BladeRnnr

Well that was something wasn't it , I feel sorry for the victims but trying a blanket speed limit .........just wouldn't work . The first thing that i noticed was that the beeb did an excellant hatchet job on arguements against using max power types and a salesman for god sake. i just get the feeling that the good old BBC is trying to get some more brownie points out of the govnt. after being kicked in the goolies for Top Gear promoting performance cars, after all they used one of the presenters to "test" 2 cars. Yes you've guessed it Steve 'Bloody' Berry .....I cry own goal BBC, after all who broke his leg doing a motoring stunt so stupid that he got into all the national press!!

This in conjunction with johnny 2 jags going on about using public transport to help the environment, its like asking harold shipmen for a flu jab for your mother.(in Clarkson mood now !)

I do think however that speed limits around schools should be 15-20 mph and that there should be a 200m parking exclusion zone so that motorists can see the little blighters coming out of school.



[This message has been edited by BladeRnnr (edited 14-02-2000).]

IWatkins

Tosh !

I too feel for the victims families. But blanket measures will not work.

My own view is that every mile of road be assesed by people who are independent as to what speed limits should be impossed. I see residential areas with 50mph and country roads with 30mph (usually where the local council members live) etc.

I don't think I would be against 20mph in some areas, just like I wouldn't be against 90 or 100 mph on open motorway sections (away from junctions) etc.

Cheers

Ian Watkins (GT4)

TonyNesta

Check out the feedback to tonight's programme on the BBC website. The link to it is

Neil F

This was my posting if anyone is interested.
Panorama say that it may not necessarily be posted on this occasion and that they read every one:

"I am a car enthusiast an indeed own a 'performance' car.
I belong to a drivers club relating to that vehicle and I can tell you there is no greater concern for road safety than from within this organisation. We have as one of the clubs founder members, a senior Police driving instructor and he works with the Police to provide our club drivers with advanced driver training.
I therefore feel quite strongly about the unbalanced, biased and sensationalist view that has been put forward in your program.
There are a number of problems on the roads at the moment and they center around driver training and appropriate responsibility.
The pedestrian has to be held accountable for his actions if he decides to cross the road, he has the most to lose.
Driver ability however varies enormously, far too much to have an oversimplistic blanket oppression of speed.
Current measures at accident reduction are merely causing frustration and agitation to drivers who may otherwise be more relaxed, rational and alert. There is a strong psychological effect here and the increase in 'road rage' coincides with the removal of driver liberty.
Gatso cameras, which are being used against their legislated purpose of visual deterrent at accident blackspots, have become revenue generators. They have also encouraged the most appalling driving tactic of hard braking and re-accelleration between cameras and distration from the real driving task while the driver seeks out the next one; a sign of frustration and a recipe for an accident.
There is no excuse for not putting a sign up preceding a camera which would read "concealed entrance / blind bend / school etc, Gatso camera installed". That is a sensible deterrent that even the worst driver should respect.
Performance cars however should not be dismissed as a danger. They are better equipped than the average family saloon to stop in an efficeinty and controlled manner. I would stand a better chance of avoiding an accident at 35mph in my car than a lorry driver at 30mph, yet lorries are given right of passage through some of the most notorious blackspots.
Improved driver training (through revenue generated by Gatso's?), a well aimed TV campaign reviewing the highway code and a driving test for performance vehicle drivers is the way forward.
There are good drivers, bad drivers and criminal drivers. Do not tar them all with the same brush and try to control them with dogma, compare apples with apples and address them individually.
I agree with low urban speed limits but this must be combined with appropriate out of town limits.
I also feel strongly for those families that have suffered but we must address the problem accordingly.
The motor car is the most liberating invention of this century. We should consider carefully before we try to remove it's benefits and enjoyment."

I await your comments, if you've managed to stay awake and get this far that is!

Yex

I felt the whole programme was bias towards getting a few brownie points back from the robots who maintain Tony Blair and his muppets, the Beeb needs all the money it can get at the moment - and for what? Crap programmes that give a completely one sided view of the issue under review

Whilst I feel sorry for those kids in the special care unit, and those parents whose children had been killed in an accident there was no opportunity given to motoring organisations to balance the arguement even a little, the guy from the RAC was edited down so much you could not really understand what his answers meant

If any TV station is going to do a programme again on the perils of speeding they need to give a full and unbias view from both the Government and motorists, something increasingly less common in the "new labour" environment - and no I did not vote for these w*****s.

I am sure everyone on the BBS is hoping that 20 mph limits are enforced around schools, playgrounds, parks and other areas where children are expected to be. BUT, the 70 mph national limit on motorways has been the same for 30+ years now. Modern cars are far safer at this speed and brake far quicker and safer from this speed so why don't the Government again look at both sides of the arguement, reduce speed in necessary areas and raise the national limit on our motorways?

I'll shut up now, but the whole idea of a documentary type programme is to have both sides of the arguement shown - not to use the air time to sensationalise a subject because it might get a few more viewers than the other channels.

Yex - slightly miffed still as you may have guessed

Scottie

I suppose we should be thankful that the programme didn't spend 40 minutes calling for performance cars to be banned and simply dealt with the issues of speeding in residential areas.

What I want to know is how the boy who got killed by the speeding biker got hit at all, if his father had (as stated) warned him about the bike in the first place?

I'm all in favour of lower limits in residential areas, but when will people learn that roads aren't for playing in????

Scott

Weaver

Hey you lot stopping moaning about it on this site and get over to the Panorama site and tell them what you think. The more people that comment the better, hopefully it will make the producers show a slightly more balanced view next time, although I doubt it

ptholt

Read my post in the other panorama thread for my own experience of children playing in the road.
Shows the other side of the coin in my opinion.

richards

Well said Neil.

Sometimes, I think these programmes simply are made to keep the freelancers working for the BBC in a job.

You can 'sensationalise' anything nowadays, eg., it can be equally dangerous to cycle though a busy pedestrianised road on a Saturday as you could easily collide fatally with a child. But people do it.

But riding a bicycle quickly doesn't annoy enough people yet...

Rich.