Jonathan Morris wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Would anyone care to argue that motoring offences are at an acceptably
low level? Enforcement of speed and red lights is still treated as a
game, with a slap on the wrist if you are dozy enough not to spot a
bright yellow camera. Elsewhere, 90% of drivers treat speed limits as
advisory.

The speed argument is silly though. It's been turned into a major issue
because there's technology on the cheap to enforce it; in fact, there's
cheap technology that makes it profitable to enforce it. It fails to
recognise that speed is a minor cause of accidents, even if it /can/
have a more serious effect when one happens.

No, it is important, in producing a more cycle-friendly and
pedestrian-friendly road system. A couple of illustrations.

An elderly pedestrian wants to cross a road where sightlines are not
too good. She starts crossing when no traffic is in sight. The faster
the traffic, the more likely it is that a motor vehicle will arrive
before she finishes crossing.

A cyclist at 15mph is approached from behind by a car. The road isn't
wide enough to overtake safely, though there's just room to squeeze
past. If the car is going at 40 mph, the closing speed is double what
it is at 27.5. The driver at 40 has to think twice as fast, and slow
down twice as much to wait for a safe place to overtake. Which do you
think is more likely to barge past anyway, and which will be more
frightening when it does?

It fails to catch those
who are not qualified to drive, drunk, under the influence of drugs, on
their phone, not up to standard etc. Real police enforce these things,
but are rapidly disappearing in favour of cameras on the one hand, and
CSOs on the other.

Of course. See my other points.

The problem in the UK is the quality of driving which seems to be
terrible and getting worse (even though new drivers have a far more
thorough test than we ever did). Speeding can be enforced easily, but
the policy in the last 10 years of reducing many limits from 70 to 50
(supplemented by cameras) isn't working. Fatalities have remained
almost constant (give or take 100 here and there) suggesting speed
cameras aren't working either. In fact, it seems to prove only how many
people must be speeding and on the fact that most people speeding
aren't killing anyone!

You have a point, but the issue is complicated and a lot of things are
going on. Speed cameras and lower limits on dual carriageways do
reduce speeds where they are used - but the limits are still above the
level at which pedestrians are likely to die in collisions.

Another factor not often mentioned is airbags - a rarity 10 years ago,
now in most cars. Where are the lives these have saved?

In both cases, interventions that should save lives are apparently not
affecting overall fatalities. So are they pointless, or would we be
worse off without them? Don't forget that traffic levels continue to
rise - maybe per journey safety is improving at the same rate.

In general drivers compensate for safety improvements by taking more
risks. Over time, this appears to have transferred risk from users of
enclosed vehicles to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?