Dear all,

Having fired off a letter to my local MP, Alan Duncan (Con, Rutland) on 16th February about the draconian Road Traffic Penalties Consultation Paper, I thought you might be interested in the encouraging reply I received in this morning's post.

I'll be interested to see what response comes from Prescott. Watch this space and I'll post it as and when.

Anyone else had any joy from their MP?

Cheers.

PS Don't forget to vote :-)


*

Thankyou very much for your letter dated February 16th regarding the Government's road traffic penalties consultation paper, the contents of which I have fully taken on board.

I would emphasise that whilst the Conservatives want to see Britain's roads become even safer, we reject Labour's attempt to cast all motorists as social pariahs. Most people drive responsibly, but we want dangerous drivers to be penalised heavily and, if neccesary, banned from driving. Through improved education and driver awareness of the danger of speed, we feel that excessive speeding should become as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

We want to establish a separate Road Accident Investigation Branch within the DETR and to hold, as its first task, a wide-ranging review into the role of speed in road accidents and suggest common sense measures, rather than some of the knee-jerk suggestions that Labour have been making, for encouraging people to drive at a responsible speed.

Furthermore, we believe that speed limits should reflect traffic conditions. They should be set at a level which is right for the road and its surroundings and which vehicles are capable of managing safely. We reject the blanket imposition of reductions in speed limits for its own sake.

We also oppose Labour's floated idea for zero-tolerance on speed. Clamping down on road users who exceed the speed limit by 1 mph - but who do not cause a danger to road safety - is not a sensible use of resources. Traffic police should target genuinely dangerous drivers.

John Prescott has also mentioned the idea of reducing 60mph limits to 50mph - until stopped by Tony Blair. Last year, less than a fifth of accidents occurred on roads with a 60mph limit, compared to almost two-thirds occurring on 30mph limit roads. The majority of accidents occur in residential, built-up areas.

In addition, slow moving traffic can be a hazard on fast-moving roads. Hence we will consider minimum speed limits to improve traffic flow on fast-flowing motorways, where the road conditions are appropriate. Motorways are generally safe - they carry seventeen per cent of all traffic, but only three per cent of serious injuries occur on them. Minimum limits will only be imposed where local conditions are appropriate so that road safety is improved rather than compromised. Such areas will be carefully sign-posted so that motorists are not caught out.

People are often still baffled by the speed limits on roads where it is not clearly signed. For instance, few seem to know or recognise that street lights signal a 30mph limit. People are often also confused by what speed is meant by the "national speed limit applies" sign. We need a series of speed limits that people understand and more frequent signage to ensure that people understand and more frequent signage to ensure that people are aware at what speed they are allowed to drive.

This is where resources should be focussed. We believe that the police should work with local authorities to cut down on dangerous speeding in residential areas, particularly near schools. For example, as adopted in the USA, variable speed limits and flashing lights may be appropriate at times when children are travelling to school, whilst permanent speed limits - affecting traffic flow even outside of school hours - might not.

I am well aware of the unpopularity of speed cameras with motorists. Consequently, the Conservative Party will only increase the number of speed cameras where they are more visible to deter speeding, not as another source of stealth taxation.

I have written immediately to the minister and I will be in touch with you again as soon as I receive a response.

I appreciate the time and trouble you took to draw this matter to much attention.

Yours sincerely

Excellent - i am VERY impressed!!!!!!

I wish that i could give my vote to Rutland!

mb

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by boomer:
<B>Excellent - i am VERY impressed!!!!!!

I wish that i could give my vote to Rutland!

mb[/quote]

Could it be one of the standard reply letters that politicians (especially Labour) seem to trundle out these days?

While it is enouraging to hear, I wonder what their actual policies would be, if they form the next Government.

C

At least he got got one that looked half decent! As I mentioned in another topic, The tories can't really make things much worse than that prize-muppet Prescott. 'Damnit man, put the elephant gun down, he's not worth it!'. Driving is my second passion, so any one that can help it, without unfairly penalising others in other areas, gets my vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Sorry, been drinkin' http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif)

At least there was a response - I got a postcard just acknowledging receipt. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/frown.gif

Oh Well.

Matt.

[This message has been edited by mutant_matt (edited 28 February 2001).]

there may be something in it at the present time RTL have a Police accident investigator on loan(attachment) with a view to attending as many accident as possible with a view to carrying out research into causes, must be funded by someone