Discussion
I suspect his point is para 98, pasted below, the recommendations. They don't make good reading. Welcome to the world of the little man with a red flag in front of your car. In brief, all they can find to improve safety is 20 limits and more scameras!
98. (Italics indicate recommendations or elements of recommendations solely or partially arising from comments received during the consultation process as listed in Annex 4 (download as .doc file) and considered to merit inclusion here)
Ref
Work Area 1
Road Safety Engineering
1
Continue to develop the Speed Management Strategy in the light of encouraging casualty reductions, particularly from the rural 30mph limits in South Oxfordshire, and strong demands for 20 mph zones both from the public and from consultees to this review.
An essential element of this work is seeking to overcome objections and confirm a belief that the public generally support lower limits where they can be proved to reduce casualties. To help create and display support for such limits:
* The environmental benefits of lower speeds should be widely emphasised
* The public should be made aware how to petition and become involved in the public process on reducing speed
* Evidence and data supporting the benefits of lower speed limits should be made readily available to the public.
* Support from those favouring appropriate lower speed limits should be mobilised in response to the vocal and co-ordinated response from those opposing lower limits.
* Emphasise the minimal journey time differences caused by lower limits
* Ensure accurate information regarding public attitudes to lower speed limits is fed back to those responsible for speed limit policy.
Current pilot studies for 20 limits to be carefully monitored to gauge effect on speeds, accidents, environment and acceptability
2
Staff resources available for casualty reduction scheme identification and development should be reviewed, taking account of advice on best practice and the levels applied by other authorities. This is particularly critical given our vulnerability with a wide range of expertise lying with a single member of staff.
Work Area 2
Integration of Road Safety into Transport Capital and Maintenance Programmes
3
Links between the safety engineering staff and other teams should be increased to ensure safety expertise is shared and safety is considered as an integral aspect of all schemes as they are developed and constructed. This process should include advice for specific schemes and the promotion of a more general awareness of the principles leading to casualty reductions.
4
Casualty reduction training for all staff engaged in scheme development and implementation should be reviewed to ensure a satisfactory level of road safety expertise and awareness exists amongst relevant staff. Project Managers should be trained to fulfil a key road safety role and it should also be incorporated into selection criteria, induction and appraisal.
5
To reduce the possibilities of serious pedestrian falling injury consider increased salting to footways in icy conditions.
Work Area 3 - Partnership Working
6
Liaison with the Safer Roads Partnership over specific projects and monitoring should be increased when resources permit to ensure resources are focussed at locations with the best casualty reduction potential.
7
Co-ordination with key partnership organisations such as the Fire Service and Police should be developed further when resources permit. Particular consideration should be given to making greater use of Fire Service crews to support ETP team projects and undertake focus group-type operations
8
Obtain additional information on road casualties from Health Service accident data.
Work Area 4 – Education, Training and Publicity
9
Carry out regular evaluation of the ETP programme, particularly the "Footsteps" training scheme, through consultation with service users and the general public to gauge how successfully the safety messages have been received and retained, the generally accepted measure of the effectiveness of ETP activities.
10
Expand liaison with existing partners to increase and develop the current programmes to raise the profile and awareness of road safety; especially consider how best to use the large resource offered by Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service.
11
SpeedWatch should be developed further to increase the involvement of other agencies and to address public concerns about road safety and speed. In particular:
* The Speed Indicator Device (SID) programme should continue to be funded by the County Council at current levels if Safer Roads Speed Camera Partnership funding is withdrawn.
* Continue to expand the Temporary Speed Reduction Poster scheme
* Consider a pilot Community Speed Enforcement Study if the current pilot studies in West Berkshire prove successful
* Expand the ‘Think Ahead’ programme in secondary schools currently being undertaken by the ETP team to provide pre-driver training in hazard awareness for 16 – 19 year olds.
* Continue to develop the Designated Driver Programme to deter young people from drink-driving
12
Identify possible subjects for which we can develop an effective process to lobby the government with support from partner organisations, the public, local MPs and other MPs sympathetic to the specific subject in question. Possible subjects include:
* Seat belts – make non-compliance with regulations a criminal offence
* Fatigue – more government resources needed
* Drink Driving – ditto
* Increased use of speed cameras
* Incorporate a minimum of 8 hours of road safety annually into statutory element of national curriculum and promote use of computer learning packages in schools
* Make cycle training compulsory before drivers sit a car test
13
Make greater use of the Citizen’s Panel to ascertain public opinion on such road safety issues as:
* The 3 greatest road safety concerns
* User preferences, e.g. on type of cycling facility in the context of safety
* Speed Management Issues
98. (Italics indicate recommendations or elements of recommendations solely or partially arising from comments received during the consultation process as listed in Annex 4 (download as .doc file) and considered to merit inclusion here)
Ref
Work Area 1
Road Safety Engineering
1
Continue to develop the Speed Management Strategy in the light of encouraging casualty reductions, particularly from the rural 30mph limits in South Oxfordshire, and strong demands for 20 mph zones both from the public and from consultees to this review.
An essential element of this work is seeking to overcome objections and confirm a belief that the public generally support lower limits where they can be proved to reduce casualties. To help create and display support for such limits:
* The environmental benefits of lower speeds should be widely emphasised
* The public should be made aware how to petition and become involved in the public process on reducing speed
* Evidence and data supporting the benefits of lower speed limits should be made readily available to the public.
* Support from those favouring appropriate lower speed limits should be mobilised in response to the vocal and co-ordinated response from those opposing lower limits.
* Emphasise the minimal journey time differences caused by lower limits
* Ensure accurate information regarding public attitudes to lower speed limits is fed back to those responsible for speed limit policy.
Current pilot studies for 20 limits to be carefully monitored to gauge effect on speeds, accidents, environment and acceptability
2
Staff resources available for casualty reduction scheme identification and development should be reviewed, taking account of advice on best practice and the levels applied by other authorities. This is particularly critical given our vulnerability with a wide range of expertise lying with a single member of staff.
Work Area 2
Integration of Road Safety into Transport Capital and Maintenance Programmes
3
Links between the safety engineering staff and other teams should be increased to ensure safety expertise is shared and safety is considered as an integral aspect of all schemes as they are developed and constructed. This process should include advice for specific schemes and the promotion of a more general awareness of the principles leading to casualty reductions.
4
Casualty reduction training for all staff engaged in scheme development and implementation should be reviewed to ensure a satisfactory level of road safety expertise and awareness exists amongst relevant staff. Project Managers should be trained to fulfil a key road safety role and it should also be incorporated into selection criteria, induction and appraisal.
5
To reduce the possibilities of serious pedestrian falling injury consider increased salting to footways in icy conditions.
Work Area 3 - Partnership Working
6
Liaison with the Safer Roads Partnership over specific projects and monitoring should be increased when resources permit to ensure resources are focussed at locations with the best casualty reduction potential.
7
Co-ordination with key partnership organisations such as the Fire Service and Police should be developed further when resources permit. Particular consideration should be given to making greater use of Fire Service crews to support ETP team projects and undertake focus group-type operations
8
Obtain additional information on road casualties from Health Service accident data.
Work Area 4 – Education, Training and Publicity
9
Carry out regular evaluation of the ETP programme, particularly the "Footsteps" training scheme, through consultation with service users and the general public to gauge how successfully the safety messages have been received and retained, the generally accepted measure of the effectiveness of ETP activities.
10
Expand liaison with existing partners to increase and develop the current programmes to raise the profile and awareness of road safety; especially consider how best to use the large resource offered by Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service.
11
SpeedWatch should be developed further to increase the involvement of other agencies and to address public concerns about road safety and speed. In particular:
* The Speed Indicator Device (SID) programme should continue to be funded by the County Council at current levels if Safer Roads Speed Camera Partnership funding is withdrawn.
* Continue to expand the Temporary Speed Reduction Poster scheme
* Consider a pilot Community Speed Enforcement Study if the current pilot studies in West Berkshire prove successful
* Expand the ‘Think Ahead’ programme in secondary schools currently being undertaken by the ETP team to provide pre-driver training in hazard awareness for 16 – 19 year olds.
* Continue to develop the Designated Driver Programme to deter young people from drink-driving
12
Identify possible subjects for which we can develop an effective process to lobby the government with support from partner organisations, the public, local MPs and other MPs sympathetic to the specific subject in question. Possible subjects include:
* Seat belts – make non-compliance with regulations a criminal offence
* Fatigue – more government resources needed
* Drink Driving – ditto
* Increased use of speed cameras
* Incorporate a minimum of 8 hours of road safety annually into statutory element of national curriculum and promote use of computer learning packages in schools
* Make cycle training compulsory before drivers sit a car test
13
Make greater use of the Citizen’s Panel to ascertain public opinion on such road safety issues as:
* The 3 greatest road safety concerns
* User preferences, e.g. on type of cycling facility in the context of safety
* Speed Management Issues
I take it you didnt read the docs?
Ok. Proposed scamera enforcement in 20 zones for one thing.Although theyre unaware of any scamera enforced zones presently in operation, they want em first.
Also the linking in of anpr to track "difficult or evasive" drivers (ie speeders), new powers bestowed upon Lscp enabling "home visits" (presumably for cash collection purposes)for persistent "offenders".
Active recruitment of sympathetic "citizens" (esecially vocal ones) to counter the anti camera viewpoint....all done with taxpayers money no doubt.
Increased targetting of drivers and so on and so forth.
Admissions that they havent met their "ksi" targets, hinting that more scamera enforcement is the answer.
In short, theyve REALLY got it in for us now.
Want more? Go to Google UK only. Type in : "safety camera restricted .doc" (without the quotes). Happy hunting.
Ok. Proposed scamera enforcement in 20 zones for one thing.Although theyre unaware of any scamera enforced zones presently in operation, they want em first.
Also the linking in of anpr to track "difficult or evasive" drivers (ie speeders), new powers bestowed upon Lscp enabling "home visits" (presumably for cash collection purposes)for persistent "offenders".
Active recruitment of sympathetic "citizens" (esecially vocal ones) to counter the anti camera viewpoint....all done with taxpayers money no doubt.
Increased targetting of drivers and so on and so forth.
Admissions that they havent met their "ksi" targets, hinting that more scamera enforcement is the answer.
In short, theyve REALLY got it in for us now.
Want more? Go to Google UK only. Type in : "safety camera restricted .doc" (without the quotes). Happy hunting.
No problem mit the compulsory cycle training, the hazard aware und the 8 hours of road safety into PSE curriculum. (Suspect this idea ist from these sites where we have all collectively discussed und called for this in past - und in the family - two relatives who are teacher in secondary already do this - und they liaise mit BiB for this. . Und no problem mit gritting pavements either.
Do have issue mit the increased brainwashing"
"Benefits of lower speed should be made available to public."
Und "demands for 20 mph limits" ...
No problem mit these in residentials, near schools (term time/school hours) und of course - town centre in peak busy period. But a 24/7 constant und enforced by scam ist not in interests of safety.
Do have biggest issue mit "civilian enforcement und more scams" as these will not address issues of non wearing of the seatbelt, drink driving, fatigue und so weiter. If they still think speed cam can detect this .. then they really are off their heads.
More trafpol und less speed cam delivers what we need.
It ist so obvious.
Poor deluded souls.....
Und DeltaFoxy - Liebchen - It ist nice to see you back.
>> Edited by WildCat on Sunday 2nd January 13:20
>> Edited by WildCat on Sunday 2nd January 13:22
Do have issue mit the increased brainwashing"
"Benefits of lower speed should be made available to public."
Und "demands for 20 mph limits" ...
No problem mit these in residentials, near schools (term time/school hours) und of course - town centre in peak busy period. But a 24/7 constant und enforced by scam ist not in interests of safety. Do have biggest issue mit "civilian enforcement und more scams" as these will not address issues of non wearing of the seatbelt, drink driving, fatigue und so weiter. If they still think speed cam can detect this .. then they really are off their heads.
More trafpol und less speed cam delivers what we need.
It ist so obvious.
Poor deluded souls.....
Und DeltaFoxy - Liebchen - It ist nice to see you back.
>> Edited by WildCat on Sunday 2nd January 13:20
>> Edited by WildCat on Sunday 2nd January 13:22
This stuff from Oxfordshire is completely outrageous. I had thought I was working WITH some of the county's highways engineers towards a common goal - thanks lads, I really appreciate getting a knife like that in my back. As far as I'm concerned, the gloves are now off.
Some background...
We managed to get (with the help of various local groups and PHers) a raft of utterly ridiculous, dangerous and stupid Oxon 50 limits held back. The county council started a speed management task force instead, staffed with camera staff, police and councillors. It was supposed to look at how to improve accident rates. I was initially asked to serve on this taskforce - then the invitation was rescinded before I even got to a meeting.
Those limits are now back on the schedule - the County is going to do what the hell it likes, whether it kills people or not. I'm going to give them a dose of exactly how this works:
"* Support from those favouring appropriate lower speed limits should be mobilised in response to the vocal and co-ordinated response from those opposing lower limits."
In other words, the council is SULKING because for once in this miserable hole of a health-and-safety-nanny-gonna-getcha-if-you-run-with-scissors crap pit of a country, democracy happened and the limits were temporarily shelved.
Some background...
We managed to get (with the help of various local groups and PHers) a raft of utterly ridiculous, dangerous and stupid Oxon 50 limits held back. The county council started a speed management task force instead, staffed with camera staff, police and councillors. It was supposed to look at how to improve accident rates. I was initially asked to serve on this taskforce - then the invitation was rescinded before I even got to a meeting.
Those limits are now back on the schedule - the County is going to do what the hell it likes, whether it kills people or not. I'm going to give them a dose of exactly how this works:
"* Support from those favouring appropriate lower speed limits should be mobilised in response to the vocal and co-ordinated response from those opposing lower limits."
In other words, the council is SULKING because for once in this miserable hole of a health-and-safety-nanny-gonna-getcha-if-you-run-with-scissors crap pit of a country, democracy happened and the limits were temporarily shelved.
kevinday said:
Yet more evidence of the need for a National Authority (made up of road engineers and other professionals)for setting all speed limit standards, based on road type, environmental conditions etc. It should not be in the hands of local authorities.
That's exactly how it used to be - all speed limits had to be approved by either the Department of Transport or the Scottish Office.
Then at the end of the 1970's, IIRC, speed limits on "local" roads were delegated to councils, and only trunk roads and "principal" roads (ie most A-roads and some B-roads in this context) needed government approval. The government still set guidelines (can't remember the number of the circular - I'm on holiday!) based on road type, it's "character" (ie did it look like a 30 mph road, did it have frontage access, pedestrians, bus stops etc) that local authorities were expected to adhere to. The local police also used to support this - it meant that the speed limit was largely self-enforcing and not artificially low.
Then all other roads were delegated to local authorities, and only trunk roads and most motorways were retained under government control.
Then the guidelenes were relaxed - road "character" is no longer as important - although the previous guidance on 85 percentile speeds was kept - ie don't set a speed limit lower than the speed that 85% of drivers on that road are already travelling at - this was meant to ensure that speed limits still fitted what the road looked like, to the driver.
This new procedure certainly made life easier for roads authorities - the government would take aaaaaages processing even a straighforward speed limit change. More recently, however, this increased power has been used by many local authorities to yield to political pressure for "perceived safety" speed limits - ie responding to public pressure.
I was reading, just before the holidays, that some authorities are now pushing for speed limits to be set at the 50 percent level - ie lower than the "perception" of a safe speed by the majority of drivers. I can only leave you to surmise as to the motive for this.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff