Now, why should there be any “inconvenience” caused to a law-abiding motorist? Well, none of course, because they wouldn’t want to go over 70 mph as it’s the highest allowed on any UK road. Let’s consider this case in a bit more detail….
Here’s the J Murphy and Sons van, with reference to the membership of said company in Optimise, a consortium carrying out a 5 year, £500 million contract for Thames Water.
Now all these organisations have web sites with “Visions and Values”, or similar, and Optimise is no exception: as part of this they have: Optimise Vision :
“Everyone got home safely because of our positive Health, Safety and Environmental culture.”
Or look at the Murphy group’s site: “Maintaining our health and safety record”
It is simple – safety has to be paramount in all that we plan and do, across all the market sectors with which Murphy are involved. We keep our people, our clients and the public safe…We also maintain strong links with the wider industry (presumably they mean the “safety industry”, through our Trade Association Memberships with: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; the British Safety Council; the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health; the Construction Health and Safety Group; the British Standards Institution; the Institute of Risk Management; and the International Institute of Risk & Safety Management.
“Maintaining these values has long made us market leaders, consistently enabling us to win repeat business and ensure we breathe life into all our projects”
Now, I don’t for a minute think that not having that panel will, in itself, make any difference to anything. The 70 mph limit is just one part of regulation of speed, which may be achieved by policing, higher petrol prices, speed governors and ultimately the change of a culture to one which is less tolerant of higher speeds.
Indeed, emphasis always has to be on cultural change, rather than just physical measures like speed governors, if only to allow such real controls in the first place – and certainly not any kind of reliance on polite requests to obey the law.
It’s also the case that we might want to direct an anti-speed message elsewhere, more towards default 20 mph limits in urban areas, or enforcement of existing 30 mph limits. Also, risk compensation suggests, that reducing risk taking based on speed reduction, may reduce the effectiveness of efforts to achieve danger reduction measures, such as driver liability in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, elsewhere.
So, why bother? A key issue for the RDRF is pointing out the inverted reality of the “road safety” lobby in its various manifestations. That can include the connivance of respectable bodies – replete with commitments towards safety – with law breaking behaviour. Apologizing for a supposed inconvenience which is only inconvenience for law breakers is just one example. Of course, when the “road safety” industry has connived with rule and law breaking by motorists for decades – accepting illegal behaviour as a fact of life to be accepted by creating more idiot-proof highway and vehicle environments. Or by appealing to a supposedly typical rule or law breaking motorists as the arbiters of appropriate behaviour (or at least that section of “road safety” dealing with law official enforcement and sentencing). The fact that his been going on for decades is, however, no reason to stand idly by and accept it.
or one of these bodies: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; the British Safety Council; the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health; the Construction Health and Safety Group; the British Standards Institution; the Institute of Risk Management; and the International Institute of Risk & Safety Management – that the Murphy group have such “strong links” with.