
The number of traffic police in Britain has fallen by 16 per cent in the past decade. With forces relying on speed cameras rather than patrols to keep roads safe, there are fewer police on the roads to attend crash scenes and file reports.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We know there is some level of under reporting and we are taking a thorough look at why there appears to be a discrepancy between the figures.”
He said that France had a better record of cutting road deaths because it was starting from a higher level. France had 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared with 5.6 in Britain.
But the council said that Sweden and the Netherlands, which had similar road death rates to Britain five years ago, had improved.
A spokeswoman said: “The UK used to be number one in Europe on road safety but has been overtaken. There is a lot more the UK could be doing, especially on drink-driving.”
There were 520 deaths in drink-drive crashes in Britain in 2004, up from 410 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of roadside breath tests carried out by police fell from 816,000 to 578,000.
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting deaths on the road'
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths despite claims by the Government that the roads are safer, a survey has found.
Deaths on British roads have fallen by 7 per cent in the past 5 years, compared with a 35 per cent drop in France and 25 per cent in Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands. Britain lies with Slovakia and Poland near the bottom of the table of European Union states, compiled by the European Transport Safety Council, a Brussels-based campaign group.
The Government claims that it is on course to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.
But ministers say that they are reporting an improving trend because police are recording fewer serious injuries.
A study published in the British Medical Journal questioned the validity of the police figures by comparing them with hospital admissions, which show that road crash injuries have hardly changed since 1996.
The study concluded that the Government’s claim that the road casualty rate was falling “probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries”.
The number of traffic police in Britain has fallen by 16 per cent in the past decade. With forces relying on speed cameras rather than patrols to keep roads safe, there are fewer police on the roads to attend crash scenes and file reports.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We know there is some level of under reporting and we are taking a thorough look at why there appears to be a discrepancy between the figures.”
He said that France had a better record of cutting road deaths because it was starting from a higher level. France had 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared with 5.6 in Britain.
But the council said that Sweden and the Netherlands, which had similar road death rates to Britain five years ago, had improved.
A spokeswoman said: “The UK used to be number one in Europe on road safety but has been overtaken. There is a lot more the UK could be doing, especially on drink-driving.”
There were 520 deaths in drink-drive crashes in Britain in 2004, up from 410 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of roadside breath tests carried out by police fell from 816,000 to 578,000.
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
Are you surprised that the country with the safest roads already (low numbers of deaths per head of population & km travelled) doesn't have the biggest reductions ?
I'm not.
Europe is pushing the way for the future alright.
Here it is.
www.etsc.be/documents/ISA%20Myths.pdf
The last time I looked at the Road Safety Bill, the latest proposal for the drink drive limit was to lower it from 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath to 22.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 8th November 17:44
vonhosen said:
Are you surprised that the country with the safest roads already (low numbers of deaths per head of population & km travelled) doesn't have the biggest reductions ?
I'm not.
I'm not.
You should be. Reductions expressed in percentages have the 'law of diminishing returns' built right in.
If the factors that made us safest were still present we'd still be right up there. I am 100% certain of it, and believe me, I've studied the subject.
jasandjules said:
safespeed said:
"We won't get back on track while a single speed camera remains on our roads."
"The only place for speed cameras is in the history books."
"The only place for speed cameras is in the history books."
I do appreciate your perspective on this, but if I may suggest that leaving out this sort of sentence might get your message across to those who are not 100% sure about speed cameras, but sort of like the idea.
Most people, even those of us who don't like speed cameras, will feel that some of them are well situated.
No compromise on safety and truth from the Safe Speed campaign. We don't do 'acceptable'. We do 'right'.
DfT must lead the way by admitting how wrong they have been. I won't rest until they do.
Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 8th November 18:42
vonhosen said:
Spending a fortune, making it worse and talking bollox all at once. Quite a score.
Still, the failure of present policy has become undeniable, so there's plenty of reason to hope that sense will prevail before ISA zombies start killing us.
safespeed said:
No compromise on safety and truth from the Safe Speed campaign. We don't do 'acceptable'. We do 'right'.
Again, I see what you are saying, BUT, as a person who hates speed cameras per se, I still think, why don't we have one along our village road where I walk my dog and people drive at 40-50mph whilst the kids are unloading from the bus... There are houses on both sides, and cats and dogs run the risk daily too..
Now, if I see them on a 50mph DC I know they are tax collectors.
SO, from my perspective, as one who firmly believes speed cameras are a tax collection tool, I still see there are times when they MAY be useful. I do accept fully that one ought to be concentrating on the hazards over and above the speedo, BUT, when the drivers are going at 50 or so down this kind of road, it strikes me as suicidal and homocidal.
Therefore, I don't think ALL speed cameras ought to be removed, and along the same lines I rather suspect it dilutes the otherwise valuable message you are sending out. It just seems that by taking a more realistic line you can get more people to realise that speed cameras alone are not the answer (certainly when they are on the motorway etc..) and perhaps prevent some of those who are against you/us from scoring points.. If your position was MOST/Many speed cameras are wrongly sited, have no realistic reduction on KSI's etc.. such as on DCs, Motorways etc.. then I think you will get more support from some people who may not otherwise do so. At the end of the day, preaching for NO Speed Cameras does make you sound a little bit tooooooo harsh.
Better to argue for a position which is achievable IMHO and to gain some support which otherwise would be lost.
vonhosen said:
nel said:
More and more articles in the press criticising the current road safety policy in the UK. Are we gradually building up to a crescendo that will force them to come clean and rethink their approach? Damned well hope so....
Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting deaths on the road'
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths despite claims by the Government that the roads are safer, a survey has found.
Deaths on British roads have fallen by 7 per cent in the past 5 years, compared with a 35 per cent drop in France and 25 per cent in Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands. Britain lies with Slovakia and Poland near the bottom of the table of European Union states, compiled by the European Transport Safety Council, a Brussels-based campaign group.
The Government claims that it is on course to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.
But ministers say that they are reporting an improving trend because police are recording fewer serious injuries.
A study published in the British Medical Journal questioned the validity of the police figures by comparing them with hospital admissions, which show that road crash injuries have hardly changed since 1996.
The study concluded that the Government’s claim that the road casualty rate was falling “probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries”.
The number of traffic police in Britain has fallen by 16 per cent in the past decade. With forces relying on speed cameras rather than patrols to keep roads safe, there are fewer police on the roads to attend crash scenes and file reports.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We know there is some level of under reporting and we are taking a thorough look at why there appears to be a discrepancy between the figures.”
He said that France had a better record of cutting road deaths because it was starting from a higher level. France had 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared with 5.6 in Britain.
But the council said that Sweden and the Netherlands, which had similar road death rates to Britain five years ago, had improved.
A spokeswoman said: “The UK used to be number one in Europe on road safety but has been overtaken. There is a lot more the UK could be doing, especially on drink-driving.”
There were 520 deaths in drink-drive crashes in Britain in 2004, up from 410 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of roadside breath tests carried out by police fell from 816,000 to 578,000.
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
Britain is 'lagging behind Europe in cutting deaths on the road'
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths despite claims by the Government that the roads are safer, a survey has found.
Deaths on British roads have fallen by 7 per cent in the past 5 years, compared with a 35 per cent drop in France and 25 per cent in Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands. Britain lies with Slovakia and Poland near the bottom of the table of European Union states, compiled by the European Transport Safety Council, a Brussels-based campaign group.
The Government claims that it is on course to reach its target of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.
But ministers say that they are reporting an improving trend because police are recording fewer serious injuries.
A study published in the British Medical Journal questioned the validity of the police figures by comparing them with hospital admissions, which show that road crash injuries have hardly changed since 1996.
The study concluded that the Government’s claim that the road casualty rate was falling “probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries”.
The number of traffic police in Britain has fallen by 16 per cent in the past decade. With forces relying on speed cameras rather than patrols to keep roads safe, there are fewer police on the roads to attend crash scenes and file reports.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We know there is some level of under reporting and we are taking a thorough look at why there appears to be a discrepancy between the figures.”
He said that France had a better record of cutting road deaths because it was starting from a higher level. France had 9.2 road deaths per 100,000 people in 2004 compared with 5.6 in Britain.
But the council said that Sweden and the Netherlands, which had similar road death rates to Britain five years ago, had improved.
A spokeswoman said: “The UK used to be number one in Europe on road safety but has been overtaken. There is a lot more the UK could be doing, especially on drink-driving.”
There were 520 deaths in drink-drive crashes in Britain in 2004, up from 410 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of roadside breath tests carried out by police fell from 816,000 to 578,000.
The council said that Britain should lower its drink-drive limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 20mg for young drivers and a 50mg for all other drivers.
Are you surprised that the country with the safest roads already (low numbers of deaths per head of population & km travelled) doesn't have the biggest reductions ?
I'm not.
Europe is pushing the way for the future alright.
Here it is.
www.etsc.be/documents/ISA%20Myths.pdf
The last time I looked at the Road Safety Bill, the latest proposal for the drink drive limit was to lower it from 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath to 22.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 8th November 17:44
Per opinion polls across EU via websites, newspapers und various polls.. population NOT AT ALL keen on ISA. Besides - we need to know how to control und not allow selves to be controlled by a gadget.
Reliance on gadgets.. we lose the skills und this undermines all human endeavour, skill, achievment und independence und responsility as mature und intelligent beings
GPS can still lose a car.. und some static or sun storms can cause a slight "misread" und disturbance ..
This stuff ist not foolproof.. nothing ist perfect und gadgets do malfunction too.. we had a rogue "origin" which the manufacturers eventually replaced completely. und we have one RA which sees a handdrier everywhere - und ist a new doo-dah... so ist being replaced under guarantee 
So given this und the problems with the blind faith in Sat Nav systems as well .. I do not rate a gadget above my own common sense und nor should any human being worthy of considering themselcves informed und intelligent France may have gone scam route.. but BOF! .. they have stunts which make le bon capitaine appear a mere amateur
. However, the French "pièces de réstistance" apart
... they also more than doubled number of real "flics" to cop the drunks, red light jumpers und non-wearers of le seatbelt. UK stats are static.. not changing und they are not set in stone nor accurate either since far too many other equally official government/insurance/police/ hospital etc sets of figures (which all feed to Nat Stat Office but appear buried in other data
) do contradict the rather complacent ststs regarding "speed cam save life" dogma By the way.. Mad Doc und chums do see provide these figures on NHS perfomances.. und the admissions to A&E do not stack up with any speed cam prat claims.
The best one to date has to be Cambs.. which claimed 400 died at one spot on a day in history over 3 years.. only no one was held up on that road und the medics at the party we attended on that particular date in history were never called away to attend to hundreds of casualties in the local hospitals either. Yet this figure was bandied around on the web site to justify a revenue raising exercise
One untruth like that - which can prove as one from being present on that road - at that site - on the date in question every year for over 20 years .. you cannot believe anything they say thereafter
Drinkwise.. you can be fined for lower levels of booze but bans start at same level as UK - which ist same as USA und Canada.. ist a global limit set at common lowest denominator for point at which the booze really start to fuddle brain und also take into accoutn some biochemical reactions und we know of one case where woman test positive on a routine breath test .. but blood sample found her to have been addicted to pickles und vinegar as her blood contained a high amount of acetic acid.
- but her breath was "pickled"! und the breath doo-dah got confused Ist also a matter of individual tolerances as well. Mad Doc has already explained on this site und on Paul's site how booze und drugs affect brain und body in the past und lieber IG explain from police point of view too ...
For record - there ist a forensic test them toppest scientists like us
can do on a hair follicle - any hair follicle - und this will tell us very accurately what substances were taken und when ..und unlike breath und blood .. this ist more than just "ephemeral" - this very specialised forensic test can establish to some extent excatly when und how much booze consumed up to 4 months later jasandjules said:
safespeed said:
No compromise on safety and truth from the Safe Speed campaign. We don't do 'acceptable'. We do 'right'.
Again, I see what you are saying, BUT, as a person who hates speed cameras per se, I still think, why don't we have one along our village road where I walk my dog and people drive at 40-50mph whilst the kids are unloading from the bus... There are houses on both sides, and cats and dogs run the risk daily too..
Now, if I see them on a 50mph DC I know they are tax collectors.
SO, from my perspective, as one who firmly believes speed cameras are a tax collection tool, I still see there are times when they MAY be useful. I do accept fully that one ought to be concentrating on the hazards over and above the speedo, BUT, when the drivers are going at 50 or so down this kind of road, it strikes me as suicidal and homocidal.
Therefore, I don't think ALL speed cameras ought to be removed, and along the same lines I rather suspect it dilutes the otherwise valuable message you are sending out. It just seems that by taking a more realistic line you can get more people to realise that speed cameras alone are not the answer (certainly when they are on the motorway etc..) and perhaps prevent some of those who are against you/us from scoring points.. If your position was MOST/Many speed cameras are wrongly sited, have no realistic reduction on KSI's etc.. such as on DCs, Motorways etc.. then I think you will get more support from some people who may not otherwise do so. At the end of the day, preaching for NO Speed Cameras does make you sound a little bit tooooooo harsh.
Better to argue for a position which is achievable IMHO and to gain some support which otherwise would be lost.
If this was 1993, I'd agree with you about 'sensible' use of cameras. But this is 2006. We've lied to people about them and distorted everyone's priorities. We've got thousands of 'road safety professionals' with ten years in who have never known anything else but 'speed kills'. It has to be put right. And it has to be put right fast because it's killing us. This is no time for half measures. No time for compromise.
I don't give a damn about acceptable (as you've defined it). 'Acceptable' isn't anywhere near enough.
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
Spending a fortune, making it worse and talking bollox all at once. Quite a score.
Still, the failure of present policy has become undeniable, so there's plenty of reason to hope that sense will prevail before ISA zombies start killing us.
I read that document and it sent a shudder down my spine.
7db said:
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
Spending a fortune, making it worse and talking bollox all at once. Quite a score.
Still, the failure of present policy has become undeniable, so there's plenty of reason to hope that sense will prevail before ISA zombies start killing us.
I read that document and it sent a shudder down my spine.
It relies very heavily on Oliver Carsten's work. So I read some of that. It's much much more balanced than I had expected -- he highlights how ISA drivers leave smaller gaps in hazardous situations and are subject to tailgating when on ISA control.
He also describes the Swedish experiment as poorly scientifically designed and almost criminally wasteful of resources.
Perhaps that message needs to be spread more widely, Paul, rather than the "there's absolutely no compromise" one.
vonhosen said:
Are you surprised that the country with the safest roads already (low numbers of deaths per head of population & km travelled) doesn't have the biggest reductions ?
completely agree.
safespeed said:
Spending a fortune, making it worse and talking bollox all at once. Quite a score.
completely agree.
ISA? No thank you very much, I shall not be having one of those, nor indeed any other cumplosory GPS-based Govt trackers for the purposes of speeding/tracking/insurance/revenue raising. I value my personal freedom too much for that. They can send me, and thousands like me, to a gullag if they like but I won't be having one. No Sir! End of.
vonhosen said:
B*ll*x straight away:
ETSC said:
Illegal and inappropriate speed is the single biggest contributory factor in fatal road crashes.
the DfT would disagree with them!
They also feel the need to group illegal and inappropriate speeds together.
They go on to state that offences of speeding can't be proven (and are sometimes considered to be inappropriate), this will equally apply to offences of misjudging or not spotting the developing situation, so it kind of balances out.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff