'Brake' pressure group at it again...

[martine]

Just heard them on BBC R4 'PM' news program...they want a 'default speed limit of 20mph' i.e everywhere that's 30 at the moment would be 20 unless signed otherwise.

I've no objection to purely residential side roads being 20 but a blanket 20?

Does anyone here actually think this a good idea?

[exportmanuk]

The more you dumb down the dummer the user becomes

Bring back the man with a red flag could mean 100% empoyment again

[fungus]

Just heard them on BBC R4 'PM' news program...they want a 'default speed limit of 20mph' i.e everywhere that's 30 at the moment would be 20 unless signed otherwise.

I've no objection to purely residential side roads being 20 but a blanket 20?

Does anyone here actually think this a good idea?

The more you dumb down the dummer the user becomes

Bring back the man with a red flag could mean 100% empoyment again

Like Martin I have no objection to 20mph in narrow residential streets, but to have a blanket limit of 20mph in all current 30mph limits, some of which are unneccessarily low now, is just plain stupid. Hopefully the new transport minister will give less credence to Brakes views than his predecessors.

It all comes down to the intelligent use of speed. As the late Paul Smith of Safe Speed said. "You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour".

Brakes panacea is to have speed limits set so low that drivers will simply switch off. But that will be alright because when we crash we'll be travelling so slow that it wont matter. But then again, it's far more important to watch the speedo to make sure that you do not stray 1mph over that magical number on a metal lolipop, than to make effective observation of the general scene.

Treat people like monkeys and they'll behave like monkeys. The more inapropriate that speed limits become, the less respect that drivers will have for sensibly set limits. I also beleive that when the authorities introduce unneccessary restrictions it contributes to the bad attitude that seems to be more prevelant now than it was a few years ago.

[GJD]

Hopefully the new transport minister will give less credence to Brakes views than his predecessors.

Indeed.

I didn't hear the piece on PM, but I did hear the beginning of the programme when the piece was trailled. After the way it was introduced - some analysis has apprently been released showing a reduction in heart disease or some such since the introduction of the smoking ban and so PM posed the astonishing question, "what should the law be used for next?" and answered it with the soundbite from Brake and two equally silly ideas I have subsequently forgotten - I hoped PM was being tongue-in-cheek, but rather suspected they were uncomfortably serious, so I switched them off.

Yesterday PM did a piece on a new Academy for the English Language, aimed at raising standards of vocabulary and grammar. If that last paragraph is anything to go by, perhaps I should enrol myself...

[mitchr]

Nope a blanket 20 limit is not a good idea. In some situations 20mph is still going to be too fast to be safe - narrow street, cars parked both sides, kids playing. Educating people about the safe speed to use in a situation would be far more useful.

[martine]

Nope a blanket 20 limit is not a good idea. In some situations 20mph is still going to be too fast to be safe - narrow street, cars parked both sides, kids playing. Educating people about the safe speed to use in a situation would be far more useful.

I'm sure we would all agree with that...but how?

[quintaton]

I know that when writing my book, I tried to be fair and gave considerable thought to the various arguments presented by B.R.A.K.E. In the end, I found myself despising almost everything they said, and questioning every bit of "research" they present as "fact."

The hidden agenda is not difficult to understand. If you have a child murdered by a rapist, then you feel slightly better by campaigning for tougher laws, and if your child gets killed by a car travelling at speed, you campaign for tougher rules and penalties. Unfortunately, it makes not the slightest difference, just as bringing back hanging will not stop murder.

I long-ago concluded that B.R.A.K.E is run by a complete set of amateurs, who know absolutely nothing about driving and road-safety, but the very real danger is that they will claim success when casualty figures reduce in-line with the drop in traffic density due to the recession.

[martine]

I know that when writing my book, I tried to be fair and gave considerable thought to the various arguments presented by B.R.A.K.E. In the end, I found myself despising almost everything they said, and questioning every bit of "research" they present as "fact."

The hidden agenda is not difficult to understand. If you have a child murdered by a rapist, then you feel slightly better by campaigning for tougher laws, and if your child gets killed by a car travelling at speed, you campaign for tougher rules and penalties. Unfortunately, it makes not the slightest difference, just as bringing back hanging will not stop murder.

I long-ago concluded that B.R.A.K.E is run by a complete set of amateurs, who know absolutely nothing about driving and road-safety, but the very real danger is that they will claim success when casualty figures reduce in-line with the drop in traffic density due to the recession.

I quite agree with your comment about their motivation - who wouldn't sympathise with a parent in such circumstances.

I actually have a lot of respect for BRAKE in one way and one way only...as a pressure group they are very successful in getting into the media - they punch far above their weight. My understanding is they are tiny organisation yet are often quoted and also have started organising 'road safety seminars' (to which I regularly get invited) in London with the great and good as speakers.

A couple of years ago I invited them to send a representative to talk at one of my IAM group's monthly meetings - I was keen to hear their arguments directly. They declined even though I tried to reassure them we would listen with respect.

[GJD]

Educating people about the safe speed to use in a situation would be far more useful.

I'm sure we would all agree with that...but how?

Acknowledging that speed is a perfectly legitimate thing to enjoy and that many people do enjoy it and it doesn't mean they're inherently evil might not be a bad place to start.

[fungus]

I know that when writing my book, I tried to be fair and gave considerable thought to the various arguments presented by B.R.A.K.E. In the end, I found myself despising almost everything they said, and questioning every bit of "research" they present as "fact."

The hidden agenda is not difficult to understand. If you have a child murdered by a rapist, then you feel slightly better by campaigning for tougher laws, and if your child gets killed by a car travelling at speed, you campaign for tougher rules and penalties. Unfortunately, it makes not the slightest difference, just as bringing back hanging will not stop murder.

I long-ago concluded that B.R.A.K.E is run by a complete set of amateurs, who know absolutely nothing about driving and road-safety, but the very real danger is that they will claim success when casualty figures reduce in-line with the drop in traffic density due to the recession.

I quite agree with your comment about their motivation - who wouldn't sympathise with a parent in such circumstances.

I actually have a lot of respect for BRAKE in one way and one way only...as a pressure group they are very successful in getting into the media - they punch far above their weight. My understanding is they are tiny organisation yet are often quoted and also have started organising 'road safety seminars' (to which I regularly get invited) in London with the great and good as speakers.

A couple of years ago I invited them to send a representative to talk at one of my IAM group's monthly meetings - I was keen to hear their arguments directly. They declined even though I tried to reassure them we would listen with respect.

I think the last paragrapgh just about sums BRAKE up nicely. They are not interested in the views of people who have actually bothered to improve their driving and riding skills. There is always the danger that some one might just point out to them, that speed used appropriately is actually safe.

Local authorities are just as bad. Three months ago our local IAM group had a talk from the head of the road safety dept. and the head of the highways dept. After the talk we were shown photographs of several locations localy where there had been traffic accidents, and asked what we would do about the problem in each location. In one photograph, the problem was poor visibility from the side road into a major road to the left, (both 30mph) caused by low foliage on a tree. Our simple suggestion was that the foliage should be cut back to improve visibiliy to the left into the major road. This was dismissed as not a good idea as it would increase traffic speed on the major road. This simply would not be the case as the problem was visibility into the major road. The safety officer thought that speed humps would be a better idea, despite the road bieng a reasonably busy one, in fact they are extending the shrubbery on the islands in the centre of the road on approach to doundabouts virtually up to the give way line because it will slow traffic down. The fact that a driver can not see sufficiently onto the roundabout seems unimportant to the highways dept. experts

[jont]

The safety officer thought that speed humps would be a better idea, despite the road bieng a reasonably busy one, in fact they are extending the shrubbery on the islands in the centre of the road on approach to doundabouts virtually up to the give way line because it will slow traffic down. The fact that a driver can not see sufficiently onto the roundabout seems unimportant to the highways dept. experts

<cynic> Reducing accidents in cheap easy ways would mean councils could get rid of road "safety" officers. Speed humps obviously need management, maintenance etc so would need a larger department. Guess who's trying to justify/look after their own job </cynic>

[michael769]

<cynic> Reducing accidents in cheap easy ways would mean councils could get rid of road "safety" officers. Speed humps obviously need management, maintenance etc so would need a larger department. Guess who's trying to justify/look after their own job </cynic>

I know of one Northern English authority that has just been told that the capital budget for road safety has been cut by 100% with immediate effect. Add to that a 50% cut in their revenue budget and I doubt they will be installing many more humps (or anything else) this year!

[zadocbrown]

<cynic> Reducing accidents in cheap easy ways would mean councils could get rid of road "safety" officers. Speed humps obviously need management, maintenance etc so would need a larger department. Guess who's trying to justify/look after their own job </cynic>

I know of one Northern English authority that has just been told that the capital budget for road safety has been cut by 100% with immediate effect. Add to that a 50% cut in their revenue budget and I doubt they will be installing many more humps (or anything else) this year!

Good. You see, every cloud...