AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

End report

20th October 2005
Page 32
Page 32, 20th October 2005 — End report
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

AIRCRAFT, MARINE and rail crashes are investigated rigorously to determine the causes. Road crashes are investigated to apportion blame (eg recent Da' report, CM 6 October) and tend to be subjective, leading to dubious conclusions. A parked, unlit car is hit by a cyclist on a dark night: the blame is obvious. An unlit cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle in similar conditions; the cyclist is at fault again.

I have seen blame officially attributed to dazzlingly bright setting sun: blind spots in a lorry cab; sudden gusts of wind:a swerve to avoid an animal; and even a six-Volt lighting system. All are excuses that have absolved drivers from what was clearly inexcusable stupid4Why did the DfT commission such a report? What purpose does it serve? What is there to be learnt from it?

The report asserts that -any two drivers in a collision have a 50:50 chance of being at fault". Have they never heard of defensive driving? People occasionally drive in the wrong direction on dual carriageways and drivers frequently "shoot" red lights. Defensive road users are constantly aware of such possibilities and act accordingly.

Change personal attitudes, do not produce yet more meaningless government-funded reports.

Anthony Phillips Salisbury Wiltshire


comments powered by Disqus