Drivers face ban for drinking a pint

[spindrift]

The lack of patrols to stop drunken drivers is a road safety measure.

 

Exactly, we'd have fewer ANPR units or cops stopping dangerous drunk drivers without the funding speed cameras bring in.

 

We breath test far fewer motorists than other European countries.

[Zaytsev]

Exactly, we'd have fewer ANPR units or cops stopping dangerous drunk drivers without the funding speed cameras bring in.

 

We breath test far fewer motorists than other European countries.

 

But there are less patrols:

 

Public anger is affecting the police's ability to fight crime according to the Police Federation's Vice Chairman, Rod Dalley. People have stopped tipping off the police about villains because they believe cameras are being used as money spinners and not to cut accidents. "The public is blaming beat officers for the cameras. We are not getting people calling in and it is all down to the cameras". A survey of 400 cameras in Greater London found that 80 are unjustified as accident rates and speed is so low. Meanwhile front-line officers warned that people are more at risk because it's cheaper to put up cameras than send police out on patrol. Source: Mail On Sunday

[spindrift]

Trafpol were moved to street crime to boost the mugging stats.

 

It's nothing to do with safety cameras, it was a policy decision.

 

Without the funding safety cameras generate from criminals traf pol would be further depleted.

 

You are more likely to be killed by a car than murdered, but very little resources are devoted to road safety.

[Zaytsev]

Trafpol were moved to street crime to boost the mugging stats.

 

It's nothing to do with safety cameras, it was a policy decision.

 

Without the funding safety cameras generate from criminals traf pol would be further depleted.

 

You are more likely to be killed by a car than murdered, but very little resources are devoted to road safety.

 

Can you define the road safety measure we spend little on.

 

I would suggest a big measure would be repairing the pot holes.

[Bruno]

If they want to make Britains roads safer, they could start by repairing the roads first.

 

And if they want to make it Zero alchohol it should apply to cyclists too and also pedestrians, infact the roads would be alot safe if they made it law that pedestrians can only cross roads at designated crossings, with a fine for jay walking perhaps spindrifts idea of cameras at crossings aimed at pedestrians who don't wait for the green man would bring in more revenue.

 

I've read in this thread to do with cyclists paying insurance, perhaps they should too, a seperate policy along with a small amount of tax to pay for thier cycle lanes.

[spindrift]

If they want to make Britains roads safer, they could start by repairing the roads first.

 

And if they want to make it Zero alchohol it should apply to cyclists too and also pedestrians, infact the roads would be alot safe if they made it law that pedestrians can only cross roads at designated crossings, with a fine for jay walking perhaps spindrifts idea of cameras at crossings aimed at pedestrians who don't wait for the green man would bring in more revenue.

 

I've read in this thread to do with cyclists paying insurance, perhaps they should too, a seperate policy along with a small amount of tax to pay for thier cycle lanes.

 

Cycle lanes, along with road maintenance, is paid for out of general taxation that everyone pays, even cyclists.

 

The ignorance on this thread is depressing.

[Bruno]

Cycle lanes, along with road maintenance, is paid for out of general taxation that everyone pays, even cyclists.

 

The ignorance on this thread is depressing.

 

So what about the other points I made.

[spindrift]

There is already an offence of "Being drunk in charge of a bike" so your law change is unnecessary.

 

There is no jay walking law in this sountry.

[Bruno]

There is already an offence of "Being drunk in charge of a bike" so your law change is unnecessary.

 

There is no jay walking law in this sountry.

Why not? it should be, and why should you not have a seperate cycle insurance?

[spindrift]

Why not? it should be, and why should you not have a seperate cycle insurance?

 

Because the damage caused by cyclists is negligible, and in most cases it is the driver who is at fault, not the cyclist.

 

A car is capable of inflicting crippling injuries and a lot of damage, this simply is not true of cyclists, even though many of them are insured, as I explained upthread.