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 driver’s 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 children’s 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