Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Transport plan reveals crackdown on speeding but no Forth crossing

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
06 December 2006
A NEW crackdown on speeding drivers that will include more average-speed cameras was announced by ministers yesterday to cut accidents and reduce carbon emissions on major routes.
The measure is part of a 20-year Scottish transport blueprint that backs UK-wide road pricing and outlines plans for the biggest rail electrification scheme for decades.

The national transport strategy aims to reduce congestion, improve public transport and lower emissions.

However, major new projects such as a "bullet train" between Edinburgh and Glasgow will be considered by a strategic transport projects review, which is not due to be completed until late 2008.

This brought criticism from opposition parties, which said the document amounted to a meaningless wish-list that lacked detail.

Several groups also attacked the lack of a commitment to a new Forth crossing, which is the subject of studies that are being fast-tracked to be completed by next May.

Support from the Scottish Executive for greater speed enforcement follows the success of a camera system which measures average speed over set distances on the A77 in Ayrshire.

The network of cameras, which comprises Britain's longest speed trap, has dramatically cut speeding and accidents on a notorious section of the road.

Such cameras are already considered for use in all major roadworks, as The Scotsman revealed in May, and have been deployed during work on the M8 in Glasgow, M74 in Lanarkshire and A90 near Perth.

The new strategy states: "We will consider the possibilities for expanding the use of average- speed camera systems on Scottish roads in future, taking account of their potential benefits for road safety, driver improvement, emission reduction and speed enforcement."

However, the proposal received only a lukewarm welcome from road safety and motoring groups.

Michael McDonnell, the director of Road Safety Scotland, said: "It is early days for average-speed cameras, and full evaluation is required.

"However, while speed may not be a contributory factor in accidents, it can dictate the outcome in terms of casualties."

Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "Speed is only one element of road safety. Other approaches are important too, such as improving road and junction layouts and clearer signs."

Tavish Scott, the transport minister, who launched the strategy, confirmed the Executive's support for UK-wide road pricing, which he described as "the way forward".

The Scottish Chambers of Commerce said the lack of commitment to a new Forth crossing was a "sad omission". The Scottish Council for Development and Industry said it remained a "key unresolved question".

Fergus Ewing, the SNP's transport spokesman, dismissed the strategy as "long on rhetoric, but short on action", while David Davidson, his Conservative counterpart, said it was "little more than a wish-list of future aspirations".

He added that a new Forth crossing was Scotland's "number one transport need - no bridge? Some strategy!"

BID TO CUT DELAYS

PRIORITY lanes for buses, lorries and cars carrying passengers could be introduced to speed up journeys and cut delays. Measures to cut congestion at bottlenecks on main routes could include lights to restrict traffic joining from slip roads. Vehicles could also be directed to use motorway hard shoulders.

CAMERAS CUT KILLER SPEED

THE introduction of variable speed cameras on the A77 was the solution to massive official frustration at the number of motorists who broke the limit on one of Scotland's most dangerous roads.

The road claimed 68 lives over ten years in 1,961 accidents, and during one three-week period in 1994, a total of 2,000 speeding drivers were caught on camera.

The advanced speed cameras were introduced in July 2005.

The £775,000 Speed Enforcement Camera System (SPECS) measures average speeds over stretches of a 29-mile section of road between Symington and south of Girvan. Although this is the longest section of road in Britain covered by SPECS, the cameras measure speeds over a series of stretches of between approximately one and 5.5 miles long.

By November 2005, figures showed the cameras had cut offences by up to 87 per cent.

BACKING FOR BUSES

MORE buses may be laid on to take late-night revellers home from town and city centres while funding for bus improvements will be increased, according to the Executive's new bus strategy. There will be a review of bus stop information, while demand-responsive transport, such as "ring and ride" buses, will be expanded.

ELECTRIC TRAINS

ELECTRIFICATION of the Edinburgh-Glasgow route is recommended by an accompanying rail strategy. This could be extended from the two cities to Dunblane - and even as far as Aberdeen and Inverness. High-speed Edinburgh-Glasgow and Scotland-London links could be pursued after 2014 if studies show a strong case.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Androsthenes,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 00:52:03

With dates so far ahead this will give them time to 'forget' the transport improvements but obviously the revenue raising measures can be implemented at once.

2

scottwebb.co.uk,

06/12/2006 01:05:23

If they REALLY were concerned about the health and well being of people, they would have had speed limiters on all cars of 70 miles an hour years ago.
This is about yet more Control and revenue generating

3

CyclingEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 01:10:32
4

The Strategist,

06/12/2006 01:36:08

This policy document is awful.. It shows little vision and no real strategic thinking.

Where's the plan to introduce 100Mb broadband so people can have video conferences rather than travel to meetings and work more from home..

As to average speed cameras as a means of reducing pollution then this is utterly risible... Does it mean then that when I convert my car to run on hydrogen I can do what speed I like?

They're just a bunch of control freaks.. If they were serious about speed they'd bring in legislation to prevent manufacturers building cars that can do more than about 80mph...

Road pricing? The fastest way to wreck the economy...

These confounded people need to think again.

5

Daibhidh,

06/12/2006 01:45:26

More rubbish from the Executive...they just don't get it. For Scoland to flourish, we need to maintain and bolster our existing infrustructure...an new bridge is a must, not a question...

6

Sanny,

In Portugal for the winter. 06/12/2006 01:55:09

What is the desired function of speed cameras? Is it to raise cash from the already over taxed motorist? Or is it to control the speed of motorists?
If it is the latter, then here in Portugal they do have a method that is effective and does not bring the police or the council into disrepute nor does it offend drivers. The only problem is it doesn’t raise cash but it does control speed.
This simple answer is speed controlled lights. A speed sensor covering a reasonable length of road, on sensing a vehicle exceeding the speed limit it simple sets a traffic light to red and holds up the traffic for ten to fifteen seconds. Other motorists soon let the offender know their view of this unsocial behaviour. Woe betide anyone who jumps the red light.
These stretches of road are clearly marked and cars do respect the limit simply because it means they maintain a higher average speed than stop start at the speed lights. A very simple but effective system. Perhaps councils need to decide on their priorities – raise cash or control speed!

7

Mervin,

06/12/2006 02:28:54

Another pointless bit of nannying. Given that the governements own figures show that only 5% of accidents are caused by driving over the speed limit this will have little or no effect except of course to rasie more money. These cameras are just another stealth tax on the motorist.

8

Statsman,

06/12/2006 03:14:57

Another excuse for more cameras and no investment in transport. Just looks like a charter to fine (tax) drivers more.

Get lost McConnell. Sick of your tax this ban that agenda. Wouldn't shed a tear if you resigned tomorrow.

9

Guga,

Rockall 06/12/2006 04:22:29

Yet more excuses to steal more money from people, especially the motorists. This government are a joke; then again, so is wee Joke McConnell.

How about improving safety by improving some of the more dangerous roads? We badly need the A9 and the A96 upgraded, as well as a new Forth crossing. We could also do with more improvements to some of the roads in the more rural areas; including an actual road from Tolsta to Ness.

#8, Totally agree. I too am totally sick of the "ban this", "tax that" attitude of New Labour.

10

Navvy,

06/12/2006 04:24:24

The real link between speed and pollution is traffic stopped or crawling in jams. Unsurprisingly this is not addressed.
POLICY
Where possible provide good public transport
Where use of roads is necessary then make sure that the traffic flows. Road pricing can be an element in this. If the traffic speed falls too low then the price goes up and drivers will adjust their travel times. employers should allow flexitime and, yes, a decent broadband speed would help.

I have CHRISTMAS decorations in my office and if some silly bendover backwards nanny stater tries to tell me otherwise I will sue for race, colour, creed and every other kind of discrimination

11

Mareng,

06/12/2006 06:14:00

It's all just TAX, TAX, TAX, REVENUE, REVENUE, REVENUE!

Wasn't the transport review carried out by the same fella that, when he was chairman of BA - he painted all their planes to look like 3rd world operators?

Shows how much he knows about transport!

12

Ubi,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 06:49:17

This lends weight to one of the fundamental criticisms of the Scottish Parliament - that the quality and focus of its policies is little better than that of a not particularly outstanding regional council.

It is amateurishly self contradictory in proposing that an economic benefit will be obtained by transporting people faster by train. It then rejects the same economic benefit obtained by them travelling faster by road.

13

Cant use my name anymore-Alex,

06/12/2006 06:54:53

They must have got some big buckets of green paint. A little dash of honesty wouldnt go wrong. I am heartily sick of the executive and the Westminster governments new trick of throwing green paint at everything and claiming that a side effect of everything is a reduction in carbon emissions. Its bl**dy insulting

14

mv,

06/12/2006 07:36:25

Another TAX for the peasants of this small country, will tax the majority off the roads onto an already poor public transport system while those that can afford it will be able to drive their huge vehicles on the roads.

Just the local regional "council" following their masters in London, the majority of roads in Scotland do not suffer from the same problems seen in England so why not come up with a policy that reflects this? Edinburgh council has created more congestion by its totally flawed transport policy, 50% reduction in traffic flow on roads leading into the city using bus lanes, mindless closing of roads around the city centre, footpaths moved into the centre of the roads in morningside to block traffic while buses stop, hatched lines everywhere at junctions to stop flow, etc...

Plus their totally false faith in cameras to improve road safety, these are just revenue collection tools. The majority of poor driving goes undetected by these things, its an excuse to reduce the already depleted police force....Just another spy camera system to control the population.

15

William of Liberton,

06/12/2006 07:53:15

"14 Plus their totally false faith in cameras to improve road safety,"

It does not really matter whether the prime cause of an accident is excessive speed or some other dangerous conduct: if for any reason a collision occurs the consequences will vary directly in proportion to the speed of the vehicle.

16

rab, glasgow,

06/12/2006 07:55:14

This pathetic executive are nothing but money grabbing parasites, that are being controled by london.As far as I am aware all fines and fixed penaltys collected in scotland are given to london, so the wasters at follyrood are robbing scotlands people to keep their london paymasters happy.
The executive are spineless cowards and are a disgrace to scotland.Tavish scott must be the worst transport mincer yet,a weak pathetic no mark.
Lets get rid of these idiots in may.

17

Sheikh,

Dubai, U.A.E. 06/12/2006 08:02:24

I am sure the Policy can be changed after next Year's Election. Labour will be out and sense will prevail

18

Ricardo,

06/12/2006 08:05:43

There seems to be a bottomless pit of money to plant Tanktraps and Speed Cameras of every description on just about every road in Scotland.

We have daily endless traffic jams on the Forth bridge... but the Wisdom of the Scottish Executive can raise its sight no higher than "Slow Down"

Christ!!! I pay Taxes to keep this lot of Bufoons in a Pretend Job.

19

MS,

06/12/2006 08:18:32

There is absolutely no way that common sense will prevail. It's all about tax, tax and more tax no matter what dressing they put on the so-called rationale.

What they don't seem to realise is that if they over-tax the population there comes a point when they will trigger a slump in the economy which could well accelerate - a reverse multiplier effect. The economy actually needs people to have income which they can spend on goods and services. If not, then business will suffer.

It is clear that they have latched on to the fact the people will make massive sacrifices to keep using their cars for so many valid reasons.

20

conservative,

06/12/2006 08:25:06

Old-fashioned Labour - TAX TAX TAX!!

21

Shaun,

Glasgow 06/12/2006 08:30:53

Yet another tax on motorists, why don't we all just keep £50 a week and give the rest to the government so they can pay for anything except providing better public transport and improving the road system (which may reduce congestion and thus reduce carbon emissions). A lot of people are calling for Labour out, both in Scotland and Westminster, but would the Tories or SNP really be any better?

22

Blue Badge Holder,

06/12/2006 08:31:01

My concern about average speed detection systems is that drivers spend so much time looking at their speedometer they don't see some danger in the road ahead.

Also speed cameras are supposed to be put at accident black spots however many of them are sited not at a dangerous point.

23

MS,

06/12/2006 08:40:35

Also, remember. It can only happen if we vote for them. We should make it very clear our votes will not be given to them if they pursue policies such as the ones above.

24

PeteB,

St Andrews 06/12/2006 08:49:05

Yet another scheme for raising money that will be frittered away. Lets do away with tax on fuel, road tax, and insurance tax then maybe the poor motorist will not feel victimised by this labour government. Most people use their cars because the public transport system is c**p!

25

,

06/12/2006 08:52:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 212439, Article id was mapped to record!
26

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 08:53:14

WOW - how long did it take them to think of this?

'20-year Scottish transport blueprint'
'Major new projects such as a "bullet train" between Edinburgh and Glasgow will be considered by a strategic transport projects review, which is not due to be completed until late 2008.'

More lies, no one has a clue what they are doing. Unless the public vote a better representative into make policy & decisions then not only is Scotland going down the pan but the UK at this rate from Westminster.

Criticism - That's rather a weak word for this dross.

All the public want is a diligent, worldly, thinking, trust worthy representatives. No lies just the truth.

How much time & money has been wasted with past, current & future spin and then all again to correct poor judgement and common sense.
Time for a career change if they get their £100,000 salary not forgetting all the large perks, bonuses and fat pension.

At present I am not convinced we have the correct calibre of individual representing the publics’ aspirations and future?

27

Ted,

06/12/2006 09:02:10

I've been coming round to the speed limiter idea too, and I'm pleased to see it popping up here a couple of times. I also think that 80mph would be a sensible limit, allowing for overtaking etc, then we could remove all the speed cameras outside towns, and fiddling your speed limiter would be an imprisonable offence.

That would be great for road safety, although not so good for revenue. As many have said, we'll see what the Executive prefer: money or lives saved.

28

Andrew ICT,

Aberdeen 06/12/2006 09:06:03

I have been left slightly confused by this - well it is early in the morning!

"The national transport strategy aims to reduce congestion, improve public transport and lower emissions."

In Aberdeen Mr. Scott is allocating some £600 (?) million to the AWPR - some way to encourage motorists out of their cars, onto public transport and thus reduce emissions!

As for potential electrfication of the rail up to Inverness what a waste of cash that would be! In reality it doesn't need electrified. What it needs is to be dual track down to Perth to allow for more trains on the line which can then remove cars and freight from the A9.

Perhaps one day the A9 and A96 might get upgraded to dual carriageway to make them safer roads though this might encourage more people onto the roads but this could be combated with more attractive train fairs between Inverness and the South and Aberdeen.

29

WW,

06/12/2006 09:08:58

It is sad that the PM can anounce that he will commit to spending up to £20 BILLION on new weapons of mass destruction which all of us will pay for, yet tavish Scott and the rest of the Lib-Lab numpties in Bolyrood cannot get a simple transport strategy sorted out that at the very least will address some of the most pressing needs of the transport system in Scotland. The forth Bridge replacement for example, not to mention the state of virtually every mile of town, city and rural road in Scotland which are falling to pieces. Reducing Carbon emmissions must be addressed but to present the arguments in the way that they have is utter nonsense, and as many of the commentators have pointed out it appears that the main immediate thrust of the so called strategy is to raise increased revenues from road users under the flimsy guise of emmission reduction, while at the same time prevaricating or not mentioning the real issues. The Scottish population need to wake up and realise what these clowns are up to.

30

Reiver,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:16:22

Let's hope that the speed averaging camera's assist in removing the licence of those people who insist on doing 30 mph on a 60 mph stretch of with 30 or 40 cars piled up behind them.

No mention of moving the hgv's from main roads into and around cities in peak hours, or consideration of making schools start at ten to remove the burden of the school run's on peak hours around the major cities.

31

madman,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:17:54

I wonder how many MSP's use public transport?
I would suspect none.

32

Ubi,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:35:02

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the economic prospects for this country are bleak in the extreme. Whether independent or not, oil revenues will be severely depleted within twenty years (unless massive new discoveries are made in the North Sea and west of Shetland.) We longer manufacture very much which can be sold for large quantities of foreign exchange. We are in the midst of an alarming double whammy demographic shift where every additional pensioner is also one fewer pension provider. We have an enormous number of our population who depend on state benefits from cradle to grave and a culture of entitlement expectation which may never be fully eradicated. On top of that the state accounts for almost one in four of those who are in employment. We have a high tax regime not attractive to inward investors. We have an unattractive climate.

We have relatively poor quality politicians and a sullen, subversive civil service which combine to thwart radicalism. We have not seen vital reforms of welfare, health, transport, education, taxation in spite of all the taxes extracted in their name, although we have heard many fine words on the subjects.

It is clear that the country's managers - the same politicians and secretariat - have no clear definition for the big ticket to reshape the country's destiny. Instead we witness tinkering at the margins of issues, the one trick pony of ever higher levels of taxation, more of the same, muddle through, hope that something turns up.

It may be too late for me but I have advised my children to get out whilst they can and join the emerging economies. Arabic and Mandarin are the languages they will need in their lifetime. English will be a language for fleecing a crust from summer tourists.

33

SouthernSkye,

Germany 06/12/2006 09:42:31

As Comment number 6 states,
there are other ways of reducing speed. I worked in Spain (Valencia) and they had the same traffic light system over the roads. A simple speed sensor and a red light was all that was required. If the sensor notes a speed above the limit it sets the light to red, traffic is stopped for a short time, then the light goes out. It raises no revenue but is a cheap way to establish a limit on a given road stretch.

We need to re-nationalise public transport and run it as a service and not a business. It should not be a profit making organisation, it should be a service provider that, hopefully, covers it's own costs.

We should have sections of dual carriageway where lorries (and such like) are not allowed to overtake (as they have here in Germany) this allows a better flow as there is never the 3 mile overtaking manouvre when a lorry is doing 2mph more that the one it is overtaking.

We need to move freight from the roads and onto rail and water.We are an island nation and should be able to use coastal shipping combined with rail terminals.

We need common sense !

34

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:44:51

Old fashioned labour at stealth tax best - I used to be an active member but the total shambles of road policy at local and national level is main reason I am not now. At least have elections coming up!

The local labour plans for a tram in Edinburgh, something known as inflexible and out dated 50 years ago and costing incredible millions of our money is another example of how labour will tax the motorist to spend in an area that every logistician (David Begg excepted) knows is a total waste of money as the traffic jams it creates will mean more damaging emissions than a few trams save over those from buses they replace.

Transport in Scoitland is vital to our economic future, the people know it and they will soon vote accordingly. Only Lab/Lib executive are confused about need for new bridge, incredible.

35

Bo,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:46:31

No.6 That seems like a great idea - much more progressive in its thinking and based on peer pressure rather than revenue raising.
It would be nice if politicians in this country at least experiemneted with some of these ideas rather than budgeoning forward blindly with more surveillance technology.

36

Bo,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:49:15

No.6 That seems like a great idea - much more progressive in its thinking and based on peer pressure rather than revenue raising.
It would be nice if politicians in this country at least experiemneted with some of these ideas rather than bludgeoning forward blindly with more surveillance technology.

37

Gordon,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 09:53:44

And how much of this will they do BEFORE the election??

38

Dave,

Western Isles 06/12/2006 09:59:31

Spot on SS @33.

All our goods are brought in by ship........a lorry on a ship!! Makes no sense at all.

39

Cant use my name anymore-Alex,

Prisoner of the Machine 06/12/2006 10:01:24

Look folks its easy, When you vote, forget political affiliations, forget who think might be best, forget all that and vote for ANYBODY other than the incumbent. Do that a couple of times, let them know theres NO SAFE seats and theyll soon take note

40

Haggismaker,

Northern Bohemia 06/12/2006 10:04:17

Cameras are expensive, fines are heavy, accidents and punishments sap the life blood. Work in your local area - if it's not good enough for you move elswehere. Avoid commuting. Work from home. Take the bus half an hour earlier. Go by train. DO SOMETHING YOURSELF! Work flexitime to avoid the rush hour.

Cars should be built to have a maximum speed of say 70, like buses and lorries do.

41

weeshooie,

Livingston 06/12/2006 10:08:50

Well, No Bridge then, but they have once again managed to ensure they will have their gold plated pensions paid for by the motorist.
sack the whole bloody lot of them, they get paid for doing nothing anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!

42

GP,

06/12/2006 10:14:45

What yet another load of rubbish created mostly by people who NEVER use public transport don't drive to work during rush hours and rarely if ever travel across the poorer infrastructure regions of this country.
Firstly to save the environment cars should be travelling at 56mph this is almost an impossibility in this country for any great length of time.
Slowing cars down to 30 and 40 increases pollution by an enormous factor. Indeed given the modern motor cars combustion performance they should be averaging 60 - 70 mph as this is when they reduce pollutants. I doiubt whether any driver would grudge reducing speed in towns and cities but main arterial routes should ahve their speed limits INCREASED to 80 mph.

More short sighted wasted funds on outdated reports by those who do not actually use the system.

43

Gordon,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 10:16:44

#30 Reiver -

1) HGVs are only slow because of government legislation preventing excessive speed.
2) Driving at 30 in a 60 limit may be frustrating, but do you know that it is safe to travel faster, as you cannot see past?
3) Goods need to get to the shops, so trucks are more important than private transport.
4) The school run may aggravate congestion, but if the government would arrange it so that both parents are not forced to work to make ends meet, the parent who looks after the children would not need a car to race back and forth in.

44

IanW,

Germany 06/12/2006 10:19:27

Just read about an interesting experiment in Northern Germany. The local authorities had alll sorts of problems caused by road markings, traffic signs, cars speeding, distraction, etc.

They decided that part of the problem was the proliferation of traffic signs and speed cameras. They removed all of them except two. The two remaining were placed one at each end of the main roads into the town. The new signs said simply that in the town there are no traffic indicators.

Guess what after only a few days the numbers of accidents happening actually dropped and has stayed low. The belief is that because motorists were not being forced into certain actions or being distracted that they actually could spend more time concentrating on their driving.

45

JUSTICE FOR ALL,

glasgow 06/12/2006 10:24:20

it makes me laugh, or should that be cry every time they talk about more speed cameras to save lives,
the MSPs will be wanting to give themselves the 66% pay rise that their pals in LONDON are voting for,and who better to pay it than JOE PUBLIC..and they dont even have to negotiate with employers for it...just have a wee subsidised drink in the House of Commons bar and decide amoug themselves how much they want...God help them if they ever have to get a job in the real world....

46

Jade,

Argyll 06/12/2006 10:25:28

With due sympathies to those in the Central Belt, the idea of road charging is going to turn remote areas into no go zones except for the wealthy. What if there's no trains? What if the bus service (where one exists) is diabolical and often doesn't go where and when one needs to travel? What if you live somewhere where the only road is a trunk road - bet they'll slap a big charge on that for the revenue.

When are our petty politicians of all colours going to realise that Scotland is NOT just about the central belt alone?

PS Your comment about using coastal ports is right on!

47

ACS,

St Andrews 06/12/2006 10:29:41

When the buses are clean and run regularly and on time (ditto the trains), when my fellow passengers stop coughing and spluttering over me, when I don't have to wade through a day's worth of empty drinks cans, crisp packets and disposable nappies, when I don't have to squeeze my 6ft frame into a space for a 5 year old, when I can get transported from the city to the sticks after 11pm, or vice versa to meet an early morning flight, when the bus stops at the golf course/bike trail/football pitch etc and lets me take my equipment on with me maybe then AND ONLY THEN will I leave the car at home.

48

Dunbarney,

Perth 06/12/2006 10:32:16

Strikes me that if we don't get a new bridge over the Forth before the structure has to get closed to heavy vehicles we are going to create an awful lot more carbon driving around the diversions.

49

Haggismaker,

Northern Bohemia 06/12/2006 10:35:56

ACS - come and visit us in Bohemia - oldest buses in central Europe but they've got summer cycle buses (30 bikes at once) that transform into ski buses (50 skiers + equipment) in winter, roughly hourly intercity bus links, direct airport links from many towns, call-for-service minibus in the 'sticks' where we are (1800ft above sea level, brr). All smell a bit, but work.

50

Shug,

UK 06/12/2006 10:38:58

Speeding is a huge problem and the cause of most accidents. I am not so sure about fitting cars with governors but the punishment for speeding should be much more severe. Three strikes and out springs to mind. Loss of licence for life. Same should aplly to drink driving, excpet should be one strike and out. No excuses. Too much fannying about ( and too much money to be made from fines I suppose).

I saw a programme a few years back on road safety. Experts were pointing out that many measures to make roads safer (e.g. straightening out bad corners etc) often made the problem worse as people simply speeded up and accidents increased. When asked what was the best thing that could be done to improve road safety the expert suggested that if all cars had a large spike fitted in the middle of the steering wheel we would all drive very carefully!

The bulk of public money should be going into public transport (trains buses etc) (they also need to be nationalsied again but that's another story)especially in the rural areas and car driving activelt discouraged. To be fair to car drivers the Government have first got to provide good, affordable alternatives. Having done this they can then hammer the car driver (of which I am one). Doesn't have to be in monetary terms, could be a system where certain registration numbers are prohibited from driving on certain days (I think this is used in Mexico City) and households are restricted in the number of cars they can have. Car drivers may moan but at the end of the day people will adapt and get on with it.

51

Haggismaker,

Northern Bohemia 06/12/2006 10:45:54

Shug 50 : Don't know if we should be using Mexico City as an example for Auld Reekie. But as you rightly say, the govt should - in tandem with local initiatives - get on with providing or enabling alternatives. Not sure if re-nationalisation is the key. I'm for more, smaller local transport providers dealing with local transport issues, if need be fitted out with a little subsidy from on high.

52

Rob,

06/12/2006 10:46:15

Completely pathetic. The speed camera is the preserve of the revenue crazy local politicians acting in concert with over-zealous Chief Constables. The combination is extremely good for the profits of insurance companies through the points system, and extremely in-efficient as a tax earner - given that the insurance companies collect for 5 years after the offence, they take the real money, not your do-gooder local authority.
My thought for the day - "Never be fooled into believing there is a Plan"

This is cheap rubbish - devised by second rate brains who can't see beyond their own perceived self importance.

53

SouthernSkye,

Germany 06/12/2006 10:48:03

#38 Dave.
Greetings.....I trust all is well with you and yours?
New bairn all bimbling along ok??

It does strike me as crazy that we do not use coastal cargo vessels.Might even be a good way to help/employ all those skippers and crews that are suffering under the EU fishing regime especially relating to cod and creel!

54

Dave,

Western Isles 06/12/2006 10:55:55

Things fine SS, ta! You too?

The Vital Spark could make a come back yet! More steam MacPhail............

55

Shug,

UK 06/12/2006 10:56:28

#53. Good call forgot about that. Totally agree, as an Island nation we should make much more use of our coast and inland waterways. Should also look at re-establishing a lot of the railway lines closed down in the 1950's (?) and onwards. Yes it will cost money and be expensive to run but it will also provide employment and re-connect many rural areas and potentially encourage more local industries.

56

CharlieW,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 10:57:24

From most of the comments you'd think the Govenrment were standing next to the road with pistols demanding the money.

If you don't break the speed limit, they don't get a penny. Simple.

57

KWC,

Liberton, Edinburgh 06/12/2006 11:08:00

We wantd autonomy, so we just do what Westminster does!

They want to impose pay-per-mile, so we will. Why can't we see the advantages we could have over England if we were a low tax area. If we are a higher tax area --as we will have to become to pay for Joke McConnell's increased public sector -- then it's easy to see the disadvantages.

I though transport meant roads, rail, bridges -- not just tax.

Awful. Get rid of those in Holyrood. It is a people's parliament so we should make our views known and get them to act for us.

58

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 11:08:26

Rob #52, without trying to sound holier than thou... speed cameras are about safety (both for pedestrians and other motorists).
If you speed, get fined, receive points then have your insurance premiums increase, you have thoroughly deserved it.
Speeding is both dangerous and anti social.

59

BIG EYE,

Paisley 06/12/2006 11:09:31

Most important news is the confirmation that Scotland will have no exceptions from what is levied for England and Wales where congestion is much more of a problem. Once again England SAYS and Scotland PAYS...it's time!

60

Julian,

06/12/2006 11:13:23

Dick # 4. Read the article again. The average speed cameras are a means to cut pollution and accidents so no, you won't be able to do whatever speed you like in your hydrogen car.
Smart comments based on news articles are only effective i'm afraid when they pick up on REAL discrepancies.

61

Julian,

06/12/2006 11:22:19

YabbaDabbaDoo # 58, your comments are spot on. The problem with a lot of postings on this site is that too many of them see the issue as black and white. Consequently their comments are open to a lot of dispute.

Yes, speed cameras are a revenue raiser for the government but, as you say, they are primarily about safety. And, so what if they raise govenment revenue. It's not as if the money is being used to buy some fat cats Porsche.

As for insurance companies having this as a nice little earner; not true i'm afraid. 2 sp30's on your license makes little difference to your premium. Plus, the insurane companies are operating in a very competitive market so they can't make excessive profits.

One point on speed cameras which is bad; the fact that you get 3 points whether you are 1 or 30mph over the limit. That's plain stupid.

62

The Strategist,

06/12/2006 11:23:49

Julian...... So it is really just another method of control... It won't of course cut accidents and a crash at 70mph is just as likely to kill you as one at 80mph and lots of people have been killed at much lower speeds as well.

There's another point as well which is that it will kill of the sports car industry... The world will be a more miserable place without Porsches, Aston Martins, TVRs etc on the road.... We'll all have to drive round in conformist euro boxes....... Perhaps the Commissariat will bring back the Trabant but with a cleaner engine.....

63

Steve,

West Lothian 06/12/2006 11:34:05

59. well said, but I suppose the Forth Bridge collapsing into the soup will curtail speeding for a bit!
In fact it'll curtail everything for a bit!

Never mind it'll soon be time to punish Labour/Lid Dems at the polls.

64

Julian,

06/12/2006 11:34:20

Dick, i'm sorry to disagree with you but what you say regarding speeding is just plain wrong.

Stopping people speeding as has been done on the A77 is bound to cut accidents. I can't see how anyone could argue differently. And a crash at 80 is more likely to kill you than a crash at 70. There is a direct link between the speed you are travelling and the chances of surviving an accident. That's a fact mate.

I do agree with some of your sentiments. At 3 in the morning it would be perfectly acceptable to have a higher speed limit on some roads. But the government won't do this I suspect because it would be too expensive.

And in answer to your question, yes, it is a method of control. But so is monitoring of child sex offenders and the banning of machine guns. So that on it's own is not an argument.

65

Mick,

Aberdeenshire 06/12/2006 11:35:21

It has been proven that speeding is not the dominant cause of accidents. These are control freaks with poor intellect who lack the ability to see the strategic issues and concentrate on what they can understand, tax and revenue.
No bridge - some vision.
Their number one priority should be transport strategies that can support economic growth, naturally, while not degrading safety. They talk rubbish and cite "safety" and "green" as their defence.

66

Julian,

06/12/2006 11:45:10

But as you say Mick, speeding is one of the causes of accidents. 20mph zones in Edinburgh have massively cut the number of children knocked down.

If speeding was nothing to be worried about the government would be as well putting up speed limits...that would boost the economy.

I do agree though that you can hardly call this part of a transport strategy.

67

Nick Mackay,

Stirling 06/12/2006 11:55:26

Adding a second road bridge would only increase car congestion further - how about a second rail crossing instead, combined with vastly improved park and ride facilities and proper investment to expand the capacity of Edinburgh's rail stations ?

68

Charles M,

06/12/2006 12:08:08

66# Julian can you give figures to back that up.

69

Shug,

UK 06/12/2006 12:16:13

You don't need statistics to prove that speeding is the main cause of accidents. Barring falling asleep at the wheel I would bet that virtually every accident is down to speed in one way or another i.e. going too fast in the particular circumstances you find yourself in. If your tyre blows at 60mph you will have abetter chacne of stopping and avoiding an accident than if you were doing 80mph.

70

GP,

06/12/2006 12:18:48

Julian you are plainly talking Sh**e.
Most traffic on motorways travels at far higher speed than on "normal" roads.
You are 10 times more likely to be killed on non motorways.
Go and get some facts before spouting off your verbal diahiorea hers

71

Neil,

9% Growth Party 06/12/2006 12:21:55

So it is about slowing things down, raising costs & building nothing new.

Road pricing is a very expensive way of doing what petrol tax already does cheaply. You use a lot more petrol per mile in a traffic jam than on an open road.

Road pricing also introduces a system of monitors that ensure the government know ever more about what we are doing. I'm surprised those opposed to identity cards often support it.

The Executives's decision to spend 70% of our transport budget on rail when they know it carries only 2% of travel is a disgraceful bit of party political pork barreling which purely wastes close to that 70% of the money they are entrusted with.

72

Shug,

UK 06/12/2006 12:22:29

70. Presumably because people don't walk across motorways.

73

mv,

06/12/2006 12:23:56

#69, Actually a recent report from the dept of transport put speeding at about 12% for the root causes of road accidents, the main causes are a range of poor driving. The governments main approach to this is total belief in revenue collection from cameras, they should be increasing the number of traffic police on the roads to stop the majority of poor driving...

its strange the way this has moved away from the Labour government increasing TAX via road pricing to a debate on the causes of accidents!

74

thesmallerhalf,

06/12/2006 12:26:51

Average speed cameras are effective, reducing speeds does reduce accidents. But it misses the point that poor driving causes accidents and speed of itself is not a cause. The problem arises when it is inappropriate and poorly judged. Driving the A9 from Inverness to Perth and return every day for months, I was passed regularly as I kept to the speed limit. I never saw a single one of them crashed further on. It was the overtakers who took crazy risks that scared the hell out of me. And most often it was a lack of speed, impatience and lousy judgement that made them so dangerous. You see a similar situation on the M8. There are regular crashes on it and they are almost all caused by stupid lane changes, inattention and poor judgement.

So once again the government has chosen to pick on the easy target to be seen to be doing something instead of tackling the real issues. You don't tackle these by more cameras. You tackle these with better enforcement and a higher police profile. Nothing makes people concentrate by the presence of a patrol car and a police force prepared to deal with foolish driving.

And they seem very reluctant to deal with the number of awful intersections, many designed in the 60s and 70s and incapable of coping with modern traffic densities. The Edinburgh bypass has some shockers and the M8 through Glasgow is a daily nightmare.

But these are expensive and difficult problems to solve and politicians are not renowned for relying on such things to win votes.

75

Statsman,

06/12/2006 12:27:42

#70 GP

That's true. Unfortunately, the transport strategy for the A9, A92 and A1 is not to create motorways. It is instead just to put up their cash registers and say they are tackling the problem.

Our infastructure is embarrassing but all we get is cameras. Cameras don't bring economic growth.

76

johnny gorbals,

Irvine 06/12/2006 12:27:52

See if cars used more fuel as they went faster then people might drive slower.

77

Sedov,

Scotland 06/12/2006 12:31:09

The argument that speed causes most accidents is propoganda ( look at the official figures please) Yes speed does cause some accidents, but cameras cannot detect drivers under the influence of drink or drugs, who have no licence or insurance, who cannot see or are too ill to drive, who drive dangerously slow ( yes!) who pay no regard to the highway code, who spill diesal on roundabouts, who use their mobile phone, eat chips, pick their nose, and generally use their cat like their front room at home. - Whew! feel better for that!

78

Navvy,

06/12/2006 12:43:57

the Inverness to Perth line was double tracked for generations but Labour removed the doubel tracking over the steepest part of the line at Drumochter - clever what?

79

Ozzy,

Perth 06/12/2006 12:46:24

#76 Johnny Gorbals. Cars do use more fuel as they go faster to overcome wind resistance. http://thespindoctor.com

80

UPR,

Scotland 06/12/2006 12:53:30

Surely bad driving and inattention is the problem. Having driven for 30 years (often at speeds significantly greater than the limit - where safe - .e.g never in town) I have never had a speeding ticket whether from a "camera" or a real policeman. Neither have I had an accident. The point of this is not how good a driver I am (we are all excellent drivers aren't we!) but that simply paying full attention when you are driving stops accidents and also speeding tickets.

In my experience Speed cameras, both fixed and "van based" are easy to see well in advance. So all you have to do is slow down when you approach them. It is only when you aren't paying attention that you get caught - or have an accident!

So pay attention, make good progress, don't get done for speeding and don't have any accidents!

81

Ozzy,

Perth 06/12/2006 12:59:13

#80 UPR. I thought that was one of the ideas of the cameras, they make them highly visible in an attempt to make you slow down. That's why they are at Black-Spots. http://thespindoctor.info

82

GrahamB,

06/12/2006 13:03:40

The answer to this and all the other controls and bans will be in your hands next May. Don't let the chance go, it's entirely up to you!

83

Andrew ICT,

Aberdeen 06/12/2006 13:05:25

#78 Really? I had no idea it used to be like that - I am still a bit of a young pup so my knowledge of the line from Inverness South has always been single track and numerous long waits at a passing loop while a train in the opposite direction, delayed of course, has to pass us.

84

UPR,

Scotland 06/12/2006 13:14:27

#81 Ozzy - absolutely agree - that's why I have in general no objection to the cameras - they catch the inattentive (and hence dangerous) drivers.

I do get frustrated when they are placed in the middle of the only stretch of straight road where you could overtake the 45mph driver! A safe and quick overtaking at 80mph can be safer than a slower one at 59mph - you are on the wrong side of the road for less time.

85

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 13:28:17

#80 UPR, if when you're driving at 45 in a 30 zone and a three year old trips of the kerb or loses control of their wee bike, good luck to the both of you.

86

IanW,

Germany 06/12/2006 13:42:55

YabbaDabbaDoo #85 - UPR made it clear that he does not speed in town therefore the 45 in a 30 zone comment is unjustified.

On the point about a child tripping and falling, this could also happen when the drivers are travelling well within the limits. When I drive in towns/cities I always pay attention to the pedestrians as it is not uncommon for them to step onto the road without looking. The same applies particularly near schools where children run between parked cars and onto the road.

As UPR implied it is when you are not paying attentin that accidents happen. Speed only causes 12% of accidents the rest are due to other factors.

87

Reiver,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 13:46:09

43. Gordon, Edinburgh

1) HGVs should be slow - just not on arterial roads during peak hours ...

2) Driving at 30 in a 60 limit is frustrating when the road ahead is clear and the incompetence of the driver who won't pull over is the issue ...

3) Goods need to get to the shops and they should be transported outwith peak hours to relieve congestion ... trucks are no more or less important than private transport and definitely less so during peak hour ...

4) The school run does aggravate congestion and timing should be managed to remove this source of congestion from peak hours ...

5) No parents are forced to work to make ends meet - its the extra's that they want that they work for ... not the basics ... so its hardly the Governments problem ...

88

Gervas,

Auragne, France 06/12/2006 13:52:27

These unoriginal speed restrictions will do nothing in the long term for safety or carbon emissions. It is all about unimaginative, stupid people trying to justify their existence while indulging in control-freakery and raising cash to waste on bureaucracy and more control freakery. Stop voting for parasitical socialist politicians whose motivation is envy and state-sanctioned robbery!

89

Reiver,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 13:54:22

#88 couldn't agree more ...

90

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 14:24:47

#86, Iain - for me, condoning speeding is senseless. My point is that the driver is not 100% in control of the outcome of their journey (as some on here like to think). Yeah, most drivers will find driving at speed a breeze, others might not. The common thing being the driver observing the limit and the driver exceeding the limit both will have unexpected events to deal with. The faster driver will probably have more and will have less chance to react and take avoiding measures. Speed limits exist to reduce the likelyhood of accidents and fatalities. Simple as that.

(I agree my Of course the same could happen at 30mph - in this case, the child's chances of survial are much greater and the driver need feel no guilt)

91

JG,

Fife 06/12/2006 14:31:51

Are the Labour party actively TRYING not be re-elected? Their solution to everything is just to tax it or fine it. They are trying to show they are cutting carbon emissions - tax everything! We need more money - let's fine speeding motorists! What a bunch of purile, brain-dead wastes of space they all are.

92

MGR,

Chicago 06/12/2006 14:46:12

Doing 50 mph in a 20 or 30 mph zone that is in a built up area is both stupid and shows a lack of common sense.

But can you come to the same conclusion doing 100 mph on the M74 between Lockerbie, Lesmahagow and Hamilton at 10 p.m.? Probably not!

Statistics are available as to the effect of speed and accidents on motorways - just ask the Germans! There is no speed limit on their autobahns. It would be interesting to see the results.

93

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 14:50:13

The police policing the police who on record must be the worst offenders (When not on call).

What about off duty police?

94

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 14:52:07

Where can I read the '20-year Scottish transport blueprint’?

Rather ambitious when there are many problems in the last 10 years that have gone backwards under labour.

95

IanW,

Germany 06/12/2006 15:01:01

Alasdair #93 - Slowly but surely the executive are driving drivers off the road (excuse pun). More and more the excuse of speeding is being used to justify the placement of revenue generating cameras.

It is sadly the case that cameras are positioned on normal roads where there is no record of accidents in the past purely because the section may be of sufficient quality that allows or tempts drivers to go faster. There are sections of roads in the Stirling area where the speed is restricted to only 30mph despite it being classified as dual-carriageway. Does that make sense? I don't think so but funnily enough the council have installed a speeding camera. Why, simply to make money.

I don't condone uncontrolled and excessive speed. However modern cars and many roads are designed for speed. In the right conditions speed is never a problem it is only the careless or negligent drivers who are the problem.

As I work in Germany I use their autobahns on a regular basis. Contrary to popular belief many sections of it are restricted in terms of the speed you drive, mostly to 120-160kmh or 75-100 mph. I have yet to see first-hand any accident caused by drivers going at these speeds. If have also driven un unlimited stretches at speeds in excess of 150mph without any problems.

I would like to see more appropriate controls in place which may meen doing away with speed restrictions on certain stretches of road but at the same time making high risk areas, e.g. near schools, etc. more controlled.

96

JG,

Fife 06/12/2006 15:12:52

I also don't advocate irresponsible speeding and can see the sense in restricting speed in built up areas, near schools, at accident blackspots etc. however, the movable speed cameras are often placed in positions where there are no pedestrians and the sole purpose for them being there is purely and simply to raise revenue. People on these boards have previously pointed out that people are sometimes so intent on not exceeding the limit they are only watching their speed and not wholly concentrating on the road.

97

Julian,

06/12/2006 15:17:15

gp # 70, before you go abusing people get your argument right. Heres what you said.

"Julian you are plainly talking Sh**e.
Most traffic on motorways travels at far higher speed than on "normal" roads.
You are 10 times more likely to be killed on non motorways.
Go and get some facts before spouting off your verbal diahiorea hers"

I'm afraid it's you that's talking in such a way. I never said that motorways were more dangerous. I said that speeding was more dangerous. I agree you are much less likely to die on a non-motorway.
Go and read my posts again before spouting off your gobbledygook.

98

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 15:18:34

When is the this full evaluation expected? Impartial of course.

Speed is only one element of road safety.

Other approaches are just as important, such as improving road & junction layouts, clearer signs and a sensible road system (Not like the recent council changes). Along with repairing pot holes and getting gas & water companies to return all roads back to the same standard as they found them before digging up holes. The list continues etc.

Accidents often occur at areas known as 'BLACK SPOTS', why is this. More should be done to reduce these areas by all means possible.
There are also high-risk areas in towns & cities near crowded areas such as schools & in addition by pedestrians crossing roads at random.

More control is required for the minority while the majority of the population don’t seem to be victims of speed but must endure the big brother era at huge expense to the public purse.

99

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 15:18:55

100 reasons to complain & more.

100

IanW,

Germany 06/12/2006 15:23:25

Let's get this straight. SPEEDING DOES NOT KILL. It is the lack of care and attention by drivers and possibly the pedestrians that cause the problems. The speed at which someone is travelling only exacerbates the injuries that may arise.

Hitting a child at 50mph in a 50 limit will kill them just as surely as hitting them at 70mph in a 70 limit.

If people paid more care and attention to the act of driving fewer accidents would occur and most certainly fewer deaths.

101

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 15:26:11

#101 - Ian - Exactly well said. No one can answer back to that simple point.

102

,

06/12/2006 15:30:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 213503, Article id was mapped to record!
103

,

06/12/2006 15:31:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 213506, Article id was mapped to record!
104

Dissappointed,

06/12/2006 15:31:53

The point is: What can be done to stop these plans?

105

IanW,

Germany 06/12/2006 15:34:40

YabbaDabbaDoo #103 - Sorry but get with it - what I am saying is that hitting them at any high speed will kill them, low speeds may not.

It is the carelessness of the drivers where the problem lies not the speed. The child may also be at fault but how do you explain that to a 2 year old.

Simply blaming speed is not the answer blaming irresponsibility is.

106

petrol head,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 15:42:03

YabbaDabbaDoo is obviously Yogi Bear in disguise. Yogo Bear is a fictitious cartoon character, therefore YabbaDabbaDoo's comments are obviously in the same category---just ignore them.

Back to the subject...

Seeing as less than 3% of crashes are caused by excess speed, speed cameras have long existed to raise money. No other reason. They have been "justified" on the grounds of road safety which is a totally fictitious premise.

The latest piece of fiction to come out of the tree-hugger/politically correct/nanny state/ban-everything brigade is the notion that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the climate to change.

Once again, this is total fiction. Climate change has been happening since the Earth formed itself and is NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN!!!

Now the party-pooping idiots are using it to impose rediculous taxes on any other vehicle other than a boring, weedy tin box and are preparing to use it to justify even more speed cameras.

Let's get rid of them at the next elections.

107

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 15:44:22

'A CHEF has won a £50,000 damages payout for her daughter who was crippled by a speeding driver in a stolen car.

The other driver, Kevin Sands, then 19, was jailed for a total of 18 months for dangerous driving and stealing the vehicle, also a Ford Escort.'


Looks like the Govt need to educate the young and keep them busy!

108

SouthernSkye,

Germany 06/12/2006 15:48:13

We could, of course, simply ban all private transport. Then we will all travel at 3mph (average walking pace) er-go cause no injuries apart from the occasional slip or bruised foot.
This would allow "proffessional drivers" to transport us swiftly, safely, comfortably and cheaply (24/7) to our desired destination.


How does one type and emphasise a tongue-in-cheek comment?

109

,

06/12/2006 15:48:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 213566, Article id was mapped to record!
110

YabbaDabbaDoo,

06/12/2006 16:03:49

Jocky ya bawbag. Tell me why there are speed limits?

111

sheena,

Non PC World 06/12/2006 16:04:34

Madman @31 asks -
I wonder how many MSP's use public transport?
I would suspect none.

Well I have personally seen Shona Robison, George Reid and Tommy Sheriden on the train to Edinburgh. Perhaps, lots of them use public transport but they are such nonentities that we do not recognise them.

112

lobout,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 16:21:27

I've got a great idea! Why not have a guy walk in front of the car holding a red flag? That would stop speeding.
By the way, I think this new fangled votes for women ithing s a piece of nonsense. Also, does anyone know where I can find a small child to sweep my chimney?

113

The Strategist,

06/12/2006 16:26:31

# 112.... Don't vote Labour of course.

We need some fresh and more intelligent thinking on this issue...

Germany? Yep, good comparison...Much more advanced economy than the UK, still the biggest exporter on the planet and less restrictive speed limits on autobahns.. Different culture.

114

Jockyw,

06/12/2006 16:33:50

YabbaDabbaDoo
So when someone replies you feel the need to report a commnet as unsuitable.

Pathetic

115

YabbaDabbaDoo,

06/12/2006 16:48:03

Jocky - don't flatter yourself, your 'dog' post caused me no offence. A couple of mine were removed at the same time.

116

rab, glasgow,

06/12/2006 17:02:15

Speeding is against the law, unless you are a serving police officer a good liar and your boss likes you.

117

Sedov,

Scotland 06/12/2006 17:04:02

Crikey, I cannot believe the naivity of people who think that any other political party will make a difference in the way the state controls road traffic. Germany has been quoted as an ideal - yea? -Germany is the most advanced country in the development of satellite control of vechicle speed. this means that if you go over the speed limit your car ( and even more dangerous,) your two wheeler will be slowed by a means beyond your control. whether you like it or not. This is going to happen whether you vote for the LP, SNP, BNP PPP or whatever because its coming from europe. That is unless we either come out of the EU or take to street riots. The control of our personal vechicles is another blow to civil liberties which no political party has the policies or the guts to challenge, because the politicians dont rule society -, big business does. Its in their interests to control every aspect of our lives, from cradle to grave. Look at Sat Nav - what a con that is for the market men ( Yes I have 6 points on my licence!)

118

mv,

06/12/2006 17:05:30

#96, "I would like to see more appropriate controls in place which may meen doing away with speed restrictions on certain stretches of road "

Would totally agree, open up the roads away from urban populations and restrict the urban roads further (ie 20 in city centre), but this enlightened view would never pass as this government/regional council/local council view the car as an evil machine that must be banned/taxed so we can all return the dark ages and travel by horse/cart/donkey, and also the roads are full of idiots who cannot drive (ie those who block the outside lanes on motorways/dual trunk roads and cannot use their rear view mirror!)...

119

Euan,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 17:26:00

Great! - more average speed cameras!

It means I can do 150mph on a small stretch of the road, pull over and stop for 10 minutes than carry on and not get nabbed for speeding!

Much better than fixed cameras...

120

stellarossa,

Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 06/12/2006 17:51:17

#22 - a very good point.

About 10 years ago, I spent a day walking along various parts of the A68 in Midlothian helping decide where the speed cameras should go. The Muckety Mucks wanted them in all the prime overtaking spots which made no sense at all. They could not see that if you prevent someone from overtaking in a certain spot, they'll look for another spot to overtake that v e r y s l o w lorry on. That's when people start taking chances and making bad decisions.

They still put them in the overtaking areas. Fools.

121

morris,

edinburgh 06/12/2006 18:15:28

112 The United Kingdom has used up approx 50% of the oil in the Scottish sector of the North Sea. This revenue is dwindling gradually,and will need to be replaced somehow,or taxes raised or services cut etc, or Scotland will realise how much she was subsidising the Uk by and how stupid she has been.
What can we do? We can leave the United Kingdom and keep the other 50% .So far we have got nothing from the North Sea ,but look at Norway! Thats where Scotland could have been if she had engaged her brain! I make no apololgy for bringing independence into this,Ive had to live with the consequences of Scotlands enfatuation with the Union for long enough !

122

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

06/12/2006 18:18:22

Fools.

123

Andrew Allan,

06/12/2006 18:28:12

In the long run the only thing more valuable from the Scotland area isn't oil, it's WATER. England is running out of it, and Scotland is swimming in it.

124

geekpie,

dunblane 06/12/2006 18:48:32

The tory years of greed encouraged people to think that speeding was OK if you could get away with it. Huge, but graded, fines for those who speed: we should learn from Aus and NZ.

125

Meta,

06/12/2006 19:18:39

I thought there were stretches of Autobahn with a minimum speed limit and lorry lanes.

But what a long-term transport blueprint to publish. Is the Executive taking the pee? This must be aimed at the habitual Labour vote. Wait and see, some people will come out next year and vote for them even though the whole country is desperate to come off anti-depressants and start moving forward instead of being reined-in.

What else can we expect when we are still being controlled by Westminster's statement that power devolved is power retained.

39. came out with a good one. Let's adapt it to keeping every SNP seat at this election and then voting for any independent candidate to remove the Unionist parties. What an opposition that would make.

Professional politics isn't working.

126

HIS,

Edinburgh 06/12/2006 19:20:02

#121
I noticed that the first time I drove the A68, why were they "closing down" the safest overtaking places.

127

Ileach,

06/12/2006 19:23:03

I'm sorry to sound ignorant, but what is road tax? And do we pay it on the Western Isles (Dave???)? I'm building a house on an island, and I am beginning to get really worried about this incredible taxing system I might be looking to live under. Will I have to be on a permanent anti-depressant, even with the grand view that comes with my wee hoosie?

128

Ileach,

06/12/2006 19:24:56

Meta #127 - the Autobahn has maximum RECOMMENDED speeds posted. Also, you'll see speed limits, even on the Autobahn, where they are required because of road works, etc.

129

,

06/12/2006 20:01:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 214001, Article id was mapped to record!
130

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 06/12/2006 20:39:04

Ileach

Duon't know if Dave drives but I live in the same chain of islands he does. We pay the same road tax as anybody else in the UK even though the roads available to us are somewhat limited. It has been long argued for a concession for the isles but the counter argument is that we are free to come off the islands with our cars and use the roads on the mainland (except Sundays of course, no ferries and it costs £120 alone to get the car on and off the island which is paid to a state subsidised ferry company so in effect a double tax). However, our mileage is maybe lower than national average, even though our fuel costs are well above national average.

131

Russell M,

Stirling 06/12/2006 21:29:15

Has anyone heard of the "85th percentile" regarding speed limits? Most motorists evaluate the existing road conditions, and adjust their travel speeds to a reasonable and prudent level. Unreasonably low limits are simply corruption and abuse under the banner of safety.

Without the power to raise revenue (tax) government would have very little power at all.

Curious how professional drivers are saddled with speed limiters while amateur drivers are not.

132

Ileach,

06/12/2006 21:34:56

Angus, I appreciate the information. I must get a bit more involved in the realities of island living, and not get overwhelmed by whisky and the grand views. I had no idea about "road taxes" - only heard some grumbles from my friend who lives on the island and drives a Rolls. His standard answer to all questions is "if you've got to ask, you can't afford it!". I'll have to shortly be able to afford "it" but have no inkling of what we're talking about. I do know about the inability to go anywhere by car unless via CALMAC, and I do know what that costs! No wonder my friend has developed a very "insular" way of thinking.

133

Julian,

06/12/2006 22:16:42

Russell M # 132, this is an interesting point on what drives government to impose all these speeding fines. Do they do it primarily for safety or, as a politically acceptable way of raising revenue? I haven't heard any evidence from anyone which actually gives this answer. All I hear is people stating as fact that they do it to raise money. The truth is that nobody really knows.

You also raise an interesting point on speed limiters. Does anyone know why these are not fitted to private cars. It would be quite easy to transmit signals to the vehicle as it drives along to tell it what the speed limit should be.

134

scottishsponger,

06/12/2006 23:39:02

I'm sick of average speed cameras. Can they not afford decent ones? Then there wouldn't be so much complaining when they malfunction

135

Julian,

07/12/2006 00:31:34

Didn't know there was much complaining...cheering maybe.

136

Troublemaker,

Hampshire 07/12/2006 00:46:06

My right to silence application to the ECHR, verdict due in next few months, may well remove most speed cameras from the road. I have studied road casualty statistics for 5 years, in detail so here are some facts:

4% of slight injury accidents, 5% of all injury accidents, 7% of serious and 12% of fatal are caused (at least in part) by speed in excess of speed limits.

Cameras cover 3% or so of our roads, so the maximum possible reduction achievable by cameras even if 100% effective is 3% of 4,5,7,12% = 0.12%, 0.15%, 0.21% and 0.36%. Even allowing for optimal siting of cameras are accident black spots, this is less than 1% - at a cost of 100s of £m, 2m fines and points per annum

We have been fed lies, fantasty and wishful thinking for 10 years - none more so than the recent Select Committee report recommending yet more cameras.

By the time there were enough cameras to have a significant effect (even assuming, see below) they do not cause more problems than they solve) so many drivers would have been banned and lost their jobs or businesses that the economy could collapse.

Hospitals in Britain kill over 60,000 patients a year, due to negligence, incompetence, errors of all kinds, infections caught in hospital, food poisoning etc etc - 160 a day, 16 to 18 times as many as die on the roads.

Each speed camera, which costs £30,000+ to install and similar amounts every year to run, saves 1 life every 30 to 60 years (neglecting the adverse effects) How many lives would that same money save if spent in hospitals?

In excess of 8,000 more people have died in the camera era, from the mid 1990s, than would sensibly have been predicted in 1993 on the basis of decades long benign trends. Much of that catastrophe, if not most of it, is due to the fantasy that slowing down traffic (a) has a large effect on accident numbers and (b) has no adverse side effects.

At the last count 26 different adverse effects have been identified, from s

137

Harry Carnie,

British Columbia, Canada 07/12/2006 08:03:05

#56...yes.correct. We have the same type of "yahoos" here, who complain about speed cameras. The fact is..too many pople drive "with an empty head, an a foot filled with lead", and if they get caugh speeding TOUGH!

138

John Loftus,

Limerick,Ireland. 07/12/2006 08:20:14

I moved here 6 years ago from Scotland,only to discover that the road policy of this government, was to get as many cars on the road possible & reap all assossiated taxes.
Most of the roads here are a disgrace & totally incapable of handling the volume of traffic.The amount of 4x4's & tractors is frightening(no global warming here).There is even no monitoring of L-plate drivers,resulting in many clueless loonies(I use this term justifiably)zooming about with limited control & no experienced driver with them to advise on the rules of the road.Nobody here even considers car sharing.At peak times,all roads come to a complete standstill.At these times it is definitely quicker to walk.At least I don't live in Dublin,that's another story altogether.
So you should be thankful,that those upstanding members of the Scottish Executive,are actually talking about some sort of road policy.
I often dream of those heady days of rush hour on the Kingston Bridge & the traffic flowing(no matter at what speed).
Fact:Ireland has the highest road casualty rate per capita in Europe.
Also,the highest investment in roads by the EU.
Doh!!!

139

Jack Mack,

San Jose, CA 07/12/2006 08:43:53

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong - Studies have long shown that that driving in excess of the speed limit is safer than driving at the speed limit or below the speed limit. It's the inexperienced, incompetent or drunk driver that causes the accidents. In the San Francisco Bay Area you don't even have to understand English to get a drivers license. We have thousands of drivers driving large, multi psssenger vehicles who never drove or were even in an automobile until they arrived in the US. The first thing they get is a drivers license. Twenty five years ago we would average one or two accidents a week and about a fatility a month. Now we average a fatality a day and multiple accidents. One morning recently we had five overturned vehicles on our freeways. The population of the greater Bay Ares is about four million.

In Vietnam and other neighboring countries the rule of the road is that you are responsible for what is in front of you and directly beside you. If you move to your left or your right it is the person behind you who is responsible. At that time they were riding bicycles or motor bikes. Now they're driving large multi passenger vehicles. Our driving tests (I haven't been required to take one in almost fifty years) are totally inadequate.

The driving test in Japan is quite rigorous. I have only seen one traffic acident in Japen despite the fact that they six abrest in a five lane street!!!

I must agree with troublemaker - speed cameras are a danger. Just as I speed up with a clear stretch of road ahead of me to pass a "road boulder" doing half the speed limit I see a speed camera in front of me. My option is to hit the breaks or risk a fine. Who is the UNSAFE driver??

140

Gordon,

Edinburgh 07/12/2006 09:11:41

#87 Reiver - Are you suggesting that truck drivers should be working split shifts, just so those who don't use public transport can all go to work at the same time?

Due to the Tachograph legislation, this would be very difficult and expensive. Try reading this:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_freight/documen...

Also, if schools start later, they will finish later,too and thus cause extra problems in the afternoon rush hour. Maybe the answer is not just flexitime, but for office workers to work shifts - just like truck drivers, shop staff,etc...........3am to 1pm anyone?

141

expat in the sun,

Fuerteventura 07/12/2006 12:27:15

A lot of the comments above are very valid and some are total rubbish.

Speed, or more correctly Velocity, has never as much as caused a broken finger nail - Velocity is statistically a factor in every accident, as stationary bodies can never collide, only moving objects, so even if two vehicles travelling at 1mph hit each other, speed is a facter. However what should be addressed is inapropriate speed, and going too slow is just as dangerous as going at excessive speed.

If the arguement for cameras was one of road safety, then they would be deployed on the most dangerous stretches of roads, therefore, as 78% of all road accidents happen in towns/cities, 19%, on rural roads, and only 3% on motorways, camera distrubution should be in the same proportion - it most certainly isn't.

When cameras are deployed on rural roads they should be placed at points of danger, again they are not - the A68 is a prime example, instead of having highly visible cameras placed near junctions or before dangerous bends etc, they are without exception placed on the safest places for overtaking, i.e. the most likely places for drivers to exceed the limit, and as a consequence this increases the danger when overtaking - or forces drivers to overtake elsewhere where it is not so safe. There is only one explanation for these placements, and it has nothing to do with road safety, only revinue gathering.

The Road Transport Research Laboratory carried out research comissioned by the government into speeding offences and road accidents, this report was buried when the results showed that the people with convictions for the highest speeds, i.e. 30mph+ over the legal limit (excluding, joyriders etc) were actually 5 times less likely to be involved in an accident than someone with no speeding convictions!

If road safety was the main concern, then we need to reduce the number of accidents, therefore make all accidents reportable, even fender benders, then a simple dat

142

twinkles,

work. 07/12/2006 15:11:21

Bunch of monkeys. Lot of them.

143

Friar Tuck,

07/12/2006 20:35:32

Let's just go back to the days when the speed limit was 4mph and you had to have a man with a red flag walking in front of you! Of course you'd have to pay him - reduce unemployment at the same time!

144

Friar Tuck,

07/12/2006 20:37:55

#140 & 142

Totally agree with you.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.