Driver education not cameras says IAM
Police chief Brunstrom hears speed camera policy trashed
 |
|
Picture Courtesy of www.speedlimit.org.uk |
Speaking at the IAM’s annual lunch in London, Maxwell said that motorists are made to believe that congestion, delay, environmental pollution and, not least, the accident toll, is all their fault.
"Car drivers and motorcyclists are not just part of the problem: they can be – and need to be - part of the solution. Treat them fairly and get them back on-side, and there will be a rapid pay-back – not necessarily in the way that the Treasury appears to understand best, but for road safety."
Specifically, it was the IAM's regret that there has been a "dismal failure to 'sell' the safety benefits of speed cameras – allowing them, instead, to be misunderstood as instruments of entrapment and fund-raising," said Maxwell.
"Cameras are frequently sited where drivers believe them to be unnecessary, with a trigger mechanism that is lacking in discretion and penalty notices that arrive like overdue invoices. Too many road-users believe that speed cameras are nothing more than nice little earners, and that getting caught is less about discouraging dangerous driving than playing a game of chance."
In fact, Maxwell argued, cameras have a "legitimate and valuable role in enforcing compliance, as distinct from ensuring capture", and there must be an urgent review of camera locations. In addition, all camera sites should clearly show the speed limit at that point, with more repeater signs needed on restricted roads. Maxwell said: "Rehabilitating speed cameras – re-defining them as instruments of compliance, not capture – would do much to take the pressure off the vast majority of sensible drivers and riders who need little persuading that safety is common sense and should always come first."
Also necessary, says the IAM, is a review of speed limits, recognising the change in enforcement methods. Limits need be seen to be right if they are to earn respect and to be observed, and the message must be that, whatever the speed limit, it is inappropriate speed that kills.
There should, said Maxwell, be an "imaginative and positive response" to the Road Safety Bill, which already contains elements of driver re-education. And there needs to be more, not fewer, traffic police on UK roads. "A blue light and a sharp word will always have more effect, and earn more respect, than electronic surveillance and a penalty notice through the post."
Guest speaker at the IAM Annual Lunch was North Wales Chief Constable and ACPO Head of Road Policing Richard Brunstrom.
zumbruk said:
I wonder if Brunstrom was embarrassed? He should have been. Except that like all religious zealots, he's not interested in anyone's views other than his own.
Quite, he was probably laughing his cock off, the man is indeed, possessed. Logic, facts and common sense are irrelevant......ask S Callaghan and Destroyer
Compliance for what? Stupidly low speed limits? Give the camera representative fools an inch and they'll take a mile. Cameras and other enforced speed regulation has NO place. Well-signed roads with clear hazard warnings (and sensible advisory speed limits if you must) with a very tough driving test is the way to give the power of thought back to the driver. Overall a cautious
for IAM though.The IAM said:
Limits need be seen to be right if they are to earn respect and to be observed, and the message must be that, whatever the speed limit, it is inappropriate speed that kills.
Any single limit on any given stretch of road is never going to be "right" in all conditions at all times.
A speed cannot be categorised as "inappropriate" without taking the conditions AT THE TIME into account.
For an organisation with "Advanced" in its name, this is a pretty basic argument. If the IAM intend the phrase "whatever the speed limit" to include the possibility that it ought to be variable, they need to explicity say so. The kind of people who go round blindly repeating 'speed kills' are clearly not capable of working this out for themselves.
james_j said:
with a very tough driving test
Not nececeraly "tough" just with more comon scence & judgement content.
Also repeated every 10 years or so. Its not new drivers thats the problem its the over confident so called "experienced" drivers that become lazy and drive poorly that need to be targeted.
donteatpeople said:
Also repeated every 10 years or so. Its not new drivers thats the problem its the over confident so called "experienced" drivers that become lazy and drive poorly that need to be targeted.
Unfortunately many experienced drivers become lazy and drive poorly because they are frustrated and bored out of their minds by unrealistically low speed limits.
Alertness and skill disappear out of the window at UK speeds, and yet the human race seems to be in a state of denial about road safety.
The vast majority could drive well and safely if they were taught to do so in the first place, and were allowed to do so thereafter.
We need proper driving centres for tuition so that the learner can discover that there is a limit, whatever he or she drives, and that the consequences of overstepping that limit can be fatal.
This could perfectly well be achieved on disused airfields with decent skid-pans - or indeed on purpose-built facilities - without anybody getting hurt.
The point is to ensure that everyone should drive within their own limitations with confidence, but at the same time not exceed those limitations because they know they risk being badly hurt otherwise.
Fear of an accident is a vital ingredient in the recipe for defensive driving - one to which I have always subscribed - and I wonder how many drivers have the slightest undertanding of vehicle dynamics?
Not hard to teach, given the facilities, and once learned never forgotten.
Unfortunately we are bringing on an entire generation of cowering self-righteous brain-washed half-taught road users who have not the slightest idea of what this is all about, simply because they have learned to shuffle, rather than walk.
There is no realistic alternative to cars, so how about giving people the chance to use them sensibly?
P.S. We need some roads too.
McNab said:
The point is to ensure that everyone should drive within their own limitations with confidence, but at the same time not exceed those limitations because they know they risk being badly hurt otherwise.
Fine if u treat the road like a track but you can be well within your and the cars limit going through a town at 80mph. you would be in control of the car but not the kid your about to kill.
donteatpeople said:
The point is to ensure that everyone should drive within their own limitations with confidence, but at the same time not exceed those limitations because they know they risk being badly hurt otherwise.
Fine if u treat the road like a track but you can be well within your and the cars limit going through a town at 80mph. you would be in control of the car but not the kid your about to kill.
Mate, I think you'll find that we don't condone driving like that through town, so don't talk pants
donteatpeople said:
Fine if u treat the road like a track but you can be well within your and the cars limit going through a town at 80mph. you would be in control of the car but not the kid your about to kill.
I was not referring to urban driving, so don't try to put words into my mouth.
Can you not understand that 'limitations' apply to all situations?
If you think you can drive through any town at 80 mph within your limit and you car's limit I suggest you think again.
new limits should reflect that todays cars are so much safer. but i continually find that in certain areas such as duel carrigeways speed have been reduced further. and for the most part no body obays these stupidly low speed rules and speeds anyway, better to have the legal right to travel quicker in a modern safe car on a long stretch of carrigeway, than a old car from the 60's
let get it in context
blockpower said:
lets raise speed limits in certain area's we know that limits set back in the 60's were for the cars of the day. now cars are safer and moreover easier to drive, no double clutching, drum brakes all round and poor performance.
new limits should reflect that todays cars are so much safer. but i continually find that in certain areas such as duel carrigeways speed have been reduced further. and for the most part no body obays these stupidly low speed rules and speeds anyway, better to have the legal right to travel quicker in a modern safe car on a long stretch of carrigeway, than a old car from the 60's
let get it in context
Could it not be said that todays modern "safe" cars are in fact more dangerous than they used to be...
In a modern car it is all too easy, top speed is higher, comfort is increased, reliability is improved, there are all sorts of driver aids such as ABS, traction control etc, performance is increased, all the control systems have been improved with one vital exception.... The Driver
Driving standards must be improved to ensure drivers appreciate the potential of their actions if they fail to control their vehicle safely. It is this lack of awareness that results in todays poor driving standards, lack of lane discipline, following too close, discourtesy, aggression, exessive speed in inappropriate situations. Driving is no longer an art form or a life skill. To most drivers it is a right, not a privilge. It is this problem that needs to be addressed by education, not excessive ill-thought out blinkered legislation.
At least the IAM do at time talk sense and promote the driver education message. Its just a pity that the beurocrats don't listen!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff