Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Brake
Please find below Brake's response to the questions
raised.
1. Do you support the proposal in the Road
Safety Bill for graduated penalties for speeding? What will be
the impact of lowering the minimum penalty from 3 points to 2
points, and in what circumstances would this reduced penalty be
appropriate?
The Bill in its current format would allow fixed
penalty points for speeding to vary from 2 to 6, compared with
the current automatic 3 points. While Brake recognises the concept
of graduating penalties is to deal more severely with higher-level
speeding, it would prefer to see higher-level speeding dealt with
through the courts, which would automatically allow for up to
9 penalty points to be handed down to offenders.
Brake is strongly opposed to lowering any minimum
penalty for speeding, given that it is such a serious issue—according
to the Department for Transport, it is a major factor in one in
three fatal road crashes. However, it is particularly concerned
by Government proposals, contained in a consultation paper prior
to the publication of the Road Safety Bill, which would see 2
points—rather than the current 3—imposed for speeds
of up to 39 mph in a 30 mph zone. Given that driving at 39 mph
makes death a high probability if the vehicle hits a pedestrian,
compared with a probability of survival at speeds below 30 mph,
Brake believes the proposal to reduce points for speeding in a
30 mph zone is a road danger, not a road safety, measure that
impacts on communities' human right to safety, and has no place
in a Road Safety Bill. It would also undermine the Government
publicity campaign to raise drivers' awareness that speeding at
just a few mph more than a 30 mph limit—built-up areas where
kids are most likely to be out and about on foot and bicycles—is
likely to mean death, rather than survival, if a child is hit.
2. Are you satisfied that the Police have
made progress in the use of data recorders in crash investigation?
How could the quality of evidence to coroners' courts be improved?
Brake has no expertise in this area. However,
we would welcome much more extensive crash investigations that
take into account data recorders but also more timely and detailed
witness statements and road skids and other evidence.
3. Are there any in-vehicle technologies
either not yet on the market or in need of wider application that
could help to improve enforcement and compliance with the law
among the haulage industry? If so, please provide details.
Generally, ISA and ANPR should be rolled out
across the UK.
Specifically, Brake would support the following
measures:
(a) Wheel nuts that are self-locking and
therefore prevent large vehicles' wheels falling off, which kill
about 10 people a year. These nuts are on the market, but not
being widely used and are not required by law.
(b) Reversing aids, particularly cameras
on any large vehicle that may need to reverse (these are available).
(c) Visibility aids, such as wide angle mirrors
or cameras that completely eliminate "blind spots" (mirrors
and cameras which provide a better field of visibility than that
required by EC regulations for new trucks are on the market).
(d) A device that prevents drivers from using
a mobile phone unless the handbrake is on (this is available).
(e) A warning device that prevents drivers
from leaving their cabs unless their trailer brakes are on (drivers
are sometimes killed when disconnecting air brakes between trailer
and tractor—if the trailer brakes are not on, the driver
becomes crushed between the two units).
(f) Daylight running lamps (dipped head lights
that automatically come on when a vehicle is started).
17 March 2006
| 
