Seuraava lainaus kertoo Britannian valtion suhtautumisesta liikenteeseen. Kuulostaa aika samalta, kuin täällä autoilun kommunistimaassa ;).
Lisää tekstiä sivulta http://www.abd.org.uk/
Taitaa olla Englannissa vastaava kuin Suomen autoliitto.
"A problem for government
All of this presents a problem for government and road safety campaigners. If they are going to rely on greater enforcement of speed limits to effect casualty reductions, they may miss the mark. The point was put succinctly by Marian Pallister, a columnist for the Scottish Daily Herald, who wrote:
No speed sign on earth is going to prevent accidents like the one at the weekend which killed a 14-year-old driver and his friend when they ploughed under a lorry on the road from Coventry to Skegness. There were eight children in the car and the police said they were travelling at extremely high speed. Speed restrictions did not slow down the police car which shockingly injured Sheena McDonald. Nor do drunks react to speed limits. She went on to make an important point:
Most drivers, however, are responsible citizens and the authorities have got to treat us as such. -----Show us plainly why it is a good idea to slow down and we will-----.This is echoed by TRL researchers who maintain:
Providing convincing evidence of the link between speed reduction and accident prevention will be vital in underpinning and motivating these activities (directed at changing drivers attitudes to speed), which depend strongly on the authority and credibility of the message (this author�s italics). Generally, the speed kills message is not believed or not equated with the ordinary, day-to-day business of driving a vehicle. If anything, many drivers believe that speed as a factor in accidents is grossly overstated.
This applies particularly to motorways but, in any event, if the government cannot provide better evidence that there is a link between the activities of ordinary motorists and accidents, initiatives aimed at reducing speeds will have an uncertain effect. As the DETR itself concedes,
If public perception is that speed limits are wrong this will make it particularly difficult to change attitudes to speeding through education and publicity. Enforcement and penalties would appear unduly harsh. For many, there is actually no question of if. As regards motorways, a common perception is that the speed limits are wrong. And, without doubt, enforcement and penalties in many instances are seen to be unduly harsh.
Nevertheless, the government argues that the structure of road traffic penalties has a part to play in signalling what is dangerous, providing incentives for improvement, and by generally encouraging consideration for other road users. But, in arguing thus, the government has set itself an uphill task. More likely, it has set itself an impossible task as it is trying to signal something that, in respect of motorways, is demonstrably not true. It may wish to decry speed as an irresponsible act, synonymous with recklessness or worse, but even the average driver is sufficiently knowledgeable to know that the speed kills mantra is overly simplistic, if not downright dishonest. Listening to lobbyists, one motoring correspondent remarked, "you might think that the M1 was the road to Basra, rather than the road to London".
As long as the government continues to maintain that driving faster than 70mph on a motorway in any conditions is dangerous (signalled by its adherence to the 70mph limit and the imposition of penalties on those who exceed it), its whole policy on speed will be in danger of suffering from a terminal loss of credibility.
Thus, the main effect of an indiscriminate increase in the severity of penalties for speeding will be to create a core of resentment where an increasing number of drivers, far from supporting government´s policies on road safety, will be antagonistic to them. The result of that may be greater non-compliance and more deaths on the road."
Lisää tekstiä sivulta http://www.abd.org.uk/
Taitaa olla Englannissa vastaava kuin Suomen autoliitto.
"A problem for government
All of this presents a problem for government and road safety campaigners. If they are going to rely on greater enforcement of speed limits to effect casualty reductions, they may miss the mark. The point was put succinctly by Marian Pallister, a columnist for the Scottish Daily Herald, who wrote:
No speed sign on earth is going to prevent accidents like the one at the weekend which killed a 14-year-old driver and his friend when they ploughed under a lorry on the road from Coventry to Skegness. There were eight children in the car and the police said they were travelling at extremely high speed. Speed restrictions did not slow down the police car which shockingly injured Sheena McDonald. Nor do drunks react to speed limits. She went on to make an important point:
Most drivers, however, are responsible citizens and the authorities have got to treat us as such. -----Show us plainly why it is a good idea to slow down and we will-----.This is echoed by TRL researchers who maintain:
Providing convincing evidence of the link between speed reduction and accident prevention will be vital in underpinning and motivating these activities (directed at changing drivers attitudes to speed), which depend strongly on the authority and credibility of the message (this author�s italics). Generally, the speed kills message is not believed or not equated with the ordinary, day-to-day business of driving a vehicle. If anything, many drivers believe that speed as a factor in accidents is grossly overstated.
This applies particularly to motorways but, in any event, if the government cannot provide better evidence that there is a link between the activities of ordinary motorists and accidents, initiatives aimed at reducing speeds will have an uncertain effect. As the DETR itself concedes,
If public perception is that speed limits are wrong this will make it particularly difficult to change attitudes to speeding through education and publicity. Enforcement and penalties would appear unduly harsh. For many, there is actually no question of if. As regards motorways, a common perception is that the speed limits are wrong. And, without doubt, enforcement and penalties in many instances are seen to be unduly harsh.
Nevertheless, the government argues that the structure of road traffic penalties has a part to play in signalling what is dangerous, providing incentives for improvement, and by generally encouraging consideration for other road users. But, in arguing thus, the government has set itself an uphill task. More likely, it has set itself an impossible task as it is trying to signal something that, in respect of motorways, is demonstrably not true. It may wish to decry speed as an irresponsible act, synonymous with recklessness or worse, but even the average driver is sufficiently knowledgeable to know that the speed kills mantra is overly simplistic, if not downright dishonest. Listening to lobbyists, one motoring correspondent remarked, "you might think that the M1 was the road to Basra, rather than the road to London".
As long as the government continues to maintain that driving faster than 70mph on a motorway in any conditions is dangerous (signalled by its adherence to the 70mph limit and the imposition of penalties on those who exceed it), its whole policy on speed will be in danger of suffering from a terminal loss of credibility.
Thus, the main effect of an indiscriminate increase in the severity of penalties for speeding will be to create a core of resentment where an increasing number of drivers, far from supporting government´s policies on road safety, will be antagonistic to them. The result of that may be greater non-compliance and more deaths on the road."
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.