Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
La Colombe

Lack Of Road Safety Strategy...

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

 

I think testing came in with the 2002 Road Traffic Act? The incident was in the 90's if my memory serves me correctly?

Your memory is probably better than mine and you are in the trade. That was between driving stints of mine so you are more than likely correct :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, emesde said:

I think the incident being referred to was in December 2005 and a report in 2008 says the act was still not made law .

Here is a link to a report re this accident .

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/owner-of-lorry-which-killed-james-berry-fined-4000-93013

Thanks for that. It just shows how bad firms were then compared to now. Knowing who was involved speaks volumes. Poor lad.

I have worked for several companies and all of them were very aware of how much effort was needed to keep trucks safe to be on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Max Power said:

 

I think testing came in with the 2002 Road Traffic Act? The incident was in the 90's if my memory serves me correctly?

PM'd you.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 7:05 PM, Gizo said:

I was following a certain well known carpet fitting company van the other day. The state of the van is abysmal and the black shite spewing from exhaust was truly awful. It appears no vehicle maintenance is carried out. Shocking really. 

Its hardly surprising considering there is no MOT or emissions testing. I know of a local company who's had all the DPF and EGRs removed from company vans and sensors mapped out on the ECU (so it doesn't show engine/emissions warning light) ironic that they save a fortune on tax each year by buying new emission friendly vans and then remove all the reasons that makes it so cheap to tax. IOM is falling way behind in this aspect, the island could be a lot greener/cleaner than it currently is and that doesn't just involve encouraging electric cars and promoting cycling. I believe if people remove the reason they've got cheap vehicle tax they should be charged on the emissions their car/van is actually producing.

As ever it will take at least 10-20 years for the IOM to wake up, they even stopped measuring particulate and emissions levels in I think it was 2008 and it was failing miserably for noX levels back then and I don't remember straight piped 'performance' diesels being such a big thing then either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 6:30 PM, woolley said:

The MOT thing is trotted out from time to time. There is no justification from an accident point of view, and this was confirmed by the DoI and the police some time ago. As has been said, the only instance in recent years related to vehicle condition was the tragic incident where the wheel parted company with the lorry which had been subject to testing. I would support more roadside testing and dragging in anything that looks iffy, which is sensible and proportionate. Other than that, it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If it comes in, it will be more related to revenue raising than road safety. Another stealth tax and nothing more.

Its not really a sledgehammer to crack a nut though, easiest way to improve road safety is to remove vehicles from the road, less vehicles = less accidents. Easiest way to remove vehicles is introducing regular testing of either drivers or vehicles (or maybe even both!?)

Edit to say : Also I've read a few accident reports and quite often the vehicle involved does have faults found but these are often marked as 'not believed to have contributed to the accident'

Edited by Annoymouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

 
Edit to say : Also I've read a few accident reports and quite often the vehicle involved does have faults found but these are often marked as 'not believed to have contributed to the accident'

So there you are then. Agree about sorting out the idiocy of some drivers, though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, woolley said:

So there you are then. Agree about sorting out the idiocy of some drivers, though.

The other side to it of course is if the vehicle wasn't on the road due to the 'faults found' then its possible the accident would never have occurred? probably not a good way to think about it though. At this moment in time I cannot see how regular testing is a bad thing, I believe it would almost certainly remove vehicles/drivers from our roads, I don't want to pay for an MOT and I don't want the hassle of it but I believe overall it would make improvements. I'd also like to see more use of this ANPR technology to catch drivers with no tax/insurance.

14 Years ago there was a consultation about an all island speed limit and I'm ashamed to say at the time I voted no, if that consultation was to take place today I would vote in support of it. For me it goes to show how peoples attitudes change over time, I value life so much more than I did 14 years ago, I've witnessed a few aftermaths in that time and countless near misses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing would pick up things such as scratched windscreens, out of adjustment headlights, worn shock absorbers, poor brake efficiency, non functioning wipers and washers, mismatched tyres etc etc etc. All items which would probably be damaged in a serious accident and impossible to determine if they caused the driver to lose control. These would most likely never appear on an accident report for that reason and so distorts the statement that few accidents are caused by vehicle defects. This is not to mention accidents where the vehicle(s) are damaged and there is no police involvement or a vehicle is not examined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

The other side to it of course is if the vehicle wasn't on the road due to the 'faults found' then its possible the accident would never have occurred? probably not a good way to think about it though. At this moment in time I cannot see how regular testing is a bad thing, I believe it would almost certainly remove vehicles/drivers from our roads, I don't want to pay for an MOT and I don't want the hassle of it but I believe overall it would make improvements. I'd also like to see more use of this ANPR technology to catch drivers with no tax/insurance.

14 Years ago there was a consultation about an all island speed limit and I'm ashamed to say at the time I voted no, if that consultation was to take place today I would vote in support of it. For me it goes to show how peoples attitudes change over time, I value life so much more than I did 14 years ago, I've witnessed a few aftermaths in that time and countless near misses.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Supposing the vehicle wasn't on the road, and supposing any defect on the vehicle did not contribute to the accident, as we are told it didn't. Presumably then, human error was responsible for the accident, and the same human, more than likely, would be on the road having obtained something else to drive. My contention is that there are very few people prepared to drive around in a death trap and the rest of the population should not be inconvenienced for those few. It is good to live in a place that places this responsibility on the individual. For the few outriders, there are roadside checks and there should be the very heaviest of penalties, including imprisonment, for the worst offenders.

It is true and interesting that we seem to value life more the older we get. Very peculiar seeing as we have so much less of it left. I once spoke to an old chap who was 92 and feeling it. Trying to cheer him up a bit I told him that I would be glad if I felt a bit under the weather when I was 92. "Yes." he said. "But as you get weaker, the fear gets stronger."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Testing would pick up things such as scratched windscreens, out of adjustment headlights, worn shock absorbers, poor brake efficiency, non functioning wipers and washers, mismatched tyres etc etc etc. All items which would probably be damaged in a serious accident and impossible to determine if they caused the driver to lose control. These would most likely never appear on an accident report for that reason and so distorts the statement that few accidents are caused by vehicle defects. This is not to mention accidents where the vehicle(s) are damaged and there is no police involvement or a vehicle is not examined. 

All can be picked up in a service. It is the drivers responsibility. This is trotted out every 18 months or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woolley said:

All can be picked up in a service. It is the drivers responsibility. This is trotted out every 18 months or so.

Yes, but there is no compunction to have the work done woolley, it is a serious problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woolley said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. Supposing the vehicle wasn't on the road, and supposing any defect on the vehicle did not contribute to the accident, as we are told it didn't. Presumably then, human error was responsible for the accident, and the same human, more than likely, would be on the road having obtained something else to drive. My contention is that there are very few people prepared to drive around in a death trap and the rest of the population should not be inconvenienced for those few. It is good to live in a place that places this responsibility on the individual. For the few outriders, there are roadside checks and there should be the very heaviest of penalties, including imprisonment, for the worst offenders.

It is true and interesting that we seem to value life more the older we get. Very peculiar seeing as we have so much less of it left. I once spoke to an old chap who was 92 and feeling it. Trying to cheer him up a bit I told him that I would be glad if I felt a bit under the weather when I was 92. "Yes." he said. "But as you get weaker, the fear gets stronger."

Agreed, I'd be happy to see more roadside checks and not just in winter but all year round. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes, but there is no compunction to have the work done woolley, it is a serious problem.  

I simply don't agree that it's a serious problem. If people were dying all of the time and it was being put down to defective vehicles then I would concede that you have a point, but it isn't. We need to target the defect behind the wheel. The vehicles can be dealt with by roadside checks.

I know we've done this all before several times, max, so we won't do it again. You have your view, I have mine. I'm going to leave it at that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Testing would pick up things such as scratched windscreens, out of adjustment headlights, worn shock absorbers, poor brake efficiency, non functioning wipers and washers, mismatched tyres etc etc etc. All items which would probably be damaged in a serious accident and impossible to determine if they caused the driver to lose control. These would most likely never appear on an accident report for that reason and so distorts the statement that few accidents are caused by vehicle defects. This is not to mention accidents where the vehicle(s) are damaged and there is no police involvement or a vehicle is not examined. 

That's not even the dangerous stuff, you've got corrosion (transit/land rover chassis anyone!?) , rusty brake lines, fuel/oil leaks, HID kits incorrectly installed, I've seen wheel nuts missing, well not just wheel nuts but the whole stud missing, wheel bearings, rear beams collapsing (Citroen/Peugeot), diff/subframe mounts trying to rip themselves out (BMW), not just scratched windscreens but ones with cracks are fairly common, non functioning handbrakes, air bag lights ignored and seat belts not functioning/retracting correctly. The list goes on, you only need to speak to a few garages and you'll hear a few of the horror stories, some people don't bring a car in to be checked until something is about to fall off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...