The IAM says it is dismayed at the “lack of priority” given to road safety by the main political parties in their election manifestos.
The charity says no party has published any long or short-term initiatives to tackle “such a significant cause of death amongst young people”.
The IAM says the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all “mention cyclists to the exclusion of other road users”, and UKIP talks about installing speed cameras as a deterrent in accident black spots.
It says the Green Party is the only party to have devoted any significant amount of space to road safety in its manifesto, covering issues including: reducing the drink drive limit to as close to zero as is practical; bringing down speed limits to 20mph in residential areas and 40mph on rural roads; and requiring best-practice technology to be fitted to lorries to ensure that drivers are fully aware of the presence of pedestrians and cyclists.
Sarah Sillars, IAM chief executive officer, said: “The general election would have been the perfect opportunity for the political parties to show what a commitment they had to cutting the numbers of young people losing their lives in accidents that are entirely preventable. Instead, they’ve chosen to sweep the problem under the carpet.
“It is a massive disappointment that the major political parties are treating the issue of improving safety on the roads as an irritation rather than one they should have an instinctive desire to tackle.”
Wrong again Rod, and apparently deliberately given that in your earlier comment you quoted it! Note also that logically speaking, as UKIP are, as quoted, opposed to camera installation other than near schools or at accident black spots, then they must be opposed to the continued use of cameras other than in those locations.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
You are quite right David, the UK has not yet announced its targets, but thanks to the EU we have a pretty good idea of what they will be.
“Following the RSAP 2003-10, the Commission proposes to maintain the target of halving the overall number of road deaths in the EU between 2010 and 2020”.
Of course you can understand the reticence of the Government to make such an announcement, but it’s understandable when you consider the vanishingly small chance they have of achieving any improvement at all.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
Thanks Idris
So rather than UKIP having a “Road Safety Policy” that only mentions speed cameras, it now has one which doesn’t mention them. I think that endorses what Sarah Sillars is saying and that as far as UKIP is concerned its not a case of “Vision Zero” but simply “Zero Vision”.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Duncan,
the (UK) Government doesn’t have a casualty reduction target – unless you are referring to the one for Highways England for the Strategic Road Network only.
David Davies, London
0
I very much doubt, Rod, that UKIP or I are anywhere near as “fixated” on speed cameras as you are on 20mph areas.
UKIP’s policy you quoted was written before I became a member of the committee. It was when I pointed to the evidence that cameras achieve nothing that I become a member. When I gave a detailed presentation of the evidence all present agreed with me, but that assessment has not yet been formally agreed as policy. In the run-up to the election I asked whether it should be, I was told that, in effect, that it would not be high enough in the list of priorities. So much for “fixated” on cameras, Rod.
For my part,I realised a couple of months ago that no one is going to take much notice of this issue until the election is over, and that there is not much point in pursuing people who might well be out of office from May 8th. Accordingly I have been catching up on other things, pending the results of the election.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
I don’t see any problem. This government has already seen the light some years ago and is having 20 mph speed limits installed in all towns and cities and villages in the UK by 2020. There is apparently endless and irrefutable information available of its success rates.
Further that many motor vehicles will be removed from our roads when all the new highways that can facilitate cyclists are ready for use and that will also reduce the carbon deficit that is required also. This will make us the cycling capital of the world apparently.
All supported by the other major parties after all can anyone not in power argue about not reducing those matters. I think not.
Bob craven lancs…Space is Safe Campaigner
0
Hugh
As far as UKIP are concerned they seem obsessed with speed cameras. In fact its the only thing that is mentioned in their Road Safety Policy (p 37 of manifesto). To be specific it says :-
“SPEED CAMERAS AND ROAD SAFETY
UKIP will only allow installation of speed cameras when they can be used as a deterrent at accident black spots, near schools and in residential areas where there are specific potential dangers. We will not permit speed cameras to be used as revenue raisers for local authorities.”
Strange isn’t it, UKIP and presumably Idris, complain about a fixation with speed and cameras, yet seem solely fixated themselves.
Mind you, they will “scrap the DCPC for professionally licensed drivers.”
And of course set a zero VED for classic cars over 25 years old. Maybe they care more about old cars than old people.
I will leave others to make any judgements on whether UKIP are credible on the subject of road safety.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Has idris finally seen the light on speed cameras, or is it another Idris Francis? In practice, such a policy – as worded – I think would mean no change once they try to implement it. At least, he does seem to be the only representative so far not afraid to actually declare a policy on a subject which seems to polarise people so much.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
The IAM may be “dismayed” but I feel they’ve misidentified the problem. There is no shortage of ideas, cash or desire in road safety (just read RSGB news feed), the problem is that there isn’t accurate evidence of what each intervention achieves.
If the IAM were to use their influence to ensure all interventions are deployed within scientific trials, then we would finally find out where to divert society’s resources for the best return. It’s time we started an evidence-led approach and the IAM could help bring about that change.
Dave Finney, Slough
0
Maybe the Government would take more interest and provide a lot more funding if the road safety industry came up with a new and workable plan for casualty reduction. The Government knows that there is no chance of them hitting their casualty reduction target by 2020 so long as the industry continues to use the existing and outdated methods. This means that there is a great opportunity for anybody that can offer fresh thinking and some new ideas on the subject.
Given some new thinking a Government of whatever stripe would happily buy into a workable plan that would guarantee them achieving their target so this industry has got nothing to lose by giving it a go.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident
0
The article is wrong in at least one respect – as a member of UKIP’s Transport Committee I can confirm that UKIP’s current policy remains as it has been for some years, to remove all speed cameras other than at accident black spots and near schools.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Not all policies are in the manifestos, so other sources should be examined as well. e.g http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/manifesto/fleet-and-the-election-who-deserves-your-fleet-vote/page/3
David S.
0
I’m disappointed but not surprised. Party political campaigning seems to be about a few feel good sound bites and trashing the opposition (my opinion) together with we’ll do this and that to appeal to perceived popular concerns. However, which ever party or parties get the keys to no. 10, they’ll probably do something else because they will no doubt say something like, ‘we really wanted to do that but now we’ve got to do this because we didn’t fully appreciate the magnitude of the mess left by the previous lot’. Then with a bit of pragmatism and a dose of idealism they’ll go on their merry way – until the next time, when they will all get on the merry go round again!
There might be a bit of talking and the odd strategy document, but a real ‘joined up thinking’ approach to road safety – well you’ve got to be having a laugh (my opinion again)! They might bung a few bucks at cyclists and other vulnerable road users, sort of as a token gesture. Hey! They might even dish out some dosh to motorcyclists – now I’m really having a laugh! Now am I cynical or what? As ever, road safety teams across the country will do the best job they can with the limited resources they’ve got and in most cases make a really good job of it. A few politicians might still whinge – oh dear, what a shame, never mind!
Mark – Wiltshire
0