Transport Safety Commission.
Who are they? Well they are the usual anti driver Metropolitan Elite See them here. and what a coincidence some of the same faces are even Here An outfit set up by that other road safety anti driver outfit PACTs See PACTs among this lot
Exactly the kind of expensive report written by academics of the Westminster Metropolitan Elite. More on that here Massive so as to bamboozle politicians who simply can't read it all.
Here are just bits of it:
See how an accident becomes a 'crime'
'In implementing its commitments made in September 2014 to victims of crime, the Ministry of Justice should make sure that all victims of road traffic crime benefit equally with victims of other crimes from their implementation.' (TSC Who is responsible?)
Why not set an impossible road safety industry Nirvana to keep harassing drivers and ensure road safety industry profiteering for ever more? See are we killing too few people on the roads?
'We recommend that national Government sets ambitious targets for casualty reduction on the path towards zero deaths and serious injuries.' (TSC Who is responsible?)
Ah yes. The usual stunt. Link cycling to walking. Why? Walkers are already well provided for and in common with drivers, are needed for the survival of the community where cyclists aren't. Who is to ask 'Why must we have cyclists at all if it is so dangerous then?' So here are the classic false premise' of the cycle lobby. 1) We must have cyclists 2) Cyclists are like walkers. 3) Cycling death & injury is worth it. They've pinched this from a BMA cyclist!
The benefits of walking and cycling substantially outweigh the potential harms from injury but the safety of these modes needs to be improved. The UK is a relatively poor performer in cycling safety compared with many of our continental neighbours but the risks are perceived to be even higher [R Geffen, CTC: ev sess 3]. There was broad support from CTC and Living Streets for 20 mph limits in urban areas to encourage people to walk and cycle more. (TSC Who is responsible?)
Ah yes the money. There's always money to be spent and pocketed See some of the vested interests who were listened to for this report
'It would probably have to be funded by central government (as with a number of independent regulatory bodies), through a grant defined by the need to be able to fulfil its functions but, at the same time it would be essential that it be kept independent of central and local government.' (TSC Who is responsible?)
Additional funds could be found for road safety on local roads. (TSC Who is responsible?)
Ah. Jobs for the boys who actually make money from all this and cost the country millions while doing it too
'We recommend that the head of any road accident investigation body is a member of the Chief Accident Inspectors Board. Further discussion is needed to determine the detail. It could be a Board (the “National Road Safety Board”) of four or five individuals covering a range of skills and expertise, with five to seven years tenure.' (TSC Who is responsible?)
The road accident investigation function serves little purpose unlike rail and air investigation. Both of those can reveal corrective faults. Air crashes are usually in remote areas so minute site work disrupts nothing and rail investigation is based on speed and getting the network back rapidly.
Closing motorways and towns for many hours causes massive disruption, many millions of pound of lost time and knock on accidents later and elsewhere never associated with the closure. Most road accidents are absolutely obvious from the get go. The purpose of these investigations is really to trawl for a culprit or to provide material for expensive lawyers. How many have actually resulted in a manufacturer's modification?
'The road accident investigation function could be created as a subsidiary organisation. It would probably have to be funded by central government (as with a number of independent regulatory bodies), through a grant defined by the need to be able to fulfil its functions but, at the same time it would be essential that it be kept independent of central and local government. There are a number of governance models in current use that could achieve this.' (TSC Who is responsible?)
Note: They have used Black's Law Dictionary to define the term “accident” as: "an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated... an unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct" The effect is to take out unintentional and even mistake. This means that there is always someone to blame in a road accident unless proven otherwise. A totally anti driver, Cycle Lobby, policy. But when we looked up Black's they said this: 'An unforeseeable and unexpected turn of events that causes loss in value, injury, and increased liabilities. The event is not deliberately caused and is not inevitable.' See it here
We prefer that as well as Odhams and the Oxford dictionary. Where we can reverse the policy: That there's always an accident unless proven otherwise. This would take out very costly long road closures that kill more from the cost and many associated knock on accidents elsewhere as a direct result of the closure.
The same principle would also apply to drivers. Far too many are being routinely arrested at an accident when too unfit and vulnerable to make comment. Any comments made whilst at such a disadvantage should be discounted by the courts.
Restoring the word 'accident' would save many millions of pound in police time and many failed prosecutions too.
Our submission to the consultation was ignored of course.
Another manifestation of this anti driver elite, is the recent road accidents by constituency charts. Paid for by driver insurance and other charity money. It's here But to get this in perspective. See the authors in this group.