NEW car test and Speed limits

[ROG]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8009364.stm - There is a short Radio 4 clip to click on as well.

1 - Does anyone think this different test will help

2 - Is the new pre-qualification course which is likely to be an 'option' of the school curriculum a good idea

3 - Will the lower 50 mph rural speed limits help

4 - Will the residential 20 mph limit help

5 - Have they missed out on any ideas which you would like to see included

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

My answers;
1 - Not a lot
2 - Yes, but depends on the exact nature of it
3 - No - those that want to go 70+ on those sort of roads will still do it
4 - Yes, provided it is just that - 20 for streets that have frontages onto the road and are not part of a main thoroughfare.
5 - Oh yes. They totally missed compulsory post test training and/or periodic assessments.

[jont]

1) Depends on how it's implemented and whats in it. Test centres being in built up areas is not going to teach youngsters how to drive on rural back roads at night, however long/involved the test is.
2) It's a start.
3) No - if anything will make things worse (impatience/dodgy overtakes etc). Nasty trick by the government to get councils to effectively reduce NSL to 50 while absolving the government of direct involvement in doing it.
4) Only if anyone bothers paying attention to it. Expect it to be implemented where it isn't needed and enforced arbitrarily (and see above about impatience/dodgy overtakes not helping)
5) Yes. Stop telling people you can judge safe driving by a number on a stick and that it's okay to have an accident/hit a pedestrian so long as you're not speeding. Go back to teaching "be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear and expect to remain clear"

[ScoobyChris]

I'm waiting for the BBC to publish my comments

Chris

[jbsportstech]

The speed limits drop will just see a increase in speeding fines and revenue. Therfore helping pay for mp's £133k average expenses last and go towards paying of some of the banks toxic debt off as far as I can see. Without a change in the way speeders are delt with can't see how they are hoping to improve the death toll. Unless its the drop the speed limit by 10mph in a hope to drop the AVERAGE speed on these roads by 10mph. This is what I am told they did on trull road in taunton. This suffered from 40-50mph average speeds (Tested on one day only) and therefore it became a 20mph overnight. Its a wide road with pretty good vision. So now you get most people doing 30 or one doing 20 with 5 cars 5 cm apart behind them.

20mph will still be two fast for some built areas where conditions are closed (For instance parked cars either side of a narrow road). So if we looked at making drivers more accountable for their actions along with better training we could teach how to judge conditions for themsleves.

[Porker]

3 - Will the lower 50 mph rural speed limits help

3 - No - those that want to go 70+ on those sort of roads will still do it

What about those who enjoyed doing 60mph on those roads and who want to comply with the law though?

P.

[Gareth]

3 - Will the lower 50 mph rural speed limits help

3 - No - those that want to go 70+ on those sort of roads will still do it

I think talking about 70+ on rural roads is irrelevant - what is more significant is that those who drive unsafely are still likely to be unsafe, and there's a risk that it will encourage more unsafe behaviour.

The few drivers who do not break rural speed limits might pay even less attention to what they are doing, while it will make no difference to those who do break rural speed limits.

I'm interested in whether there is anything in the new approach that will make a difference to drivers who break urban limits. My opinion is that we used to have a high proportion of urban limits that were reasonable, but we've already seen some urban limits being unreasonably lowered. I'm thinking of wide town roads with housing either set well back or on minor roads running in parallel to the main road - I know of a number that were set to a reasonable 40 mph but have been already lowered to what I consider an unreasonable 30 mph. Going by the number of vehicles that are right up my chuff when driving such roads, I suspect many other drivers, (especially the locals), also think the lower limits are unreasonable. If urban limits are going to be reduced further and in the same indiscriminate manner, then I suspect the proportion of drivers ignoring these limits will increase.

In similar fashion, I know of a number of rural limits that were NSL but where locals have campaigned for lower limits, and they went to 50 then 40 mph. Instead of signage to highlight the increased level of danger and the one or two points along such stretches, (for example where a country pub is on a bend), whole swathes of otherwise reasonable roads have reduced limits. My nasty streak thinks it would be lots of fun to use speed cameras to target local drivers on such roads ...

[Custom24]

There were supposed to be public consultations on these matters during the Summer. Does anyone know where/when/how to get along to them and make your voice heard?

[jont]

There were supposed to be public consultations on these matters during the Summer. Does anyone know where/when/how to get along to them and make your voice heard?

If it's anything like local council consultations, assuming you can work out how to submit a response, they'll thank you for your contribution, ignore any of your questions/arguments, trot out the official line about complying with government guidance (ignoring whether that guidance makes any sense), then chuck your comments in the bin. I'd suggest writing to your MP instead - mine actually seems to care about what I think and responds reasonably. But then he's got to convince people to re-elect him to keep his job, unlike most of the council employees.

[fungus]

The Transport Minister said on GMTV news this morning, that the vast majority of drivers are driving responsibly. So whats the problem?

I can only agree with the comments made by others, which I think just about sums the whole issue up.

As regards teaching on rural roads. Some instructors in urban areas may have to travel a reasonable distance to get to a rural area. Will pupils in those areas pay the extra to cover the cost of longer lessons, especialy with the economic down turn.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[MGF]

There were supposed to be public consultations on these matters during the Summer. Does anyone know where/when/how to get along to them and make your voice heard?

Consultation details are here

"But improved road safety is not something that Government in Westminster, Edinburgh or Cardiff can make happen on its own. It needs the active co‑operation of us all, in improving the way in which we use the roads and the skills which we apply in doing so. That’s why I am keen to use this consultation for an essential dialogue on road safety, with members of the public as well as with expert interest groups. We all have ideas on road safety, as we all have daily experience of using the roads and this is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to air them. " Jim Fitzpatrick

[jont]

Consultation details are here

And there's a tickbox survey form linked from here. However the options are so bland as to be meaningless, and worse still you can't express which way you disagree with their options eg:

14. Our proposed targets are to reduce deaths on our roads by at least 33% and serious injuries on our roads by at least 33% by 2020.
a) Do you agree that these targets are realistic?
(answers from Strongly Agree - Neutral - Strongly Disagree)
b) Do you agree that these targets are suitably challenging?

So you while you can express that the targets are unrealistic, you can't express which direction you think they are unrealistic in, only ask for tougher targets or agree with the policy.

Or statements such as:
"For every 1 mph reduction in average traffic speeds, there is an expected 5% reduction in collisions"
So a 20mph speed limit reduction would mean we expect no collisions?

There's also no box for free text answers, so basically the survey responses will be used to justify any decision the government wants as you can't express an opinion showing disagreement. Who on earth is employed to come up with these surveys. A school pupil should be able to produce less biased questions than these.

There is also an email address which I might get round to responding to, but first I need to calm down to be able to write a coherent argument.

[ROG]

THE DSA CONSULTATION RESULTS & PROPOSALS

[MGF]

As with all consultations there are a series of questions (if you take the time to read them).

eg

Question
This consultation document sets out the current evidence on the key road safety challenges. Do you agree with our analysis? Would you highlight any others?


Questions
Do you agree that our vision for road safety should be to have the safest roads in the world?
Do you agree that we should define a strategy running over twenty years to 2030, but with review points after five and ten years?
We have identified a number of factors that may affect our ability to deliver road safety improvements in the future world we are planning for. Do you think we have taken account of the key risks and opportunities? Are there others you would add?

The questions give ample opportunity to disagree with the DfT's position. Perhaps the online survey is designed to filter out those who don't want to think in too much detail about the proposals.

[zadocbrown]

I don't understand why we talk about 20 mph limits as if collisions always occur at the speed limit. Someone walking into the road is not a freak event which gives a driver no time to react.

Surely driving slowly so it doesn't hurt as much when we hit someone is rather missing the point? Is it not better to be doing 0 mph at the crucial moment? The only way to achieve that is forward planning.

[brianhaddon]

I don't understand why we talk about 20 mph limits as if collisions always occur at the speed limit. Someone walking into the road is not a freak event which gives a driver no time to react.

Surely driving slowly so it doesn't hurt as much when we hit someone is rather missing the point? Is it not better to be doing 0 mph at the crucial moment? The only way to achieve that is forward planning.

Precisely. Surely if they are talking of hitting someone at 30 in a 30 limit the driver is going over the limit in the first place so how is lowering the limit going to make the driver obey it? Or they are driving blind and not reacting to their surroundings, in which case messing about with the limit is barking up the wrong tree and will not have an effect unless you make it 1mph.

As zadocbrown writes we should aim for 0mph (all things being equal) at the approriate time. Will constant messing about with limits result in the desired results?
Regards
Brian Haddon