Radio 4's Unreliable Eviedence on Traffic Law

[carinaman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05w3wkt

Starts off with the comment 'What's the point of having laws that are not enforced?'

• I spotted the typo in the title (Evidence not Eviedence)

[Derek Smith]

I think he meant to say 'What's the point of making lots and lots of new laws when we haven't got the resources to enforce them.'

[robinessex]

The proposal:-

Clive Anderson and a panel of legal experts discuss how changes to our traffic laws could reduce the numbers of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians killed or injured on the road.?

Here we go again, laws can solve everything as long as you find the right ones !!

[carinaman]

I thought it was an interesting programme. It went well with a previous programme about a police officer intent on following a known criminal threading his way through a tailback to reach a crash scene and their comment on how white the crash survivor's skull was.

[V8 Fettler]

Biggest cause of collisions is failure to observe, as in "sorry mate, didn't see you". This won't change until distractions are reduced, starting with mobile phone use.

[Hooli]

V8 Fettler said:

Biggest cause of collisions is failure to observe, as in "sorry mate, didn't see you". This won't change until distractions are reduced, starting with mobile phone use.

That won't start until the plod etc start promoting that message. Currently it appears ok to be texting/facebooking/wking off your passenger & cutting your toenails provided you don't speed.