TARGET
Derby City Council will miss out on
vital funding, worth £90,000 a year, unless it
meets Government-set targets to reduce the number
of people killed or seriously injured in road
accidents.
The council says it can meet the target for 2004
of 111 deaths or serious injuries between January
and December as long as the number of accidents
does not increase over the winter months.
But if it misses the target, the job of one road
safety officer is at risk, the cycle training
scheme called Bike Safe and pedestrian training
scheme Kerbcraft could be under threat. |
OLD MEN, BIG
BIKES
The government is to crack down on
middle-aged men who have taken to riding powerful
bikes that they are unable to control. These men
are likely to have given up smaller machines in
their youth for a family car.
Ministers believe the bikers are undermining road
safety policies and, under new plans, riders
returning to biking after a long absence could be
forced to take training and a test on smaller
machines.
At the moment there is nothing to stop an
individual who passed a motorcycle test many
years ago returning to biking on a powerful
machine.
The new legislation, however, will force all
motorcyclists to show they are capable of riding
a smaller bike before they can progress to one
above 400cc. Under-21s are already restricted to
medium-powered bikes for two years after passing
their test. |
|
|
ROAD SAFETY 2
On the 8th December I attended a police
Authority meeting and all were informed how well the
police were operating but one area was left out of all
the good news which was spelt out by both the Authority
and the Chief Constable, this being road safety. When
asked why he was further reducing the traffic section his
response was that he had to transfer officers into other
more needing areas of policing. Another attendee asked
why the traffic vehicle on the A57 had been removed and
replaced with a covert camera, his reply being that it
was SPECIFICALLY to target motorcycles but quickly added
that all other vehicles would be targeted by the same
covert camera.
Specific now takes on another meaning and so we have
another corruption of the English language (double
standards are common within the area of road safety and
those who operate there). Since I could not put forward
further questions to him on road safety at the time I
have since written to him without any response to date on
various matters. One of these being why a driver who had
two illegal tyres and two under inflated tyres, hit
another vehicle, left the road and killed his passenger,
accumilated 12 points but was not disqualified, only
fined £413. This would seem very cheap for the life of a
young person and reflects the ineffect use of cameras.
We also have another case reported this week of another
driver who had been banned eight times, two previous
convictions for dangerous driving, had appeared in court
thirty five times for nearly one hundred offences which
included, aggravated vehicle taking, burgalry, robbery
and violence. The above offence which killed his
passenger stated that he was twice the legal drive limit.
Both of the above cases highlight just how (in)effective
cameras are at detecting those who should not be on the
roads and if more traffic vehicles were in evidence some
of these might be aborted but of course with the
continued reduction in policing these kind of RTCs will
continue.
The so called "Road Safety Partnership" calls
for safer roads and tries to justify the use of cameras
but these can never detect the very things that humans
can. Of course the police claim to be efficient but at
the same time neglect the very area which needs to be
policed by reductions in officers needed for effective
road policing. It is no use shouting about the serious
RTCs which occur when the Chief Constable gives such a
very low priority to this highly contentious issue of
road safety. If resources are directed away from road
safety then what else can be expected. It may be possible
that in the future someone involved in such a situation
might take action for neglect of duty or other sort of
action then maybe someone just might have some common
sense to change direction on such matters.
At the above meeting it was also claimed that vehcile
crime had been reduced but it is now reported that such
crimes have shot into the red zone of figures, possibly
this is one area in which the figures cannot be massaged
(maybe short of officers for this task). After taking a
very active roll in road safety issues it is no wonder
such incidents like the above occur and will continue to
do so until another direction is taken and those in the
road photographic society given early retirement. I have
yet to receive any factual or acceptable answers to many
points put to anyone in the area of road safety. Alienated
Drivers who knock down children should have
to pay compensation even if the victim ran out without
looking, according to a report commissioned by the
Government. The motorist would be assumed to be
responsible in civil proceedings for any collision
involving a child in a residential area. Bereaved parents
could claim compensation from the drivers insurers
and he would lose any no-claims discount.
The driver could avoid being held responsible only if he
could prove that he had taken every reasonable step to
avoid the collision. Complying with the speed limit would
not be a sufficient defence because the driver should
have realised that there was a possibility of a child
running out and reduced his speed accordingly. Britain
has the best overall road safety record in Europe but one
of the highest death rates for child pedestrians. In
2002, 79 pedestrians aged under 16 were killed and 2,800
seriously injured.
The Department for Transport commissioned a group of
academics to study road safety policy in other European
countries and identify any measures that might save
childrens lives. The study found that the two
countries with the lowest child pedestrian death rates,
Sweden and the Netherlands, had laws that assumed the
driver to be responsible in collisions with children.
Germany, which had the fourth lowest rate, had a similar
law. The study recommended that the Government should
consider introducing the same principle into English law.
Nicola Christie, senior researcher in public health at
Surrey University and the lead author of the study, said,
While it goes against the grain to assume guilt
unless it is proven, this law could help to reduce deaths
and injuries because drivers would be more careful.
The Dutch law was set in 1988 in a case involving a
13-year-old girl who cycled suddenly out of a side road
and was hit and seriously injured by a car that had
priority on a main road. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled
that children under 14 could not be expected to observe
traffic rules and ordered the driver to pay all the
damages and costs.
Willem Vermeulen, safety researcher at the Dutch Traffic
Department, said, This law has had a psychological
effect in making drivers more aware of the vulnerability
of children. If they see a ball bounce into the road they
have to assume that a child will run out after it. They
know that if they hit a child, practically the only
excuse accepted is that the child voluntarily threw
itself under the car. Mr Vermeulen said that the
law had initally been met with furious protests by Dutch
motorists. But our society has now widely accepted
that drivers need an extra burden because of their
powerful position in traffic. The current debate is
whether to extend the law to children over 14.
Zoe Stow, head of RoadPeace, the charity that supports
those bereaved and injured by road crashes, said that too
many drivers were able to escape responsibility for
collisions because of the lack of witnesses. She said,
The driver can easily blame the child because the
child may be dead and unable to defend itself. We need to
change the burden of proof so that fewer drivers get off
scot-free. Rob Gifford, director of the
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety,
said, Some drivers may be forced to pay out when
there was no fault at all on their part. But that is an
acceptable price to pay for civilising our streets.
(Source: Times Online)
<<<
Prev
|
|
|