More "Dangerous" roads

[jont]

I personally have little time for Brake's "Vision Zero",
http://www.brake.org.uk/target-zero

I wonder how many Brake members who drive would meet their own aspirations for "The Driver".

[PeterE]

I wonder how many Brake members who drive would meet their own aspirations for "The Driver".

I remember some woman from BRAKE being quizzed about their staffers' own approach to driving and she admitted "oh, most of us don't drive."

[Gareth]

I wonder how many Brake members who drive would meet their own aspirations for "The Driver".

I remember some woman from BRAKE being quizzed about their staffers' own approach to driving and she admitted "oh, most of us don't drive."

It's clear they are campaigning for a society where public transport predominates and private vehicle use is almost non-existent.

[martine]

I personally have little time for Brake's "Vision Zero",
http://www.brake.org.uk/target-zero

I wonder how many Brake members who drive would meet their own aspirations for "The Driver".

What a 'brave new world' they describe.
One suggestion that particularly caught my eye was...

•There is a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads

How's that going to work in practice then? The car travelling at 30 on a single lane A road...with a huge tailback behind all waiting obediently...for mile after mile...

I would love to discuss some of their ideas face-to-face but they seem reluctant...anyone here lurking from 'Brake'? Seriously?

[PeterE]

One suggestion that particularly caught my eye was...

•There is a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads

How's that going to work in practice then? The car travelling at 30 on a single lane A road...with a huge tailback behind all waiting obediently...for mile after mile...

I believe Sweden has fitted wire central barriers to some single-carriageway rural main roads. But, to make such a suggestion work, you would have to rebuild all single-carriageway main roads with Irish-style shoulders so that slower moving traffic could pull over. Not going to happen, is it?

[Gareth]

you would have to rebuild all single-carriageway main roads with Irish-style shoulders so that slower moving traffic could pull over. Not going to happen, is it?

It is already possible for slower moving traffic to pull over and let faster traffic by and, indeed, drivers are required to do this, (Rule 168 and, especially, Rule 169), but this seldom happens.

[quintaton]

One suggestion that particularly caught my eye was...

•There is a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads

How's that going to work in practice then? The car travelling at 30 on a single lane A road...with a huge tailback behind all waiting obediently...for mile after mile...

I believe Sweden has fitted wire central barriers to some single-carriageway rural main roads. But, to make such a suggestion work, you would have to rebuild all single-carriageway main roads with Irish-style shoulders so that slower moving traffic could pull over. Not going to happen, is it?

==========================

Perhaps the biggest lesson which we will all learn when cut-backs bite, is that MOST of the money spent on so-called "road-safety" will prove to have been a waste of time. I think I can safely predict that just as casualty-figures have not improved significantly in spite of greatly increased budgets, they will not get any worse with greatly decreased budgets.

I say this, because the insurance business is based on the idea that for every million miles travelled, there will be 'x' number of accidents, 'y' number of serious injuries and 'z' number of deaths, with inevitable peaks and troughs over an extended period.

Every accident is a unique time-line event, and trying to prevent accidents by road-engineering meausres and legal restriction is bound to be ineffective except in certain special cases. The insurance industry works on the assumption that there is calculable risk, and that where there is human activity of any kind, accidents will happen.

It is for this reason that the aspirations of organisations like B.R.A.K.E. can never be realised, no matter what they try to say or do, and no matter how hard they lobby the authorities.

As I've said previously, the recession will demonstrate an overall reduction in accidentrs due to the general fall in traffic volumes, but "accidents per million miles travelled" should remain more or less stable.

Q

[MGF]

...the current government... Incidentally i'm also looking forward to them withdrawing charitable status from that bunch of idiots at Brake. That's long overdue.

I've seen this idea that Brake do not deserve the status of a charity expressed on here before, by both yourself and others.

I personally have little time for Brake's "Vision Zero",
http://www.brake.org.uk/target-zero

However, calling for their charity status to be removed? Under what basis? Simply because they are a lobbying group (lobbying does not preclude charity status), or because you don't agree with them?

If lobbying for a change in the law or government policy is the principle aim of an organisation then that organisation is not entitled to charitable status.

All we seem to hear from BRAKE is them campaigning for lower speed limits and such like which doesn't appear to appropriately reflect the purposes stated on their website.

[quintaton]

...the current government... Incidentally i'm also looking forward to them withdrawing charitable status from that bunch of idiots at Brake. That's long overdue.

I've seen this idea that Brake do not deserve the status of a charity expressed on here before, by both yourself and others.

I personally have little time for Brake's "Vision Zero",
http://www.brake.org.uk/target-zero

However, calling for their charity status to be removed? Under what basis? Simply because they are a lobbying group (lobbying does not preclude charity status), or because you don't agree with them?

If lobbying for a change in the law or government policy is the principle aim of an organisation then that organisation is not entitled to charitable status.

All we seem to hear from BRAKE is them campaigning for lower speed limits and such like which doesn't appear to appropriately reflect the purposes stated on their website.

===========================


An interesting point, wihich may be of interest to those denied the opportunity to address BRAKE and oput the alternative view.

If BRAKE enjoy charitable status, then they MUST allow unrestricted access to the wider public at all meetings and gatherings, which means that ANYONE can attend and make whatever point they wish. If even one person is denied access, charitable status can be lost.

Q