T
Tony Raven
Guest
A decent article in The Times for a change
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1018454,00.html
In a flash As fast as a camera traps you, you could kill someone
The Government has announced an increase in the maximum sentence for causing death by driving
dangerously, or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Road safety campaigners are sceptical
that increasing the maximum penalty - from ten to fourteen years' imprisonment - will be a
sufficient deterrent. The maximum sentence is rarely imposed; more commonly, judges hand down terms
of three to five years for causing death on the roads. Campaigners believe that if a minimum penalty
of two or three years' imprisonment were imposed, it would send a clearer message to those who might
otherwise not think twice about careering recklessly on the roads.
Among motorists generally, speeding is seen, in the same way that drinking and driving once was, as
acceptable; it is only getting caught that is socially unacceptable. This is partly out of bravado,
and a mis- taken belief that "I can handle it". It is partly because overregulation has created dis-
respect for speed limits. To win back respect for the law, the Government should consider raising
speed limits where conditions allow it: on empty motorways, for instance, or on straight, quiet
roads at night. Modern vehicles and road surfaces are safer as well as faster than those commonly in
use when most speed limits were set.
As long as speed limits do exist - and even if they are unreasonably low - they should be rigorously
enforced. The current debate over the use, and occasional over-use, of speed cameras shows, however,
how easily the balance of the law is upset. Ministers have rightly become concerned at plummeting
respect for a system which will issue up to three million fines this year. They will now tell police
and local authorities to publish the accident history of every speed camera site, before and after
installation of the camera.
For the key to acceptable enforcement, as to government in general, is accountability. And the facts
about the efficacy of cameras speak for themselves. A camera may be installed on a road only if
there have been four deaths or serious injuries as a result of speeding in the previous three years,
and nearly all adhere to this rule. Publishing the figures will winkle out the ones that do not.
According to the Government, cameras cut the number of casualties and serious injuries in their area
on average by 35 per cent, although the figures can range from a 67 per cent fall to a 15 per cent
rise. Publishing the outcomes will help to convince public opinion where the cameras are effective,
and shame police into removing them where they are acting as cash machines, not as deterrents.
More importantly, the figures may act as a small step towards changing a culture which refuses to
acknowledge how dangerous driving is. Those who champion the "freedom of the road" at all costs cut
into the liberties of others, often to the extent of cutting them down completely. There are an
unacceptably high number of deaths on the roads: around 3,400 people each year, 2,600 of them
motorists, cyclists or passengers rather than pedestrians. The numbers who die in train accidents
are tiny by comparison: ten in 2002-03, five the previous year and seventeen the year before that.
Yet, as a culture, we react with horror to rail crashes while accepting the far higher number of
motoring casualties as a price somehow worth paying. There is an inherent casualness in our driving
culture - we are aware of the benefits, but have never properly factored in the responsibility that
accompanies the potential danger posed by the automobile. Scare advertisements, fines and tougher
sentences will make a contribution to the raising of our consciousness, but, in the end, the
individual behind the wheel has the lives of others in his or her hands
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1018454,00.html
In a flash As fast as a camera traps you, you could kill someone
The Government has announced an increase in the maximum sentence for causing death by driving
dangerously, or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Road safety campaigners are sceptical
that increasing the maximum penalty - from ten to fourteen years' imprisonment - will be a
sufficient deterrent. The maximum sentence is rarely imposed; more commonly, judges hand down terms
of three to five years for causing death on the roads. Campaigners believe that if a minimum penalty
of two or three years' imprisonment were imposed, it would send a clearer message to those who might
otherwise not think twice about careering recklessly on the roads.
Among motorists generally, speeding is seen, in the same way that drinking and driving once was, as
acceptable; it is only getting caught that is socially unacceptable. This is partly out of bravado,
and a mis- taken belief that "I can handle it". It is partly because overregulation has created dis-
respect for speed limits. To win back respect for the law, the Government should consider raising
speed limits where conditions allow it: on empty motorways, for instance, or on straight, quiet
roads at night. Modern vehicles and road surfaces are safer as well as faster than those commonly in
use when most speed limits were set.
As long as speed limits do exist - and even if they are unreasonably low - they should be rigorously
enforced. The current debate over the use, and occasional over-use, of speed cameras shows, however,
how easily the balance of the law is upset. Ministers have rightly become concerned at plummeting
respect for a system which will issue up to three million fines this year. They will now tell police
and local authorities to publish the accident history of every speed camera site, before and after
installation of the camera.
For the key to acceptable enforcement, as to government in general, is accountability. And the facts
about the efficacy of cameras speak for themselves. A camera may be installed on a road only if
there have been four deaths or serious injuries as a result of speeding in the previous three years,
and nearly all adhere to this rule. Publishing the figures will winkle out the ones that do not.
According to the Government, cameras cut the number of casualties and serious injuries in their area
on average by 35 per cent, although the figures can range from a 67 per cent fall to a 15 per cent
rise. Publishing the outcomes will help to convince public opinion where the cameras are effective,
and shame police into removing them where they are acting as cash machines, not as deterrents.
More importantly, the figures may act as a small step towards changing a culture which refuses to
acknowledge how dangerous driving is. Those who champion the "freedom of the road" at all costs cut
into the liberties of others, often to the extent of cutting them down completely. There are an
unacceptably high number of deaths on the roads: around 3,400 people each year, 2,600 of them
motorists, cyclists or passengers rather than pedestrians. The numbers who die in train accidents
are tiny by comparison: ten in 2002-03, five the previous year and seventeen the year before that.
Yet, as a culture, we react with horror to rail crashes while accepting the far higher number of
motoring casualties as a price somehow worth paying. There is an inherent casualness in our driving
culture - we are aware of the benefits, but have never properly factored in the responsibility that
accompanies the potential danger posed by the automobile. Scare advertisements, fines and tougher
sentences will make a contribution to the raising of our consciousness, but, in the end, the
individual behind the wheel has the lives of others in his or her hands
