Author Topic: Road Safety  (Read 15903 times)

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Road Safety
« on: July 08, 2005, 07:36:09 AM »
Is anyone delivering road safety presentations, for young adults especially?

I have already seen Clevealnd's excellent presentation but would wlecome the opportunity to see any others, in order to get the  best ideas to use!

thanks
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Road Safety
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2005, 05:53:35 PM »
whats the figures for fire deaths and injuries in cleveland. no doubt they have managed to deal with the one issue we have targets for so upwards and onwards to the next set of headlines!

road safety is best delivered by those in road safety, nor by fire service staff looking for the next round of 'notice me, notice me, look how good i am'

titter ye not, initiatives, initiatives, theyve all got intiatives (with apologies to frankie h !!)

there are local authority departments with full funding arrangements (and employees) -why not ask them to deliver what they should be delivering and we will try to assist them and we can then concentrate on what the fire service should be delivering

dave bev

Princess

  • Guest
Road Safety
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2005, 09:37:37 PM »
Hereford and Worcester FRS are currently piloting "Dying to Drive" a road safety initiative which brings together all the local emergency services in a Road Safety Partnership with the aim of keeping young people safe on the roads. Gill Edwards is the Community Safety Mananger and she can be contacted on gedwards@hwfire.org.uk for further information

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Road Safety
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2005, 10:24:17 AM »
Dave whilst I understand your 'this is what we joined for and we aren't going to change' attitude change is here and there comes a time ro accept it, especially if it is about saving lives. After all isn't that what every firefighter says is their main role?

The National Framework, section 1.2, makes it quite clear that it is our job to deliver reductions in road accidents and injuries. So this is what we MUST be doing, never mind should. Once again I will state my opinion that as I joined to save lives, whatever the SoS says, I should be trying to reduce the numbers killed in RTCs.

Princess - thanks or that
Section 21   of the FS Act 2004 states:
Fire and Rescue National Framework
 
      (1) The Secretary of State must prepare a Fire and Rescue National Framework.
 
      (2) The Framework-
 
  (a) must set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities in connection with the discharge of their functions;
  (b) may contain guidance to fire and rescue authorities in connection with the discharge of any of their functions;
  (c) may contain any other matter relating to fire and rescue authorities or their functions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate

So the requirement to develop strategies to reduce road accidents, deaths and injuries is now a legal obilgation upon FRAs. Dave this is what we MUST be delivering, never mind should (as I believe we morally should have been anyway).

Princess thanks for that.
.
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Road Safety
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2005, 09:08:17 PM »
thats a cheap shot! when have i taken the position of 'this is what we joined for etc'

within my brigade role i dont think anyone could ever complain at the stance i took to widen the community safety agenda - i was one of the first to actively and regularly attend what were then crime and disorder meetings which became community safety partnership meetings and took a lead on youth issues - crime and disorder meetings! under the police act 2000 if i remember correctly - yet i went out on a limb and played an active part - not just attending meetings in name!

i think the documents i produce and the stance i took to move the fbu to adopt a position of community safety as opposed to community fire safety says enough in my defence - if that is 'we aint gonna change' im at a loss to find out what i need to do to put forward my position !!

thats the case (or part of the case) for the personal defence m'lord


ok to the issue - your reference to national framework ACTUALLY says


Integrated Risk Management Plans
1.2 Since April 2003 every Fire and Rescue Authority has been required to produce a local IRMP that sets out the authority's strategy, in collaboration with other agencies, for:

reducing the number and severity of fires, road traffic accidents and other emergency incidents occurring in the area for which it is responsible;
reducing the severity of injuries in fires, road traffic accidents and other emergency incidents;
reducing the commercial, economic and social impact of fires and other emergency incidents;
safeguarding the environment and heritage (both built and natural); and
providing value for money.

lets read that bit again?

'1.2 Since April 2003 every Fire and Rescue Authority has been required to produce a local IRMP that sets out the authority's strategy, in collaboration with other agencies, for: '

'a strategy in collaboration' - or are we working alone again? in my post i stated that there are others best placed to deliver and we will try to assist them - ASSIST them in a collaborative way, NOT do their job at the expense of the things that the government themselves have set targets for us to meet, and nowhere did i say we shouldnt be involved! conflict of agendas - not like the govt is it?

ok other agendas - govt agenda on health issues - should we be involved - damn right we should! i could even quote relevant bits of other legislation that have been ignored but i cant be bothered!

ok lets move on

1.3 of your beloved framework document

'The IRMP should identify the ways in which the authority can work in partnership with neighbouring authorities and other agencies to deliver improved public safety.' - again the partnership approach - so is there a strategy in terms of partnership approach - or are we off again on our good idea/initiative campaign. have they identified ways of working in partnership (and agreed them with the other authorities?)

your beloved document goes on to say - ' It must also set out the targets an authority will set itself and the standards it will apply to meet the specific pattern of local risk' GREAT - ok then what target reduction figure has been set in your brigade for reducing deaths and injuries in road accidents? - what is the strategy to deliver the target that has obviously been set?

move on 1.11

1.11 Most Fire and Rescue Authorities already have links with some local agencies and partnerships. Increasingly, authorities are also members of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). Authorities should actively seek to work jointly with local partners in health, social services, housing, education, the voluntary sector and other emergency services to reduce risk to the vulnerable groups in line with their IRMPs.

the last bit is in bold by the way, one of the many issues - having a policy first that offers protection to vulnerable people - where is that ? it may surprise you that i proposed a suite of policies be produced to cover all vulnerbale people and the child safety policy will become part of that suite - london have agreed to move it forward on behalf of cfoa in partnership with the fbu - does that sound as if we're (or i am) ignoring the nf doc!!

id rather you didnt quote parts of documents as being the whole basis of the document - it just means i have to write loads!!!


 
ok in finishing (cos i could go on, but youre probably bored) i support any activity that saves lives and reduces injuries (yes i even support the govt agenda on accident injury reductions!)

i dont support brigades who think they are the experts and the only ones who can deliver in isolation of other 'agencies/authorities' a whole variety of 'stuff' - we should and i agree must support other agencies/authorities


ok - so wheres the priority - dont forget we have government targets to reach - they were set by government - shouldnt we be doing everything we can to meet those targets and not spread ourselves too thin? or are you one of those who believe that fire deaths cannot be driven down any further - and even if you are - can we really sit back and pat ourselves on the back or is there work to be done to keep those levels as low as possible?

ok, enough is enough - we agree we should impact on all areas of safety - i believe in a collaborative way and that means we're not always the lead 'partners' - and it doesnt mean we ignore everything other than fires!

dave bev

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Road Safety
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2005, 05:04:30 PM »
Dave

OK agreed, the work should be in partnership and we do CS work now so adding in some RTC education would help. I also agree that there are others with more resources and power, but that should not stop us being directly involved but you are right we are not the experts - maybe we will be if we do a good job!

I apologise for only using th epart of the document that I did, however it was not to demonstrate that we should be doing road safety ourselves, but to point out that this is something we should be delivering (yes I accept 'in conjunction' with others). The FRS are oftne the best placed to gain audience acceptance, we are believd and generally respected.

So I think we actually both agree and what is in dispute is some semantics?

The feeling of the staff here, at all levels, is that we see most deaths and injuries on the roads and not in fires and thus the fact that we are doing something about one and not the other annoys them. So now here we are trying to. We will use the NF as a means to getting the resources to do it. If that means getting some of the funding presently going elsewhere and deploying it through the FRS then I think that would be a magnificent way of working collaboratively!

Oh and no I do not think we have driven fire deaths down far enough, I fully support NO2 strategies.

PS is it right that the ODPM are considering including RTC figures in future BVPIs?
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline ellitore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Road Safety
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2005, 05:07:01 PM »
=dave bev]whats the figures for fire deaths and injuries in cleveland. no doubt they have managed to deal with the one issue we have targets for so upwards and onwards to the next set of headlines!"]

[road safety is best delivered by those in road safety, nor by fire service staff looking for the next round of 'notice me, notice me, look how good i am']

Within my brigade role I don't think anyone could ever complain............community safety agenda............I was one of the first........and took a lead on youth issues......went out on a limb..........



"Hello pot, this is kettle calling!"

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Road Safety
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2005, 09:13:31 PM »
best ask odpm, re bvpi - if they do then they must be realistic re what the frs can achieve!

semantics - yes - amazing what a crossed wire can do at times, and if i didnt explain myself as 'full' or as good as perhaps i should have done then thats my fault not yours!

i understand that firefighters at all levels are sick and tired of not dealing with some of the issues  and incidents they regularly attend - we all try to make a difference and that isnt modernisation, thats firefighters doing what they do best 'caring about what they do!'

ellitore - valid point even if i think it is a bit misplaced - you will note however that i was demonstrating that i as an individual had embraced the com safety agenda a long time ago - and i wasnt highlighting my actions to promote myself or my actions but to defend myself against what appeared to be a 'dig' at me personally and suggested was a 'cheap shot'. i actually think theres a diference. (and it might surprise you to know that both myself and 'fireftrm' do correspond personally away from this forum on both a personal and professional basis). but as you seem to want to pick 'bits' of a debate and not consider the whole response in the context it was intended consider this - taken from your own extremely constructive reply

'Hel.p this is ....... .all....'

dave bev

Princess

  • Guest
Road Safety
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2005, 07:51:14 AM »
otis is king

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Road Safety
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2005, 08:37:51 AM »
you are a star, princess! i am almost ready to denounce my left leanings and become a monarchist! oops, too late - looks like im stuck with my lot!! ;-)

any news on the 'centre'?

Offline adam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • http://www.amphealthandsafety.co.uk
Road Safety
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2006, 08:04:02 PM »
On drivers safety are we connecting this directly to the brigade or external?

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Road Safety
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2006, 03:35:05 PM »
External
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline rips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Road Safety
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2006, 08:40:22 AM »
Firetrm
I am sure your near neighbours T & W have started along this line. I am not sure who to speak to but I would suggest CS at HQ.
Any views I express are my own and not my employers. Still confused!