All these plans are in effect meant to reduce the number of fatalities on UK roads. But as we are often told, UK roads are one of the safest in terms of fatalities per 1000 population. Therefore, there must be a time where you can?t reduce the figures any more, in other words despite all the initiatives, and cars being safer in terms of accident survivability , countered by increasing numbers of vehicles on the road, statically, you cannot reduce the figure any more.
What does the team think?
|
They may (or may not) be the safest, but that doesn't mean they're as safe as they could be.
While some people might drive without a license, lots of people wouldn't. For example, the guy who goes out, has 10 pints and drives home, knowing when he drove to the pub that this is what he would do - this guy is perhaps more likely to drive without a license, without insurance and so on. So the changes are not going to affect him much.
But the guy who goes out and ends up having more drinks than he intended, then drives home against his better judgement. This guy might respect the ban.
Now, of course, the first guy is the bigger problem - but although you're always going to have some people evading the law, I think it's better to make a change to disuade most of them than to do nothing and catch none.
Not directly related, but I am of the opinion that licenses should expire after, say, 10 years. Like an MOT, you'd get an overlap period (say a year) to retake and pass a driving test.
-Mark
|
|
|
Theoretically you are correct as there will never be no accidents, but the number of accidents can always be reduced. How many people still don't wear seatbelts. I counted whilst waiting in traffic one day and 30% of drivers who passed me weren't wearing theirs. How many times do you see kids sat on mum's knee in the front or kneeling on the back seat etc etc.
I have just been to Malaysia on holiday and accident related stories seemed to be on the front page nearly every day. Over the period of a week the average number of deaths on the roads was 17 per day (ours is about 10). They are looking at reducing this by 40% over the next five years. A major issue over there is overloading of vehicles - in one accident involving two cars 13 people died, 7 in one car and 6 in the other - the car with 7 in was a Perodua Nippa, the other a small Kia. There is no rear seat belt law and no regard as to the advised maximum number of people to be carried in a vehicle - two adults and two kids on a motorbike is a regular sight.
Yes our accident figures are some of the lowest in the World, but there is always more we can do.
|
I think there is a minimum figure, and I think we're well above it. However, even if we reached it then it wouldn't console me if one of my nearest & dearest was involved in one of them.
There are two issues - we can look at the overall number of accidents and we can look at the seriousness of the consequences that follow from them. There are links between the two, but both need addressing.
What frightens me is that the death rate is climbing. Therefore we are getting one or (probably) both of these wrong.
|
Someone in another forum who works in the nhs hinted that SIs cost an awful lot more than a K. Plus with a K you get organs for passing on... How many of the increase in fatalities are over the drink drive limit or in a stolen car? Fewer traffic pols = more wreckless behaviour unchecked = more fatalities.
teabelly
|
|
Now that is seriously into the realms of conspiracy theories!
|
|
|
wreckless behaviour unchecked
I know it's rude to laugh at a typo, but I wish there was more wreckless behaviour. Unfortunately, too much recklessness is what we've got :)
|
I sanity checked that and thought there was something I was missing... perhaps it should be wreckful behaviour :-)
teabelly
|
|
teabelly, I wreckon you're right :)
|
|
|
If the average person earns £20k a year and is aged 40, that means they have 30 years' taxpaying at £5k a year, plus all the benefits that their spouse/child won't get, plus the sunk cost of insurance and so on.
Certainly a very seriously injured (i.e., utterly dependent on someone else for their car for the rest of their life) will cost more than a fatality in financial terms, but I doubt that it would apply to someone who could make a reasonable recovery, who would contribute on average £150k in income plus probably three or four times that in profitability/salary/spending to the econmomy.
|
What is the point of the fines?
It's a scam and it's a sham.
They send them on a supervision scheme, where they get a social worker, and are given £50 a week pockey money but they take £10 off for the fine a week, leaving them with £40 of taxpayer's money!
|
|
|
my contribution in tax to the nhs has already in my relatively short life been much more than me or my close family will ever benefit, even if we all have very expensive accidents
you would think they would be a bit more grateful, instead of putting posters up telling me to go home if im not really ill
:)
|
"...and have a compulsory insurance sticker in the window of every insured vehicle to prove it has insurance.
Any cars on the public highway without one get crushed."
We already have one of those. It is called a Tax Disc, which you have to show valid insurance and MOT to aquire.
The problem here is that,
Cars are simply not displaying tax disks anyway, and
Insurance can expire the day after the disk is purchased.
Even if Tax disks and insurance were combined that would be a step forward. The rules would be simple:
When you bought a new car, you would take out insurance as you do now, however, the insurance co would also send out your RFL disk and pass that money straight onto the Government.
When a car is over 3 years old, insurance sees MOT cert (or checks on new computer system) before issuing you with insurance and tax disk.
The tax disk expires on the same day as the insurance or the MOT, whichever is earlier. Owners given 30 days before MOT to get car re MOTed. Any car without an MOT can be driven to and from a pre booked appointment with the express permission of the insurers (ie you call them first).
Loss of the tax disc is reported to police before any replacements can be sent.
This process would help to prevent (in theory) people running taxed but uninsured and MOT overdue cars.
H
|
|
Not wishing to take anything away from your post, ISTR that insurance has to have 30 days left when you renew your tax - or was that the MOT? I know I got caught out one year.
|
|
The Post Office refused to sell me road tax for my wife's car as the insurance only had a week to run - fortunately I took the new policy too.
|
Why is it not a requirement for a seller to see and make a note of the buyer's insurance details on the registration transfer document? If the seller does not see proof of insurance then they should not be allowed legally to complete a transaction. It might delay completion of a sale slightly but at least everyone would know that the car cannot be driven uninsured.
Alternatively if the Road Tax was issued by insurance companies then you would have to have insurance to get a tax disk. If the car was being sold then the buyer would have to obtain insurance to tax it and the previous owners tax disk would have to be returned to cancel the insurance.
|
I would love to have never been to hospital personally or with family. Personally I doubt that I will ever pay enough tax/NI to pay for the treatment that my little one had.
But I think that that makes you lucky not me.
|
All this is indicative of a society that is long on rights but short on responsibilities. When I was a teenager I could afford a car but not the insurance so I waited until I could afford both. No one has the right to drive, it is a privilege and one that has to be balanced with responsibilities, to insure the car, not to drive drunk and not to use a mobile phone at the wheel....
Sure we are over-regulated and over taxed but a large number of the new laws exist because too many act withour responsibility while driving.
|
Maybe there should be an industry-wide mobile phone customer blacklist. Then, as well as the fine and penalty points the culprit could get their mobile phone blocked for 2 weeks!!!
I've noticed that use of handhelds behind the wheel has increased since a low point in the weeks after the ban. Especially where White Van Man's concerned.
Cheers, SS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
