ADUK Archive

At around 7:10 this morning Neil Greig from the IAM was on BB1's Breakfast talking about 'dangerous roads'.

Yet another missed opportunity...the piece was about how some roads have been rated from a safety point and it was an outside broadcast next to 'Britain's most dangerous road' (A457 Macclesfield if I remember).

Great to see someone from the IAM on national TV rather than 'BRAKE' or the AA but Mr. Greig is still pushing out the wrong message in my opinion. He mentioned poor barrier protection, the dangers of junctions etc but completely ommited 'driver education'.

The reporter finished up by saying; "this road may improve as it's just been subject to a 50 mph speed limit"...so that's OK then!

If anyone would like to comment to Neil perhaps you'd like to send him an email: neil.greig@iamtrust.org.uk

I saw it as well. Absolutely scandalous, this man is employed by, and is a spokesman for, the IAM not BRAKE, yet he was giving out the BRAKE message. It's not the roads that are dangerous, it's the drivers who can't control their cars/motorcycles properly. However, he didn't mention this once, just kept talking about the lack of road-side safety features. I'm not impressed.

Have we now reached a situation where it's so politically incorrect to mention the possibility of drivers being at fault and taking responsibility for their own actions that no organisation risks giving out that message for fear of losing "credibility" and the ability to gain publicity though news outlets etc? I realise there are still ABD, SafeSpeed etc, but the fact that these groups aren't really taken seriously by politicians is perhaps indicative of how serious the problem is.

It was a very similar message on Radio 4 yesterday morning where someone from Campaign for Protection of Rural England was drivelling on about 50mph speed limits being needed for lanes because of some "dangerous drivers" and I so wanted the interviewer to ask how reducing the speed limit would magically make people safer if they're already not driving to the conditions and other road users around them. (Oh, and the reason CPRE were on was to moan about how many signs would be needed for all the new 50s, so maybe we should make 50 the default and councils could add 60s where they thought it was safe - like we expect to see that happen ).

You can listen to the interview on iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l348s/Today_25_06_2009/

It starts at about 1h:42m into the programme.

The general thrust is that roads are dangerous if they do nothing to save the road user once they've left the grey portion. Driver training was mentioned only in passing. Neil seemed to favour more signing of hazards, including what he referred to as "white lines", whatever that was supposed to mean.

P.

I thought it was a missed opportunity as well for the IAM to promote training. Still at least it wasn't BRAKE, even though the message was too similar.

I wonder if Neil Greig reads this, or perhaps someone should send him a link...

Also from the BBC news website today...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Rodger, from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said improvements in both car safety technology and road design had helped drive casualty figures down.

"There's also been a lot of talk about the need for driver improvement which makes people more conscious about the way they drive," he said.

"The main message is how can we keep things going in that direction."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8118341.stm

Peter Rodger for those that don't know, is IAM Chief Examiner...at least he gave a hint in the right direction...but oh for a strong, simple...'improving driver skills could be the most effective way of making our roads safer" or such like.

Fenland Flyer wrote:I saw it as well. Absolutely scandalous, this man is employed by, and is a spokesman for, the IAM not BRAKE, yet he was giving out the BRAKE message. It's not the roads that are dangerous, it's the drivers who can't control their cars/motorcycles properly. However, he didn't mention this once, just kept talking about the lack of road-side safety features. I'm not impressed.

Hear, hear!

Porker wrote:You can listen to the interview on iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l348s/Today_25_06_2009/

It starts at about 1h:42m into the programme.

The general thrust is that roads are dangerous if they do nothing to save the road user once they've left the grey portion. Driver training was mentioned only in passing. Neil seemed to favour more signing of hazards, including what he referred to as "white lines", whatever that was supposed to mean.

P.

Unfortunately the more 'pampered' drivers become, the less incentive there is for them to do anything to help themselves. It's completely impractical to keep people entirely safe once they're off the black stuff.

I think we might do better in the long run by making everyone drive old rear wheel drive cars with slick tyres. (It would certainly be more fun ) Yes, we'll loose a few in the short term (well hey, overpopulation anyone?) but with time a combination of natural selection and greater awareness of the life and death nature of driving decisions would work wonders IMHO.

The problem with the ABD and Safe Speed is that they're seen by the politicaly correct media as a load of petrol heads, without so much as an ounce of sense between them. If they would only take the time to read some of the information on their websites, maybe, although it's not likely, they would put across the views of people who take driving seriously, and not only the emotive views of BRAKE.

I have only seen one interview by the media with either the ABD or Safe Speed, but plenty with the AA or BRAKE. In the interview with Safe Speed, whenever the point was raised about speed, and their spokesperson pointed out that the speed limit and the safespeed were not the same thing, the interviewer imediately sidetracked to lower speed limits and speed cameras saving lives. IIRC the interview then switched to BRAKE, where a more simpathetic hearing was given.

A fortnight ago we had a double fatality on the A31 here in Dorset. The following week in the local papers letter section, was a letter headed, "A31 carnage" in which the correspondent suggested that the answer to the problem was to lower the speed limit from 60mph to 40mph, and paint double white lines along the entire stretch of road to prevent overtaking. This would make a stretch of about three miles of totaly rural road with long straight sections where overtaking is perfectly safe, a slow and frustrating drive. It would also make it virtualy impossible to legaly overtake a cyclist without crossing the solid double line as the road would not be wide enough to do it safely.

This response is typical of the knee jerk reactions seen so frequently in the press today whenever there is a fatality on a local road.

I have responded to this letter in opposition to the correspondents views, giving my reasons in more detail than above.

As far as the IAM are concerned, they should promoting Skill With Responsibility, not blaming killer roads, although there's a valid case for some junctions to have their sight lines opened out. One localy was subject to a reduction in speed limit from 60mph to 50mph and some white paint, withought opening up the sight lines. The irony is that most drivers were probably not exceding 50mph at this point anyway.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

Just seen the interview. The interviewer had to finish with the fact that the road was now subject to a 50mph limit not 60mph.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

martine wrote:but Mr. Greig is still pushing out the wrong message in my opinion. He mentioned poor barrier protection, the dangers of junctions etc but completely ommited 'driver education'.

Mr Greig continues to do a fine job of distancing the hard working front line members of the IAM from the IAM!

On the other hand, there has to be an argument for making roads as safe as they reasonably might be. After all, we'd be up in arms if a new type of road surface (say) was unusually slippery when wet compared to the "norm" that we've come to expect.

JJ Leeming's "Road Accidents - prevent or punish?" gave many examples of roads which were unnecessarily dangerous and which were made much safer with a relatively modest expenditure.

The outstanding example for me was of a crossroads where a number of vehicles had failed to give way, in turn causing side impacts. The contributary factors were a lorry that regularly made deliveries to an adjacent shop which parked so as to obscure the Give Way sign, and Give Way lines which were on a portion of the road which was in a slight dip and were therefore obscured from drivers' views.

regards
P.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing (and seeing) this morning. Firstly, I was almost pole axed by the sight of an IAM representative on a main stream morning "news" program ... but then my hopes were dashed as he completely missed the opportunity to press home the driver education message.

It speaks volumes when the BBC refer to the IAM as the "Institution" of Advanced Motorists.

Later in the day, on the Jeremy Vine program on Radio 2 they were talking about this safety report and most people were bleating on about poor road engineering and the need to reduce speeds. There was just one bright light amongst the sea of darkness and it came from a council road safety manager who made the point that it's not the roads that are dangerous but the road users that make it dangerous.

Six months on from resigning from the "Institution" I still see no reason to regret that decision - sadly

fungus wrote:The problem with the ABD and Safe Speed is that they're seen by the politicaly correct media as a load of petrol heads, without so much as an ounce of sense between them. If they would only take the time to read some of the information on their websites, maybe, although it's not likely, they would put across the views of people who take driving seriously, and not only the emotive views of BRAKE.....

The problem with ABD is that when they started out they were so emotionally anti camera they are going to take a long time to be taken seriously, even though they may well have some good info now.

Nigel

adiNigel wrote:The problem with ABD is that when they started out they were so emotionally anti camera they are going to take a long time to be taken seriously, even though they may well have some good info now.

And Brake et al never resort to emotive arguments Doesn't seem to have taken them long to be taken far too seriously.