I was looking into BRAKE, the road safety charity (was considering donating) but looking at their ideals, i can't help but think it'd just be money down the drain.
Target Zero - www.brake.org.uk/target-zero
It starts off well, lets aim for 0 road deaths. Sounds ace to me. Then they list how they imagine that would come about. Some of it sounds attractive, large traffic free zones for people to roam about as they want, decent quality cycle lane provisions rather than after thoughts, but almost none of it is grounded in reality.
Just about none of the page would be economically viable even if we were the richest nation on the planet. Forget about self sustaining ideas, these guys are talking moon landing budgets to deliver things which would purposefully restrict the economy.
I can maybe forgive them that since they state it's all dream world scenario. Fair enough, maybe lay off the wacky backy a bit though.
Education is what i imagine a road safety charity delivering best so taking a look at their education efforts I was expecting them to be focussed on increasing driver knowledge, promoting driver skills. I was expecting promoting awareness of safety issues, i was hoping for useful advice in memorable chunks.
Their view is to promote avoidance and even prohibition of driving. That's like cutting off your arms because although they're infinitely useful, you could also cause problems by using them to throw a punch.
If you're going to setup a charity, surely you'd feel a moral obligation to produce something useful with your invested funds. Their offerings are neo-luddism drivel. There's no recognition of what would happen in an area without effective personal transport, i don't think there would be any danger of ending up with rainforest like dwellings but the impact would be of an almost unimaginable scale i'd expect.
They state "Brake works to stop road deaths and provides help and support to the victims of road death and injury". I can't find any metrics on how they're performing against these goals, but given their approach it seems unlikely they're performing well.
If anyone knows of a half decent motoring charity worthy of a couple of quid a month, suggestions on the back of a post card please! Would prefer something for the here and now but donating to something that maintains heritage would be cool also i guess.
|
Their ultimate aims in reducing casualties are fine though their main route is to reduce spped limits which is counter productive in that it increases journey times, hence more vehicles on the road at any one time, hence increased congestion - itself a causal factor in accidents.
It is NOT speed that kills it is accdents that kill, BRAKE et al need to realise that they are not intrisically linked.
What we need is an appropraite use of technology such as variable limits, 15mph outside a school at 08:30 on a weekday though perhaps 40mph at 15:00 on a Sunday.
EDIT: there / their ...
Last edited by: Cheddar on Mon 28 Feb 11 at 22:41
|
>> It is NOT speed that kills it is accdents that kill, BRAKE et al need
>> to realise that they are not intrisically linked.
Just to play Devils Advocate...
They are... and the higher the speed, the worse the injuries/numbers killed... on average...
We can't deny that properly used and enforced speed limits do have a positive effect on the reduction of accidents, just as removal of cars helps too!
As for increased journey times, again a reduction of the limit does work when a motorway is busy as it smooths out the flow...
Thats not to say I agree with everything they say, I don't, but sometimes lower limits and pedestrian zones work well... Its just that BRAKE don't seem to know when to stop...
(Chedder, I clipped your post, but its a general comment, not getting at you! ;-) )
|
>> They are... and the higher the speed, the worse the injuries/numbers killed... on average...>>
ONLY if an accident happens - hence it is safer to travel at 100mph and not hit anything than to travel at 10mph and hit something.
Therefore the focus should be on accident avoidance and not soley on speed reduction which, as I said, is counter productive in that it increases congestion.
|
>> Therefore the focus should be on accident avoidance and not soley on speed reduction which,
>> as I said, is counter productive in that it increases congestion.
>>
>
If you want to reduce injuries or deaths, Cheddar, then speed reduction will always be a part of the package, just as alerting drivers to hazards by signs or other methods is part of accident avoidance... Both have a part to play in reducing (or avoiding) accidents...
Accidents happen, and will continue to do so, whilst a human is left in charge of a motor vehicle (or even a bicycle!) just at lower speeds injuries and deaths are less, thats a fact...
As for the second comment, I think you'll find in many circumstances that speed reduction actually eases congestion...
Last edited by: hobby on Wed 2 Mar 11 at 12:28
|
>> If anyone knows of a half decent motoring charity
www.roadpeace.org/
|
>> >> If anyone knows of a half decent motoring charity
>>
>> www.roadpeace.org/
www.racfoundation.org/
|
|
It's a campaigning organisation. If its headline objectives were limited to what it might realistically achieve it'd get nowhere.
|
|
He didnt say which way he wanted his charity to lean.
|
|
BRAKE just seems to be run by a bunch of hysterical women.
|
|
Hysterical, that's the right word.
|
>> Target Zero - www.brake.org.uk/target-zero
Of course it would be good to reduce road deaths, but:
- Maximum engine capacity is limited to within the maximum speed limit.
"Nice car mate. What size engine you got in that?"
"Oh, it's only 65mph."
- There is a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads.
Just imagine it AC - you're stuck behind some mimser doing 30mph on a straight, otherwise-empty A road, and you're not allowed to overtake...
|
Skoda, if you fancy donating to a transport related charity, I would consider Sustrans.
Not nearly so barking, and their aims are driven more by what can be positively done to have balanced transport options matched to people's needs, rather than Brake's very negative hard-line approach.
Also, the National Cycle Network is a very handy leisure tool if you're ever into two wheeled free-time. It desperately needs funding to be completed, which ain't gonna come from this government.
|
It's so obvious that brake as an organisation represents the enemy that I don't understand why anyone thinks it worth mentioning. Not just the disgusting morons in brake but anyone inclined to sympathise with lowering speed limits anywhere, or to approve of the dangerous and anti-social speed bump, is anathema and ought to be tortured to death on television.
In the case of those members who come into the last two categories, special pleading may get you a painkilling injection before the process. Not because you deserve it, but because we know you, and are corrupt and bourgeois and soft-hearted.
Liberals, not damn fundamentalists like you, bad cess to you.
Poop-poop!
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 14:08
|
|
Just went over to the Brake website, first thing I noticed was the image of a young boy with a high-viz vest. Reminds me of the morons on the school run who make their kids wear said "safety" garments for the perilous journey from car door, across pavement and into the school gates. Sometimes they even cross the road, heaven forbid!
Last edited by: oilburner on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 14:17
|
|
While I agree the 'future vision' document linked in the OP is barking the Brake Manifesto www.brake.org.uk/brake-campaign-manifesto-for-road-safety-in-the-uk-2010-11 includes much (apart from speed limits) that would be welcomed here.
|
>> includes much (apart from speed limits) that would be welcomed here.
Not all that much. Points 7, 9 and perhaps 11. All the rest is faffing fundamentalist garbage.
|
>> Not all that much. Points 7, 9 and perhaps 11. All the rest is faffing
>> fundamentalist garbage.
>>
I could live with 5, 6 & 10 as well. 4 & 8 with reservations.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 15:10
|
|
Point 10 would have been greatly appreciated when my Dad was killed. Might have helped mitigate some severe mental difficulties my family suffered.
|
And in what way do victims and the familes of victims deserve special treatment over those who suffered just as severe affects from non road accident trauma?
|
In no way whatsoever. BRAKE don't campaign on any other issues, why should their manifesto include support for the families of other kinds of misfortune? There are many other campaigning organisations for other issues.
What the hell point are you trying to make?
If you're on a wind up here, it's quite easily the most distasteful one you've embarked upon and I'm taking it extremely personally, for very obvious reasons.
|
I think he's turning into a grumpy old man:)
Pat
|
>> I think he's turning into a grumpy old man:)
You will know when I get grumpy. There is no mistake about that.
|
I do know, that's why I've kept my head down all day, I can't be doing with all the hassle.
Pat
|
except you stuck your head up in a war zone!
|
Everywhere you posts seems to turn into a war zone these days.
All right I suppose if you like that kind of thing...I don't though.
Pat
|
Sorry was that a general "you" as in one or a specific "you = zero"?
Its been pretty laid back on here today as it happens.
|
...It's been pretty laid back on here today as it happens....
Here's one Zero made earlier:
BBC2 Trade test transmissions. - Zero
I see my reply to baldyboy was removed. Yet his attempt to bring his feud to this site remained.
Fine
Remove this post if you like as well mods. I shan't be here to notice.
Reply to this message | Report message
|
The point I want to make is that I've had some dealings with BRAKE and consequently would have had an opinion worth posting.
However, there are times when it just isn't worth getting into an argument, so I'll just read the posts.
Pat
|
|
Then stand up and make your point Pat, dont sit there in the trench mumbling.
|
That would be feeding the troll Zero, and I have no intention of doing that.
There will be another day, another thread, another forum and hopefully a discussion upon it.
Now, liver & onions need cooking.
Pat
|
|
DO NOT overcook the liver.
|
It's simmering slowly in thick onion gravy....
Pat
|
Not at all is it a wind up. Brakes manifesto is particularly for road accident vicitms.
Read it
. Fund comprehensive care services for families affected by a death or life-changing injury in a road crash – including literature, a helpline, immediate face-to-face support and appropriate medical therapy, if necessary diverting funds from the huge amount currently spent on care for victims of less traumatic crimes, such as theft
It is SPECIFICALLY belittling victims of other traumas and crime.
As I said, why is a road accident victim special. Why should money be diverted from much more common and required support services.
Edit A victim is a victim, ropad accident victims are not deserving of special support. Only the severity of the trauma decides that, not the cause.
As for distasteful, do you honestly think you are the only person who has ever suffered?
Clearly you think your circumstances were special and unique.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 15:48
|
>> It is SPECIFICALLY belittling victims of other traumas and crime.
>>
>> As I said, why is a road accident victim special. Why should money be diverted
>> from much more common and required support services.
OK, so you think someone who has had their iPhone stolen is on a par with a child whose father has been killed in a road accident. Your prerogative. I think it's fair enough to say victims of crimes involving someone's death are significantly more traumatised than MOST of those where this is not the case.
>> As for distasteful, do you honestly think you are the only person who has ever
>> suffered?
What on earth makes you think that?
>> Clearly you think your circumstances were special and unique.
What on earth makes you think that?
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 15:49
|
>> >> As for distasteful, do you honestly think you are the only person who has
>> ever
>> >> suffered?
>>
>> What on earth makes you think that?
>>
>> >> Clearly you think your circumstances were special and unique.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think that?
Your "this is personal" response.
|
|
Now that's just daft. Are you inplying that I'm trying to say that my circumstances are special and unique because I took your comments personally? How bizarre.
|
>> Now that's just daft. Are you inplying that I'm trying to say that my circumstances
>> are special and unique because I took your comments personally?
yes.
|
>> OK, so you think someone who has had their iPhone stolen is on a par
>> with a child whose father has been killed in a road accident. Your prerogative. I
>> think it's fair enough to say victims of crimes involving someone's death are significantly more
>> traumatised than MOST of those where this is not the case.
No of course I dont, Iphone theft is petty. But I object to the assertion that RTA trauma is any more deserving of support than any other form of severe trauma.
|
|
That point of the manifesto (10) does not state otherwise. It asserts that it's more traumatic than less traumatic things, and therefore deserves support funding more than less traumatic things.
|
>> Edit A victim is a victim, ropad accident victims are not deserving of special support.
>> Only the severity of the trauma decides that, not the cause.
I can agree with that - and BRAKE's manifesto does not imply otherwise.
|
>> I can agree with that - and BRAKE's manifesto does not imply otherwise.
btween the lines, that is exactly what it is trying to imply. It is also trying to suggest that RTA victims get less support than any other form of trauma.
That is far from the truth.,
|
>> btween the lines, that is exactly what it is trying to imply.
>>
Think you're reading too much in to it there.
|
I dont think so
We will have to disagree. To try and suggest that a RTA victim gets the same support as an iphone victim, which they do and is patently untrue, makes a mockery of it.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 15:58
|
>> I'm taking it extremely personally, for very obvious reasons.
Don't, Alanovic. Surely you must have noticed that Zero is no more hard-hearted than the next man. Neither am I come to that.
To feel critical of these one-track-minded single-issue campaigning manifestos doesn't make one unfeeling or harsh towards people who have suffered personal tragedies and acquired resentments as a result.
|
>> And in what way do victims and the familes of victims deserve special treatment over
>> those who suffered just as severe affects from non road accident trauma?
I thought it was just implying that the effects in RTAs are underestimated.
|
I could sympathise with Brake if
We had the worse death toll on the roads in Europe. We dont, its probably the best.
Drivers who kill or who drive drunk get a slap on the wrist - They dont they go to jail or they get banned, we have the toughest and most punitive penalties around.
We disobey speed limits. We dont, as a whole the UK are the most law abiding drivers around.
In short, I dont see they have a purpose, role or reason to exist, other than to make a noise and feel important.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Mar 11 at 16:28
|
...I dont see they have a purpose, role or reason to exist, other than to make a noise and feel important...
Best we don't apply that too rigorously.
There would be very few left on here.
|
...whatever...
Must be an echo in here.
|
>If anyone knows of a half decent motoring charity worthy of a couple of quid a month,.
Consider a donation to the BASICS organisation in your region.
It's a charity staffed by medical professionals who provide immediate on-scene medical care, particularly at serious RTAs. In cases of severe trauma, paramedics may not have the advanced skills required and the first 30 minutes to an hour can be critical to survival.
The Hants webpage is here: www.basicshampshire.org.uk/about.html
There will be branch in your area.
Kevin...
|
|
Thanks, Kevin, I will seriously consider donating to that organisation, sounds very worthwhile.
|
I am sure you probably have a Emergency air ambulance in your area too, these are usually run on a charitable basis.
In my area its the Surrey Air Ambulance.
So fancy a day out? support the two worthiest organisations in my area and visit
The Emergency Services Day at Brooklands.
www.surreyairambulance.co.uk/home/whatson/Brooklands+Museum+Emergency+Services+Day
Or See the Top Gear test Track at
www.surreyairambulance.co.uk/home/whatson/Air+Ambulance+Open+Day+-+Dunsfold+
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 2 Mar 11 at 11:14
|
Thanks for all the suggestions guys, BASICS Scotland is the one that stood out for me. They don't appear to offer a direct debit donation option so i'll just fire in a one off to cover 12 months. Spent half an hour reading their stories, didn't even know they existed. Great work.
Like the idea of RoadPeace, they make a lot more sense than BRAKE.
RAC Foundation are a non starter, they've had different views from me in recent memory (they championed the idea of toll roads, which i see as beaurocratic overload. Just bump up the price of a litre, if you can justify the need).
|
BRAKE Charity - Hard Cheese
