Lack Of Road Safety Strategy...

[La Colombe]

...progress disappoints MHK Bill Shimmins. Let's be honest here, any road safety strategy will have an inevitable all island speed limit included in it. In fact, that would pretty much be the strategy. That's why there will never be one. 

[WTF]

improving driving standards doesn't require a speed limit.

[La Colombe]

17 minutes ago, WTF said:

improving driving standards doesn't require a speed limit.

Perhaps not, but a limit will improve driving standards. 

[craggy_steve]

16 minutes ago, WTF said:

improving driving standards doesn't require a speed limit.

No, but speed limits do help to reduce the impact of poor driving standards.

Personally I would prefer to avoid more speed limits, I think we have too many unjustifiably speed-limited sections of roads already, but the reality is that implementing and enforcing more speed limits is probably easier than improving driving standards. Maybe we should make Advanced Driving training & tests compulsory for all motorists wishing to use cars over 1200cc and bikes over 250cc ?

[Holte End]

The reason is Billy boy wants to destroy anything that is unique to the island.

We seem to have the same road safety strategy as the UK surely that's good enough for him.

[Kitten Mittens]

35 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

No, but speed limits do help to reduce the impact of poor driving standards.

Personally I would prefer to avoid more speed limits, I think we have too many unjustifiably speed-limited sections of roads already, but the reality is that implementing and enforcing more speed limits is probably easier than improving driving standards. Maybe we should make Advanced Driving training & tests compulsory for all motorists wishing to use cars over 1200cc and bikes over 250cc ?

In theory that's not a bad idea, but it would be difficult to police and the price of small engine cars would sky rocket.

Also, I hear the next Fiesta ST is to have 1.3L engine (could be wrong). It's just going to have one of their 'Eco Boost' turbo's. So although a small engine size (I'm aware it falls just outside of your 1200cc - but not by much) it would still be a very fast car, potentially much more dangerous than say a family aimed 1.6L Ford C-Max. You'd have to limit it by BHP or torque too, which makes it even harder to police.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

improving driving standards doesn't require a speed limit.

But it can save lives.... https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/

 

[craggy_steve]

4 minutes ago, Kitten Mittens said:

In theory that's not a bad idea, but it would be difficult to police and the price of small engine cars would sky rocket.

Also, I hear the next Fiesta ST is to have 1.3L engine (could be wrong). It's just going to have one of their 'Eco Boost' turbo's. So although a small engine size (I'm aware it falls just outside of your 1200cc - but not by much) it would still be a very fast car, much more dangerous than say a family aimed 1.6L Ford C-Max. You'd have to limit it by BHP or torque too, which makes it even harder to police.

Limiting by (manufacturer's quoted) BHP or whatever would be fine, it's an arbitrary limit in any respect, all it would mean is that anyone wanting to drive a "higher-performance" / "prestige" vehicle would need to evidence (through an advanced test) their capability to drive a potentially more dangerous weapon.

That being said, my preferred car (my daily runabout) is under 90BHP but has no ABS, EBC, Traction Control, Stability Control, Power Steering or whatever - no modern driver aids at all, so what's safer - my well maintained old banger or a modern 180BHP hot hatch with all the electronic driver assistance gismos? It's not really about the vehicle.

I think any road safety regime should be focused on the driver, but whilst enabling most people to drive (because they need to) it should encourage / require higher standards of driver education wherever possible. Pragmatically I expect regulators will put that in the "too difficult" tray and impose more speed limits instead.

[WTF]

if the police policed the current speed limits with more regularity it would help, but adding limits that are policed once in a blue moon isn't going to save many if any lives at all.

 

if we want to go down the technology route all vehicles should be fitted with GPS controlled speed governors so when you enter a limit you just can't exceed it except in the case of  genuine emergency service persons on a shout.

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, WTF said:

if the police policed the current speed limits with more regularity it would help, but adding limits that are policed once in a blue moon isn't going to save many if any lives at all.

 

if we want to go down the technology route all vehicles should be fitted with GPS controlled speed governors so when you enter a limit you just can't exceed it except in the case of  genuine emergency service persons on a shout.

I think the 'slow down' speed reminders are a deterrence (when they work!), as are the use of sleeping policemen in built up areas. 

[Derek Flint]

"....improving driving standards doesn't require a speed limit."

This is truly the elephant in the room, and something we are going to have to get over. The favoured strategy is "Safe System". This begins from a target that no road traffic collision should result in a fatality - which to be honest, has to be the only one worth having. As part of that safe system, all options have to be on the table - including providing a risk assess based speed limit - or no limit if that can be seen to be appropriate. 

If you have a strategy, and then post-fatal collision inquest, the Coroner asks "Would a restriction on speed have made a difference here?" and the answer is "Yes, but we're special here and we don't want to wreck tourism/fun/individual choice" then the Coroner is bound to cite an Article 2 failing in his judgement. 

There are many of my fellow petrolheads that don't like my stance on this issue. But most of them haven't had to deal with it from my perspective. 

We desperately need this strategy, and we cannot leave those charged with delivering it, denied every option. 

 

[Yibble]

1 hour ago, craggy_steve said:

Maybe we should make Advanced Driving training & tests compulsory for all motorists wishing to use cars over 1200cc and bikes over 250cc ?

On what data is this idea based?

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Kitten Mittens said:

In theory that's not a bad idea, but it would be difficult to police and the price of small engine cars would sky rocket.

Also, I hear the next Fiesta ST is to have 1.3L engine (could be wrong). It's just going to have one of their 'Eco Boost' turbo's. So although a small engine size (I'm aware it falls just outside of your 1200cc - but not by much) it would still be a very fast car, potentially much more dangerous than say a family aimed 1.6L Ford C-Max. You'd have to limit it by BHP or torque too, which makes it even harder to police.

Hope it comes with a fire extinguisher.....

[craggy_steve]

11 minutes ago, Yibble said:

On what data is this idea based?

No data or definitive capacity or horsepower requirement. Simply an incentive to all motorists who wish to drive "better" vehicles to first upgrade their training / skills. Allow people to drive on the basic license, but only to drive "lower performance" vehicles unless they upgrade to an "Advanced Driver" status.

[John Wright]

I’m fairly certain the way it will go will be insurance incentives by way of lower premiums if you take and pass advanced motoring/cycling courses every few years. 

I’d also expect regular official re-testing.

Finally, and possibly the most effective, will be insurance companies insisting on fitting trackers, with premiums related to which roads the car is driven on, nature of driving, speed, time of day, distance. etc. as well as age, experience and claim free years.