'Brake' at it again...

[jont]

Quite a few non-sequiturs to me. For example I'm not at all clear how reduced car dependency equates to a happier community (no 1) or how lower limits automatically lead to drivers being able to stop in an emergency. The biggest issue I have personally is with no 2 where numbers on a stick are equated to safe speeds.

[GJD]

Same objections as jont to 1 and 2.

On 3, I quite like the idea of graduated driving licences, but I'd want to see their proposals for what privileges are available at each level. I get the impression that they would want the top level to have less freedom than we currently have, which I would not support.

4: I don't know enough about alcohol and physiology to have an opinion on whether 20mg is a sensible level, but I would regard random breath testing (which I take to mean the state having the power to breathalyse me without needing reasonable grounds to suspect me of drink-driving) as draconian.

5: If drugalyser technology is reliable enough to be used evidentially then I'd support it's use. I wouldn't support random drug testing any more than I'd support random breath testing though (I note that point 5 doesn't suggest random drug testing). An offence of driving on illegal drugs without having to prove impairment doesn't make sense to me (although if the drugalyser result proved illegal drugs had been taken then that could, of course, be used to support a prosecution for an existing offence related to taking the illegal drugs in the first place).

6. My own subjective experience concurs with that research. If it's the conversation that's the distraction, rather than the taking a hand off the controls, that sounds to me like it could just as well be used as an argument for reversing the ban on using hand-held mobile phones.

7. I'd like to see traffic policing given a much higher priority. That's because I'd like to see a big shift away from speed limit policing and towards policing careless and dangerous driving. I don't get the impression Brake would like to see the same shift.

8. Happy with this - as long as there's evidence that a problem exists and this would solve it. I've certainly no interest in doing it just to bring us in line with an EU directive .

9. I don't know what the implications of this would be. Is it a minor tweak to existing regulation that business currently lives with, or is it a fundamental shift in where the boundary of responsibility lies between employer and employee when someone is driving for work?

10. There's more than a hint of emotion coming through there. It reads like the author is too close to the issue to be able to think dispassionately.

11. I have a big problem with this one, but only because I have a big problem with the existence of the 'causing death by' offences anyway.

[Gareth]

I think TripleS may have been objecting to some of Brake's long term aims, which they term Target Zero in the overall package they're promoting.

[martine]

Also in Brake's 'Vision' (http://www.brake.org.uk/take-action/zero.htm)

* Speed limits are no higher than 60mph for two or more lane trunk roads.

* There are restrictions on road use, when sustainable, safer transport options are accessible

* Telematics are in vehicles to record driving style, distance and times

* Vehicles must have compulsory servicing, in line with manufacturer recommendations on timing and standards. An on-board clock prevents a vehicle starting if a service date is missed.* Compulsory road crash awareness education is in nurseries and schools for all ages, warning against driving.

* Driver licensing involves compulsory training by a professional over several years

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

[TripleS]

OK, I can accept that my use of the word 'draconian' may have been a touch inappropriate. Even so, I remain totally opposed to Brake's general attitude, even if there is a degree of merit in a few of their proposals. One can sometimes look at a set of proposals and be persuaded that each one has some justification, but we should also look at the general thrust of the policies, and in the case of Brake, I'd say there is too much emotion and not enough competence.

On the particular points 'lyndon' sets out, I'd say:

1. This is nonsense from the start, when they talk about a vision for reducing road deaths and serious injuries to zero. That is merely being silly.

2. The proposed lowered limits in urban areas are not universally necessary, and even if such limits were to be imposed they would not ensure that drivers could stop in time in an emergency.

3. There might be some benefit from a system of graduated licences for young drivers, but it would depend on how this was done. It might bear far too harshly on many young drivers who do not need added constraints on their freedom to use motor vehicles.

4. This one again is too intrusive. There's more to safe driving (with or without alcohol affecting the driver) than reaction times. The present 50 mg limit is low enough, and as I understand it the troublesome drivers are those who are hugely over that limit. A lower limit would therefore restrict the freedom of those who are behaving responsibly and therefore not a problem. What we should have is a sobriety test that indicates whether or not somebody is safe to be driving. That would be a much more useful indicator.

5. No, as item 4: use a form of test that shows who is, and who is not, safe to be driving.

6. No. The present mobile phone law is nonsense. The distinction between hand-held and hands-free phone usage is quite illogical. This law should never have been introduced at all.

7. I'm in favour of more traffic policing, but not for the purpose of being excessively heavy handed in drink and drug testing of drivers.

8. I doubt if this is justified. Are a siginificant number of accidents being caused by defective vision in drivers? I suspect not.

9. Nonsense. The existing procedures for dealing with accidents should be perfectly adequate. The Health and Safety Executive is probably quite sufficiently occupied already. I also don't think added burdens on employers and businesses are desirable, and certainly not in the present economic climate.

10. I don't know about this. Are resources for supporting road accident victims inadequate? Maybe if Brake concentrated on this function, which really is commendable, and stopped their attempts to be a PITA to drivers, we might find the level of support is already satisfactory. incidentally, is a huge amount spent on care for the victims of theft, and suchlike crimes? I would doubt that it is.

11. What's this? Are we wanting to call it murder if somebody dies when seriously bad driving causes a road accident? I thought the punishment regime for dealing with drivers who cause death was already being tightened up, so is this another measure being prompted by emotion?

So yes, lyndon, I can see a bit of merit here and there, but most of those items need a degree of calm consideration before rushing into any further measures.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Gareth is quite right, and Martin sets out a few of Brake's more hysterical ideas.

Where's the one whereby the car detects a whiff of alcohol in the air, and decides it will not start and can not be driven, or was that a brainwave from one of the motor manufacturers - possibly one of the Japanese firms? I tell you: any firm that tries to impose that sort of crap on those it hopes will buy their products deserves to go bust PDQ; and if they do pursue this misuse of technology, they do not deserve to survive. Talk about the machines taking over....! People used to joke about that, and now, slowly but surely we are heading that way.

If I buy a car with my hard earned cash, I'm not having the wretched thing telling me what it will, and will not, allow me to do. During the past (almost) 54 years of driving I have managed perfectly OK without having that sort of technological nonsense imposed on me and I don't think any of us should accept it.

Now I'm all in favour of trying to reduce the suffering caused by road accidents; but we have to keep a sense of proportion about this. There is plenty of scope for reducing our road toll without resorting to extreme and intrusive measures that take away yet more of our freedoms.

For people who secure power and become able to impose things on others, it's an easy thing to do, but is it the right way to seek to overcome problems. I would say not.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[crr003]

Their Manifesto seems very sensible to me.

The UK Government must:

2. Reduce the default urban limit from 30mph to 20mph, and the rural limit from 60mph to 50mph (with lower limits on rural roads with particular risks) – helping to protect children and adults on foot and bicycle in communities, and people in vehicles on rural roads, by ensuring drivers can stop in time in an emergency. A positive interim step would be encouraging and enabling more local authorites to implement widespread lower limits, through improved guidance and funding.

I understand I'm merely reiterating comments already made, but the idea that reducing overall speed limits will ensure drivers can stop in an emergency is not necessary. Please pass on to Brake that if you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, which is not just an AD mantra, it's advocated for Learners by DSA, this will achieve the goal of reducing carnage. This simple concept is achievable irrespective of the posted speed limit.

[Gareth]

Reduce the default urban limit from 30mph to 20mph, and the rural limit from 60mph to 50mph (with lower limits on rural roads with particular risks) [...] by ensuring drivers can stop in time in an emergency

stop in the distance you can see to be clear

Did you see in the link I posted that one of their long term aims is to set "Speed limits are no higher than 40mph for single carriageway rural roads, and 20mph for narrow country lanes" ?

I would expect an idea like this to come from an incompetent and/or exceedingly nervous driver, which colours my overall impression of Brake. My thought is that if there are drivers who strongly hold this opinion they probably should hand in their licence immediately as they are almost certainly a danger to other road users.

[waremark]

Their Manifesto seems very sensible to me.

The UK Government must: .......

Seems to be a lot of stuff in there that I would support. I'd be interested to know what you find 'draconian'. Would you support any of the above?

I am afraid not. I want to see balance between changes to promote road safety and the needs of mobility for people and goods; and I think the best returns in terms of improved road safety are available from improved road and vehicle engineering and improved driver education.

[fungus]

I'm affraid I agree with Dave and GJD. A speed limit by no means equates to a SAFE speed. Inapropriately low speed limits, which is what BRAKE are proposing, only serve to cause drivers to ignore the limits that are set sensibly. Also a limit that is set too low ie. below the 85th percentile, causes drivers to switch off, not that some are switched on. This in itself is dangerous. The focus on speed as an accident reducing tool is rather blunt in the extreme. Do you realy want drivers driving around watching their speedos for fear of prosecution because they have strayed a couple of mph above the set limit?

As for having telematics in the car, it may possibly be a good idea in the case of young inexperinced drivers in their first couple of years as a means of reducing bad behaviour, which in turn would help keep their insurance premiums lower, but they can only indicate a driving style, not whether that behaviour is dangerous at any given time.

I certainly DO NOT want any more restrictions on my liberty thank you.

[MGF]

Interestingly those who exercise the most freedom on our roads - that is those who ignore the regulations - also appear to be disproportionately involved in accidents involving casualties.

The freedom argument appears to be based on the concept that you can do what you want unless you harm others. That is a difficult concept to apply to driving where most harm is the consequence of risk associated with a legitimate activity being done badly rather than an illegitimate act. This is made almost impossible where the standard of driving needed for licensing is low and the capacity to monitor individuals' driving even lower.

[GJD]

Interestingly those who exercise the most freedom on our roads - that is those who ignore the regulations - also appear to be disproportionately involved in accidents involving casualties.

... most harm is the consequence of risk associated with a legitimate activity being done badly rather than an illegitimate act.

Do those statements not contradict each other?

[GJD]

I don't think so... there being a difference between personal risk, i.e. if you DLAC you are more likely to have an incident and group risk whereby the majority of incidents involve those driving badly rather than DLAC.

Ah, Ok. Got it.

Interestingly those who exercise the most freedom on our roads - that is those who ignore the regulations - also appear to be disproportionately involved in accidents involving casualties.

I wonder if there's an element of self-selection about that - a correlation between a willingness to ignore regulations and a disregard for the consequences of your actions. In other words, I wonder whether the disproportionate involvement in accidents would remain if the regulations were relaxed so that that level of freedom wasn't restricted to just the people prepared to ignore regulations.

[jont]

Perhaps if they were less radical in their proposals they would attract more respect.

They may attract more respect, but would probably attract less media attention, and they seem to have done rather well at creating a platform for themselves as a "road safety" charity even if personally I think they are more of a political lobby group. One could argue that the attention they get is partly by having such extreme views (although they now seem to have gained enough credence with the anti-speed focus that this approach has been successful)

[TripleS]

Interestingly those who exercise the most freedom on our roads - that is those who ignore the regulations - also appear to be disproportionately involved in accidents involving casualties.

The freedom argument appears to be based on the concept that you can do what you want unless you harm others. That is a difficult concept to apply to driving where most harm is the consequence of risk associated with a legitimate activity being done badly rather than an illegitimate act. This is made almost impossible where the standard of driving needed for licensing is low and the capacity to monitor individuals' driving even lower.

Beg pardon, David, but how do you substantiate that first statement? I don't know whether it is true or not, but I'm just interested to know the basis for it.

I'm often inclined to disregard what I believe are known as 'technical' offences (sorry, Darren), but I try to ensure that I only do it at times when it is not going to cause undesirable results. Therefore I do not believe that such an exerciser of freedom need necessarily be a source of undue trouble on our roads.

Best wishes all,
Dave.