From The Times 27th April 2003 Police: What Gatsos Don’t See Offences Are Soaring As Patrols Dwindle Report Tom Robbins and James Foxall

Reckless and careless drivers are getting away with their offences because of an over-reliance on speed cameras, traffic police are warning. They say that chief constables are allowing numbers of traffic officers to fall while speed cameras maintain the overall number of prosecutions. As a result traditional spot checks on driving standards and the roadworthiness of vehicles are being abandoned. Safety campaigners warn that reckless drivers now expect to “get away with it” and respect for the laws of the road is being eroded. Newly released Home Office statistics reveal the number of motoring offences dealt with by police is falling in almost every category except speeding. The number of careless drivers caught by police in England and Wales has fallen from 180,500 in 1981 to 91,700 in 2001 — a 50% reduction. The number of drivers caught with defective or illegal lights, or excessively noisy cars, fell from 227,700 in 1981 to 45,600 in 2001, a fall of 80%. Over the same period the number of speeding tickets has risen by 300% — from 343,000 in 1981 to 1.4m in 2001....... .....“Speed cameras ..... can’t cover everywhere and ..... don’t do the things which we used to do as old-time traffic cops: actually arrest people for bad driving,”..... .......“That’s why careless, dangerous and reckless prosecutions have gone down. Cops don’t have the time to deal with them any more, but that is what causes collisions and so we ought to be tackling it.”..... .........a study by the RAC Foundation discovered that in the 1980s about 15% of the national police force was deployed on traffic duties, compared with only 5-6% today.... ...........Assuming there has not been a massive improvement in driving standards over the past decade, the statistics suggest far less of a watchful eye is being kept on the roads. Between 1991 and 2001 the number of drivers dealt with by police for ignoring road signs, traffic lights, or failing to give right of way to pedestrians fell by 30%, even though cameras at traffic lights caught 63,000 drivers. The number of dangerous drivers dealt with by police fell by 21%, while prosecutions for overloading fell 64%. The number of people hurt in accidents rose slightly over the same period, from 311,000 to 313,000..... [Note that the trend had been downwards previously!] .............Experts are also concerned that a perceived withdrawal of police from the roads and the reduction in the number of roadside check-ups is encouraging the growth of the “motoring underclass” — that is, drivers without insurance, MoTs or even licences. A recent study suggested that as many as 1m people drive without the proper permits. “They know that as long as they avoid the cameras, so they don’t make themselves obvious, the likelihood of them getting away with it is much greater than previously,” says Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation. “We believe there is a definite correlation between the increase in speed cameras and the decrease in traffic police.” King also points to research from the Home Office and the Transport Research Laboratory showing that criminals are more likely to commit driving offences than law-abiding citizens. The argument follows that traffic police stopping someone for erratic driving or defective lights for example might then discover the proceeds of a robbery, or that the driver is wanted in connection with a serious, non-motoring crime. “A speed camera can give out thousands of tickets a year, but it can’t catch burglars, rapists and murderers, or even dangerous drivers, drunk-drivers and so on,” says King. POLICING BY CAMERA? OFFENCE TOTALS In order of: Offences description; year 1991; year 2001; %change Dangerous Driving  12,200; 9,600; -21% Careless Driving 128,800; 91,700; -29% Lighting and noise offences 88,100; 45,600; -48% Overloading 44,100; 15,800; -64% Vehicle condition offences 624,700; 96,200; -21% Failing to stop or report an accident 53,900; 30,400; -44% Ignoring traffic signs and pedestrian crossings 320,700; 224,900; -30% Speeding 637,000; 1,400,700; +120%

From:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2105-658369,00.html

 

My emphasis and [notes]

The number of people hurt in accidents rose slightly over the same period, from 311,000 to 313,000.....

[Note that the trend had been downwards previously!]

The difference between the two figures is not statistically significant i.e. they are to all intents and purposes identical.

Some might argue that the stats demonstrate that replacing porta-plod with speed cameras works. I don't. I think it is very worrying. Just goes to show how you can prove anything with stats.

I suspect a large part of the problem is how hard it is for the plod to deal with someone. There is so much paperwork to avoid them getting off on a technicality. So they prefer speed cameras and speed bumps. And of course, as the article says, plod are being pulled along by the nose by target pushing politicos. And yet the crime stats soar.

Yes, they may well be:

"to all intents and purposes identical."

But they were falling previously.

Or did you miss that bit?

If you look at the trends they fall until about a decade ago, when speed cameras first appeared, started levelling out, then since bLiar and Gordie's stealth taxes came in and their use skyrocketed the trend seems to have reversed.

"The number of people hurt in accidents rose slightly over the same period, from 311,000 to 313,000..... "

These stats are meaningless unless related to the total number of passenger/driver miles per annum.

One day speeding will become as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

George: Dangerous driving should be as unacceptable as drink driving. I don't think speeding per se should be. Except perhaps in residential areas where 20 mph is adequate. Course if someone does 70 mph in a residential area, they deserve a prison sentence IMO.

Anon: Agreed.

Bogush: Your usual aggressive style of reply I see. You won't convince anyone that way.

Moi?

Convince?

That some people aren't going to sit back and take the (counterproductive and dangerous) anti-car crap from the spinners you mean?

Like the people who gave TRL 323 as the proof that speed kills untill some drivers actually read it and pointed out it proved the opposite.

So now they claim that the report has nothing to do with speed and you can't rely on its figures.

Except that the report on falling asleep at the wheel has the same figures for speed doesn't kill.

And so do they annual figures from the West Midlands Police.

You mean like the people who herald cuts in "Killed and 'Seriously' Injured" (when they can find a set of dates over which it's "true"), when the death toll has gone up by more?

These people know all the facts already.

Except one:

That they are being rumbled.

Read the article again.

When do you think that the government, councils, police, "safety" partnerships, anti-car campaigners, even, had that information?

After the article was published?

Or all along?!

While they were spinning the exact opposite!

 

""The number of people hurt in accidents rose slightly over the same period, from 311,000 to 313,000..... "

These stats are meaningless unless related to the total number of passenger/driver miles per annum."

Isn't car traffic going down on the kinds of roads where they have been sticking up speed cameras?

So your point is?

"One day speeding will become as socially unacceptable as drink driving"

Georgeda, old girl, it's not clever to quote Richard Brunstrom, and assume no-one's heard his rambling nonsense.

As I recently told him, he's produced circumstances where 3 million people will soon be fined for speeding each year. This figure is officially expected to continue indefinitely and many, many people will be banned from driving. Soon, every person in this country will know banned drivers.

In short, speeding will soon be as SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE AS ILLEGAL PARKING.

Thank Mr Brunstrom for that one.

"Isn't car traffic going down on the kinds of roads where they have been sticking up speed cameras?

So your point is?"

Simply what are the meaningful figures?

"Isn't car traffic going down on the kinds of roads where they have been sticking up speed cameras?

So your point is?"

Simply what are the meaningful figures?


Good news Anon. You've come to the right place if you want meaningful figures interpreted in a balanced and clearly reasoned manner. (Sarcasm intended if it wasn't completely obvious.)

Bogush....

Of course speed kills !

That is why racing cars, ( which are known to go quite fast ), are only allowed on special tracks with gravel traps and tyre barriers on corners.

These vehicles are specially designed to go fast with their hugely expensive engines and special suspension and electronics. Ordinary cars, vans, trucks, and buses etc' are not !

They are NOT allowed to go very fast on the open roads, ( even IF they are road-legal - as some are ), as the open roads are not designed for going fast on or for racing on.

Even although most people know this, there is STILL a number of petrol-heads, ( I just LOVE that name ), that choose to push the legal limits.

Even IF the motorway speed-limits were lifted to 80mph instead of 70mph there would STILL be the lead-footed nutters that think that they should do ANOTHER ten MPH !

Oh yes....and remember the kinetic energy that is stored in the car bodies of these nutters when they cause the next accident you witness: The faster they go the more kinetic energy pro-rata to MPH that is stored in their vehicles that needs to be released at point of impact. Just hope that it is not YOU AND YOUR VEHICLE that is helping to release this stored kinetic energy.

It all boils down to: The more speed, the greater amount of stored kinetic energy that needs to be released. When this energy is released in a shunt it is released explosively, destroying the vehicles and their occupants.

OHHHHHH YESSSS...high speeds kill and slow speeds invariable don't !

This point is irrefutable and cannot be argued against as no such argument exists !

( You love to do this so why can't I ? ).

If speed does not kill, why bother fitting brakes to vehicles ?

What does brakes actually do ?

They SLOW DOWN the vehicle when required !

Why would anybody want to SLOW DOWN a vehicle eh ?

I will let you answer that question yourself.

Actually....the brakes - in conjunction with the friction of the tyres on the road - are there to SPECIFICALLY release stored kinetic energy slowly so that slower speeds can be attained without the release of this energy being destructive.

ERGO....we must slow down before we can stop, as we cannot stop easily when going at speed.

Am I labouring this point yet I wonder ?

Probably.....but I think that one needs to do this to get through to you Bogush.

I wonder if I got through this time or not ?

SLIM CHANCE !

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem

Wow pap!

Why not just ban movement?

The reason racing cars are not allowed on the public roads is because it is inappropriate speed - not speed itself.

Disappointed you brought out that particular chestnut.

Bogush....

Of course speed kills !

As some of our contributors prefer sarcasm to aggression:

B*ll*cks!

Does your head fall off if you go on a steam train?

Are all F1 drivers dead?

Was it escape velocity that did for that shuttle crew?

Is the Earth a lifeless planet due to the speed it moves through space?

NO!

It is impacts that kill.

And yes, a higher speed impact is more dangerous than a lower speed impact.

But, yet again, would you rather be hit at 20?

Or MISSED at 40!

 

What the anti car lobby, either because they can't drive, don't drive, or are incapable of driving well, seem to be unable to grasp is that:

If you drive to slow for the conditions you cannot concentrate on driving properly.

If you drive too slow for the conditions journeys take longer and you become more tired, and so more dangerous.

If you drive too slow for the conditions you have more traffic on the roads at the same time which increases the chance of an accident.

If you drive too slow for the conditions traffic bunches up behind you and safe gaps for cars at junctions and pedestrians in general disappear.

If you drive too slow for the conditions you cost the economy, and so the treasury, £Billions.

Which costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, each year, in a vain attempt to reduce the already rock bottom annual figure of 3,500 road deaths: almost NONE of which are due to speeding anyway!

 

As for:

Even although most people know this, there is STILL a number of petrol-heads, ( I just LOVE that name ), that choose to push the legal limits.

Even IF the motorway speed-limits were lifted to 80mph instead of 70mph there would STILL be the lead-footed nutters that think that they should do ANOTHER ten MPH !

How many times do I have to point out that in the real world this does not happen.

In fact, where the original limit was too low, speeds sometimes even reduce when the limit is raised to a realistic level.

And because almost all drivers are now driving to a sensible limit, instead of some to a silly limit, and some to a sensible speed, the real nutters stand out a mile and so are less likely to drive like nutters, and are easier to spot and catch if they try to.

As I have explained countless times.

Do try to keep up if you want to "contribute" to the discussion.

 

Oh yes....and remember the kinetic energy that is stored in the car bodies of these nutters when they cause the next accident you witness: The faster they go the more kinetic energy pro-rata to MPH that is stored in their vehicles that needs to be released at point of impact. Just hope that it is not YOU AND YOUR VEHICLE that is helping to release this stored kinetic energy.

Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

As I have pointed out before:

The only time that I have been booked for speeding was for doing 5mph under the limit as the highly trained and experienced crew of a police car fitted with highly calibrated speed measuring devices were unable to spot where the limit changed.

As pointed out above: the danger comes when the kinetic energy is released.

If the driver is not concentrating or nodding off because they are driving at a nice legal (but unsafe) 29.9, 39.9, 49.9, 59.9, 69.9 or whatever then you are likely to enjoy the release of the appropriate kinetic energy when they plough into you.

If the driver is driving at a safe but illegal speed then they are likely to miss you.

If they are a nutter (and they are responsible for the majority of casualties) then speed limits and speed cameras will have no effect on them (apart from making it more likely they will steal your car, or at least your registration, and drive down inappropriate roads).

 

It all boils down to: The more speed, the greater amount of stored kinetic energy that needs to be released. When this energy is released in a shunt it is released explosively, destroying the vehicles and their occupants.

All the more reason to raise limits to more realistic levels to avoid the chances of the accident happening.

OHHHHHH YESSSS...high speeds kill and slow speeds invariable don't !

OHHHHHH NOHHHH......

Motorways are our safest roads, and most accidents happen at under 30.

And before you retort that most driving is done under 30:

Why do the slower speeds lot insist that most people drive over 30 (as they do).

This point is irrefutable and cannot be argued against as no such argument exists !

If speed does not kill, why bother fitting brakes to vehicles ?

If people can't stop safely without hitting anything in the absense of a  number on a stick allegedly telling them the appropriate speed:

How do people manage stop without hitting anything when they are usually doing in excess of the number on the stick?

So why bother fitting numbers to a stick, and fining people for exceeding the number?

Oh, the answer would be the fines then!

Am I labouring this point yet I wonder ?

Probably.....but I think that one needs to do this to get through to you papii!!.

I wonder if I got through this time or not ?

Bogush you must be a very sad person. Your postings are just so aggresive.

When I asked for a point to be clarified you went over the top thinking I was attacking you.

Do you have any friends?

I think a persons car says a lot about their personallity. I drive a 850cc mini.

Bogush: Excellent. Truly excellent. Very enjoyable.

No-one can argue with most of what you say. Problem is, what you do is to make some obviously absurd statements, by exaggerating to an absurd extreme what the so-called anti-car brigade say, and then demolish the absurd statements. It's not hard to do. We all know in the literal sense that speed does not kill. And we all know that it is inappropriate speed that is wrong.

I can do the same with you. I can say that you are a child killer, that you want to race at 70 mph through residential areas, to enjoy your car with no disregard for others. But why? That is not what you believe.

Actually I would like to see an experimental deregulation of a motorway, where someone doing 150 mph would not be stopped if the road was empty. It would be interesting to see the result. I would also like widespread home zones, whereby people can reclaim residential areas as places where children can play safely instead of being kept under guard indoors.

Anon: LOL.

Anon - what a whimp. What a joke car. My dream is a Cosworth but I can't afford that so I have to make do with an XR3i. It's got an excellent gearbox and the acceleration's FAB. I'd love a convertible but they get nicked too easy.

Bogush you must be a very sad person.

Sad?

I'm hearbroken!

 

Your postings are just so aggresive.

Lets see.

If I was to concrete your mini to your drive, and then break into your house and steal the money I needed to pay for the concrete I suppose you would invite me to stay and enjoy a cozy cup of tea and a chat with you?

If you were reversing out of your drive (do you?) and I waved a stick with a number on it in front of you, distracting you, and causing you to run into your gatepost I suppose you would offer me chocolate biscuits too?

And if I was to stick a lump of tarmac against your wheel, knocking you off course, and jolting your foot onto the accelerator, causing you to veer across the lawn and into your children you'd invite me to stay for dinner and offer me the hand of your surviving daughter?

When you are being robbed and stabbed in the back you are free to turn the other cheek and campaign for a reconcilliateion committee to be set up between motorists and the anti-car brigade.

But don't expect everyone to hold the same "religious convictions" as yourself.

I've watched the motorist get screwed and assaulted with anti car measures for decades, and yes, to say that I am sad is an understatement!

When I asked for a point to be clarified you went over the top thinking I was attacking you.

Sorry, most people read the posts before posting themselves.

Which bit off all the convictions for all forms of real dangerous driving have plummeted, convictions (without any allowable defence, caution, mitigating factor, suspended sentence, etc, etc, which are allowed to muggers, rapists, real murderers, etc, etc) for creeping over an arbitrary, artificially low, and often cycnically lowered number on a stick have skyrocketed, and accidents have gone up despite traffic on the roads where most accidents occur having gone down were you not clear on?

 

Do you have any friends?

Why do you ask?

Do you need one?

I think a persons car says a lot about their personallity. I drive a 850cc mini.

Aren't they those cars people buy why they want  to pretend they are on a go-kart track when they drive through town?

Now the kind of cars I've had when my driving was urban were things like a 950 Fiesta, an old Marina, and a less old, but more clapped out Skoda.

But yes, I do have a small willy, though it is quite broad.

Or am I misinterpreting the thrust behind your post again?

 

But as I haven't got a single friend in the world, let me try to make up with you.

>> "The number of people hurt in accidents rose slightly over the same period, from 311,000 to 313,000..... "

"These stats are meaningless unless related to the total number of passenger/driver miles per annum."

You're so right, Anon, soooooo right!

OK, so speeding convictions have gone up 300%.

You're right!

300% more people may be speeding.

Or the same percentage may be speeding, but traffic may have gone up 300%

And, of course, It may also have gone down 50% in the same period.

So explaining why there are 50% fewer careless driving convictions.

Or, of course, motorists may be 50% better drivers now, explaining why they have to lower and hide all the speed limits on fast, safe overtaking stretches and hide speed tax cameras on them.

But then again real (as opposed to government quoted)mileage must have gone up much more than 50% so counteracting the improvements in driving, and leading to a reversal of the downward trend in casualties

Why didn't I see that before.

Thanks for showing me the light Anon!

Friends again?

 

"Problem is, what you do is to make some obviously absurd statements,"

Do feel free to enlightem me with a few examples.#

 

"by exaggerating to an absurd extreme what the so-called anti-car brigade say,"

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Like comparing motorists with child killers and labelling them speedophiles?

Like running adverts about the harm that "traffic" pollution causes (based on a report which blames things like buses and the power stations then supply trams) over a shot of a smoking car exhaust?

Like running an advert with a child being gassed in a car with a tube from the exhaust even (practically impossible with a modern - petrol - car, apparently)!

Like calling for ALL urban roads to have a 20 limit, all rural roads to have a max 40 limit, and motorways 50?

Like calling for car-riageways to be "reclaimed" by the "people"?

And even dug up and grassed over!

Like calling for motorists to be taxed even more than 350% on their fuel so that even more can be spent on "public" transport subsidies?

Whilst banning cars from the road!

Like calling for £Billions to be spent on new "public" transport construction (which only a few percent of passenger and freight miles are done on) while demanding that the money spent on "private" transport (zero!) is cut even more?

 

"and then demolish the absurd statements."

And what, exactly, do you suggest that I do with them then?

 

"It's not hard to do. We all know in the literal sense that speed does not kill. And we all know that it is inappropriate speed that is wrong."

Well, feel free to rip into the people who continually insist on repeating such spin and propaganda (or, if you prefer less sarcasm, and more aggression: lies!).

"I can do the same with you. I can say that you are a child killer, that you want to race at 70 mph through residential areas, to enjoy your car with no disregard for others."

On what basis, exactly?

 

"But why? That is not what you believe."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Your argument is that I shouldn't attack the anti-car brigade when they come out with their cr*p because thay don't actually believe it!

"Actually I would like to see an experimental deregulation of a motorway, where someone doing 150 mph would not be stopped if the road was empty. It would be interesting to see the result."

Do a search for Montana and speed limits on the internet.

 

"I would also like widespread home zones, whereby people can reclaim residential areas as places where children can play safely instead of being kept under guard indoors."

They call them gardens, playgrounds, recreation areas and parks.

And people can get to them by car along car-riageways.

Or by walking on side-walks.

And if there aren't enough:

Why not take down the fences along the railway lines, limit trains to 20mph, and reclaim the rail-roads?

Ditto airports.

 

Or if you can't be bothered searching try this:

Italy Raises Speed Limit To Save Lives On Motorways, And Norway, Montana Too

Oh, but you already have!

"I would also like widespread home zones, whereby people can reclaim residential areas as places where children can play safely instead of being kept under guard indoors"

Jack...........please change your mind about this one.

If young kids get used to playing on the road in a home zone, they're going to be inclined to think all roads are safe and little lives are going to be snuffed out by nasty, big buses.

I'm still here because my parents, teachers and policemen scared me to death.......they kept me AWAY FROM ROADS.

I thank them for that.

You still didn't really give me the figure as to passenger miles or Kms covered Bogush.

I like my car but it's getting a bit old now and I'm having to drive further to see my elderly parents the mini's not very fast or comforyable for long motorway journeys. What make of car would you recommend please?

the mini's not very fast

My God! Don't you know that SPEED KILLS!!!

Why don't you walk you selfish petrol head! (Just make sure you don't collide with anyone while walking)

Actually, it's just too dangerous out there! Can't you phone your parents instead?

Or as a last gasp desperate measure, there's always public transport.

"I would also like widespread home zones, whereby people can reclaim residential areas as places where children can play safely instead of being kept under guard indoors"

Jack...........please change your mind about this one.

If young kids get used to playing on the road in a home zone, they're going to be inclined to think all roads are safe and little lives are going to be snuffed out by nasty, big buses.

Per: I just don't agree with you on this one. Kids too young to distinguish should not be outside unattended. Older kids can distinguish. When I was a kid, we played outside, and down in the local fields. I used to walk 3 miles to school when I was 9 years old. These days sensible parents have to keep their kids inside as traffic is too fast and dangerous. Even I avoid walking along country roads without a pavement as so many car drivers are dangerous nutters.

I'm still here because my parents, teachers and policemen scared me to death.......they kept me AWAY FROM ROADS.

I thank them for that.

Can't disagree with you there. Teaching kids road sense is essential. T'is the duty of parents and schools.

I think a lot of people here are very rude. I don't know much about cars and I only asked for advice. Which car do you all drive and why?

I've got a Vauxhall Fiesta I think it's called. It's not very big but goes fast enough for me.

Freda

Why do you have a car for god's sake??!!

As I said it's mainly to take my disabled mother out. She has an electric buggy but she can't get this on a bus or in a car. Once the trams are running then she can get it on them so we shall use the car even less.

Why do you have a car Sam? What make is it?

Boy, is it easy to switch you on Bogush !

Here is Bogush's reasons for why speed does not kill:

People are safe at high-speed when they are in...Rockets, aeroplanes, trains, and racing cars...because, high-speed is "appropriate" in these types of vehicles !

OK then, if high speeds are "appropriate" in these types of vehicles, why would this be ?

Rockets: The people that go up in rockets do so because they are willing to take the risk that while going straight up at escape velocities they are unlikely to meet another vehicle coming in the opposite direction. They still get killed regularly when their vehicles go wrong.

Aeroplanes: The people that travel in aeroplanes feel safe at high speed because a). They are in the sky, where other vehicles are few and far between, and b). They are most-of-the-time under the care of the air traffic controllers.

Trains: Trains are comparatively safe at high speeds because they run on tracks and because they are not often allowed to run in opposite directions on the same track. They can NOT change direction into the path of oncoming vehicles by turning a steering wheel like road vehicles can. They too are under the care of rail traffic controllers.

Racing cars: While many would think that racing cars are comparatively safe too, the fact that they CAN change speed and direction by the arbitrary control of the driver means that they are NOT actually very safe at high speed. In fact, how many F1 drivers have been killed as they drove their cars on these specially constructed racetracks ?

NOW...Let's get back to high-speeds on motorways:

I notice nobody has taken me up on the stored kinetic energy point. Probably becuse it cannot be denied or refuted !

The people that drive over the set limits feel in their own minds that they know better than the learned experts when they drive with leaden right feet, and the boy-racers and petrol-heads that are behind the wheel of a hot-hatch or a sports car seem to be driven to drive at speeds that might suit the car, but do not necessarily suit the congested motorways of this choked little country.

In my estimation, exactly because we do not have any kind of the vehicle controls on the roads that we do in the air and on the rails, is why every driver is a potential disaster just waiting to happen.

On the roads of Britain IT IS A FACT that the drivers that drive "FAST" are the drivers that eventually come to grief, and co-incidentally, it is these exact same drivers that either cannot get insurance or that must pay thousands of pounds for the privilege of driving fast in their penis extensions.

OH yes...SPEED KILLS, and high-speed kills even more efficiently.

It is the speeders that feel the need to argue that it does not !

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

What's the safest car to go fast in?

What's the safest car to go fast in?

1) A jam butty driven by a class 1 porta-plod.
2) A 4x4 with bull bars on the front. Great for the school run, shopping at Waitrose, and invading Russia. Ever seen a crash between one and a normal car?

What's the safest car to go fast in?

1) A jam butty driven by a class 1 porta-plod.
2) A 4x4 with bull bars on the front. Great for the school run, shopping at Waitrose, and invading Russia. Ever seen a crash between one and a normal car?

"Rockets: The people that go up in rockets do so because they are willing to take the risk...."

And clearly people that shoot out into the road under the wheels of a car are willing to take the risk, so why do a) the authorities get involved, b) get involved to persecute the motorist?

And equally people who drive are willing to take the risk.

 

"Aeroplanes: The people that travel in aeroplanes feel safe at high speed because a). They are in the sky, where other vehicles are few and far between, and b). They are most-of-the-time under the care of the air traffic controllers."

Double Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

People believe air travel to be the safest form.

Did you know that for medium haul car and plane safety are comparable.

And for short haul cars are safer?!

 

Did you also know that the average road user has to cover half a billion miles to be involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian.

And three and a half billion to be involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian who wasn't at fault (and that doesn't mean the driver was).

But, of course, as the majority of accidents aren't caused by your average motorist, your average motorist probably has to drive tens, if not hundreds, of billions of miles before being involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian where the pedestrian wasn't at fault.

Did you also know that, per pasenger mile, cyclists are involved in more fatal collisions with pedestrians than motorists are?

And that per passenger mile rail transport is involved in as many fatalities as road transport.

Despite the railroads being fenced off, and kids being encouraged to play on the roads.

Clearly not:

"Trains: Trains are comparatively safe.........."

Why?

When I keep telling you over and over and over again!

"I notice nobody has taken me up on the stored kinetic energy point. Probably becuse it cannot be denied or refuted !"

Yes, we have.

over and over and over again!

The kinetic energy is irrelevant untill, and unless, it is released.

You, and your ilk, want to reduce the kinetic energy being released, but end up making accidents inevitable in reality.

Me, and my kind, want to reduce the chance of the release occuring in the first place, and end up in practice reducing any kinetic energy that is released as a by product.

"The people that drive over the set limits feel in their own minds that they know better than the learned experts"

These would be the learned experts who thing that a safe road that is improved needs to have a lowered speed limit?

Or the learned experts who think that 20 in town, and 40 in the country is too fast?

Or even the learned experts who haven't even learned to drive?!

Or how about the learned experts who think that drivers are dangerous because (how many was it?) billions of speeding offenses are committed every day?

Without any danger whatsoever!

Now who are the real learned experts?

The people who safely negotiate roads every day without mishap?

Or the non drivers who set (lower) the speed limits?

 

"when they drive with leaden right feet, and the boy-racers and petrol-heads .....blah, blah ....."

Balanced, unemotional, reasoned comment as usual.

"choked little country."

How many times do I have to remind you that in comparison with most other first world and European countries, both larger and smaller, both more and less densely populated, we have fewer miles of motorway and main road per head, per acre, per GDP, per you name it.

If it is choked it has nothing to do with the drivers!

 

"In my estimation, exactly because we do not have any kind of the vehicle controls on the roads that we do in the air and on the rails, is why every driver is a potential disaster just waiting to happen."

Then why do we have the safest roads in the world (despite having some of the most dangerous pedestrians)?

Then why is road safety comparable to rail-road safety.

And even to air safety?

Do check your facts before spouting off papii!!

"On the roads of Britain IT IS A FACT that the drivers that drive "FAST" are the drivers that eventually come to grief, and co-incidentally, it is these exact same drivers that either cannot get insurance or that must pay thousands of pounds for the privilege of driving fast in their penis extensions."

Which drivers are these then?

The middle aged high mileage drivers with the most  speeding tickets and lowest accidents per mile and premiums?

Or the youngsters with the highest accidents and premiums, but lowest numbers of speeding tickets, amazingly?!

So you chose to ignore my advice then?

And continue to do so: 

OH yes...SPEED KILLS, and high-speed kills even more efficiently.

Do belt up papii!!

It is the speeders that feel the need to argue that it does not !

And who, exactly, is arguing, here papii!!??

Thank goodness we have Bogush to provide us with a sane well balanced and detached viewpoint.

Did you also know that, per pasenger mile, cyclists are involved in more fatal collisions with pedestrians than motorists are?

Hardly surprising. Most cyclists I see are very dangerous. They endanger themselves and others. Why plod do nowt I shall never know. Have I ever seen plod cracking down on cyclists? No. Never. Ever.

However, where I live pedestrians ignore cycle lanes, and walk straight across them regardless. But then again this is bad engineering. Fancy separating pedestrians and bikes by nothing more than a white line.

Jack, you said

"Per: I just don't agree with you on this one. Kids too young to distinguish should not be outside unattended"

I thought home zones were aimed at younger kids?

"Older kids can distinguish"

Maybe, but they're still impulsive. Conditioning them to subconsciously claim right of way in these home zones will over-ride caution one day.

"When I was a kid, we played outside, and down in the local fields"

That's where they should be....or in gardens or parks.

"I used to walk 3 miles to school when I was 9 years old. These days sensible parents have to keep their kids inside as traffic is too fast and dangerous"

And because the pervert population seems to have mushroomed.

"Even I avoid walking along country roads without a pavement as so many car drivers are dangerous nutters"

Not forgetting kamikaze pushbike pilots.

Sorry, Jack, I reckon there needs to be a clear mental division between roads and footpaths.

"I've got a Vauxhall Fiesta I think it's called"

Come on, Freda, humour's not your thing.

Stick to your core attributes. You do wind up and sarcasm to perfection.

Freda

Why do you have a car Sam?

To allow me to move around as and when I want to . To make my journey's convenient, safe, quick and cheap.

I'm surprised you have a car though. After your constant championing of public transport I thought you would be using it all the time. Why would you need to use a car after all? Sheesh!


What make is it?

Erm...it's a blue one.

Jack, you said

"Per: I just don't agree with you on this one. Kids too young to distinguish should not be outside unattended"

I thought home zones were aimed at younger kids?

I would have thought very young kids are best supervised. Too many weirdos.

"Older kids can distinguish"

Maybe, but they're still impulsive. Conditioning them to subconsciously claim right of way in these home zones will over-ride caution one day.

So what do you do? Lock up children unless accompanied by adults and on tethers? Sorry but I don't buy this idea that cities are largely owned by cars and we must all be subservient to drivers needs. Anyway children learn, given proper guidance.

"When I was a kid, we played outside, and down in the local fields"

That's where they should be....or in gardens or parks.

Unattended and with pervs aplenty? Are parents supposed to supervise children all the time. we were lucky to have fields being in the countryside. Many areas don't have parks near to homes.

"I used to walk 3 miles to school when I was 9 years old. These days sensible parents have to keep their kids inside as traffic is too fast and dangerous"

And because the pervert population seems to have mushroomed.

That part is sadly true. Actually I am not sure that they have mushroomed. Just that we are more aware of them thanks to the media and the fact that courts now believe children when they report abuse. That didn't use to be the case.

"Even I avoid walking along country roads without a pavement as so many car drivers are dangerous nutters"

Not forgetting kamikaze pushbike pilots.

Amen.

Sorry, Jack, I reckon there needs to be a clear mental division between roads and footpaths.

I don't disagree with that. But I do think that it is unacceptable to rat run through residential areas. Better design of housing estates can help. (And avoid the need for speed humps.)

Just today I started walking across a zebra crossing on a completely empty road. I just got half-way across when a 17 year old pimply schoolboy in a crappy little Fiesta with lowered suspension, fancy wheels, flashy exhaust and more lights and speakers than car, bombed past in front of me with just a foot to spare between him and me. From the spastic expression on his face he obviously thought it was impressive to drive around like a twat to the intelectual sounds of "BOOM BOOM BOOM". Come on own up to it. It's not that there is some major saftey benefit from driving fast. Anyone with any sense knows this is nonsense. It's the thrill. The excitement of going at a speed that challenges you. We all feel the urge a little but restrain ourselves for the saftey of others. Idiots who cannot feel big in any other way have to speed. Every testosterone fueled schoolboy desperate for a shag speeds around in a big throbbing speaker. My aunt's dog was killed last week by one of them.
When my friends got their first cars they used to drive particularly stupidly when a member of the opposite sex was watching. I remember many a hairaising motorway journey when we went above 70 the little cars would rattle and drift and the steering would go to crap and you used to get an extra thrill everytime the car floated over towards the barrier.
Insurance premiums go by likelyhood of accidents in a group.
Insurance for males under 25 is higher.
Are you trying to say that males under 25 are the group most likey to drive along at a sedate mature speed? That its old ladies that are the speed freaks. Taking out their pent up frustrations in totty pulling wagons?
Human beings all have a very similar reaction time to fractions of a second. Obviously if something unexpected happens (someone makes a mistake, a mechanical failure, an animal or child steps out...)the car will travel much further before the driver can react at higher speeds. The braking distances increase. When an accident occurs (and one will)as the speed goes up so does the likely hood of it being fatal. How is this safer?
Perhaps the pea-sized brain of a speed-moron is prone to small concentration spans and cannot stay awake for the length of a journey if there's no danger in it. If so they should not be on the roads in the first place.

And when will you be old enough to apply for your moped license then?

Not for a long time I hope.

.....completely empty road......?!?!?

AM..........I'm pretty confident that people here who speak out against speed restrictions DO NOT mean 30 limits in residential/urban areas.

You lot of speed-freaks can't have your cake AND eat it too !

Safe speed is relative to the conditions, ( even Bogii would agree with THAT ).

That accepted we then have to agree on what speed is safe under what conditions don't we ?

I suggest that any speed over 20 MPH is dangerous because of the vagaries of the human condition behind the wheel and the condition of the British roads from the cart-tracks to the motorways.

The danger goes up exponentially with the increase in speed and I will NOT accept any rationalisation from anybody that it does not.

If the cars and vans and trucks and motorbikes and pushbikes were driven by robots that might always react in the same way to any given situation then...YES...the Bogush thesis might work.

They are not, so it does not, and that is that !

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

So Pap

You're solution to the problem of having the safest roads in the world is for all vehicles to travel at 20mph or lower?

What does it say in your signature again?

Good grief Papps, you're more extreme than I imagined.

Bet you have a hard time with other road users as you trundle forth along the road of sudden death. If I were you, I'd avoid contact with the police, you can get done for crawling everywhere.

Have a chat with a police instructor, and ask him what he means by "progress."

If you're not winding us up and you believe this tripe, I suggest you surrender your licence forthwith, before you cause an accident.

Your basic flaw is your belief that there's a magic speed that creates an inevitable collision.

Learn defensive driving, old lad, or give up.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. THE SOLUTION IS DOOM.

The twenty mile per hour figure was the only figure that I could just about guarantee that the stored kinetic energy might not cause serious injury to the bags of water inside and outside the vehicle when it is released suddenly.

The vehicle designers have worked extremely hard over the years to build cars that are safer in a shunt. They have introduced better brakes & suspensions, crumple-zones, seat-belts, and airbags so that the bags of water inside the vehicles will not be burst when an accident takes place.

After all of their work to make vehicles safer they STILL only guarantee that these modifications will work under certain circumstances. After a certain speed, all the safety-features in a modern vehicle fail and the occupants are smashed and killed if not just maimed.

The factor that CAN NOT be planned for is the SPEED that the accident will take place at !

High speed kills and slow speed does not !

At least not to the same degree.

NOW....you guys are going to have to talk among yourselves to decide which are the safe speeds and which are not, as I am obviously biased in this respect.

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

So what's your point? Even I'm confused. Are you advocating driving no faster than 20mph? Blimey, are you one of these previously thought to be mythical anti-car extremists Bogush-bach talks about? Cor how exciting.

Or are you following the tradition of this site of making disconnected statements? I wonder what car George drives? Oh yes, a Vauxhall Fester.

Per Septiv, If you concede that going faster in residential/urban areas is dangerous why do you believe that it is different on motorways?
I think from reading the comments above your confidence in your fellow rev-heads is misplaced.

Did I hit a nerve Bogush? Do you fit into the pimply schoolboy category?
How old are you Bogi-brain? 13?
I have been driving safely for 9 years.

Why should Pap have to learn defensive driving? Why should driving be pushed to the limit? Being able to get from A to B should be the right of everyone. There are plenty of older people who cannot face the irate speed fury of today's traffic where there is no room for a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and what we are trying to say is that when you are going fast you don't have as much time to react to these mistakes and any collision will be more deadly. What is the great need for more speed?

If you could read you'd know the answers, youth.

In other words you have no answer.
Little boy.
I'm bored of you now. Sensible people have put forward irrefutable facts and because you can't grasp them and want to continue speeding like the selfish brat that you are, we have to go round and round in circles with only purile insults as your defence.

I bet you think you have acerbic wit and that people look up to you. Judging by all the letters on this website you're an angry little Billy no-mates getting on people's wick. If you had real friends you wouldn't spend so much effort spilling your bile on this Internet site. It was a nice try implying that you are older than me but you're fooling no-one. And if you do happen to be older then you're even sadder than I thought and you really should grow up.
bye-bye knob cheese,

Anne Marie ,BSc(hons), PhD, MInstP

What's my point eh ?

Well, I am mainly just trying to get through to Bogush that SPEED is a factor that cannot be ignored on the streets and roads of Britain.

Bogush will turn inside out and he will present tangential semantics until the cows come home so that he does not have to admit the simple fact that speed kills.

All people that have closed minds will work extremely hard to rationalise away irrefutable facts, and Bogush is a PERFECT example of this type.

All that I am trying to say over the broad "speed kills" slogan is that when we have speed freaks pushing the legal speed limits because they don't agree with them, we must as a matter of course have more accidents generated with the rest of us that try hard to stay within the agreed guidlines for controllable speed.

I suppose that THAT is the killer word...."controllable", as it is the control, ( or lack of it ), that is maintained when vehcles go fast. AM...above mentioned reaction-times, and I suppose that as reaction-times do not get any better or faster as we increase roadspeed, then SPEED must be the most important deciding factor in the number of accidents that occur on our British roads today.

The need for speed in the minds of the boy-racers and the vroom-vroom enthusiasts is something that cannot be legislated against, as they will ALWAYS - just like Bogush - find good reason in their abnormal minds for pushing or breaking the limits just to assuage their GREED for SPEED !

In fact, I am sure that this unreasonable desire must stem from some form of mental illness somewhere !

It's quite sad really

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Yo Papaumau

Fair enough. Don't hold any hope of getting through to Bogush though.

Bogush will turn inside out and he will present tangential semantics until the cows come home so that he does not have to admit the simple fact that speed kills.

By the time you finish reading his postings the cows will have evolved into sentient beings capable of advanced mathematics.

Wake up, it's AM!

MInstP?

Psychology?

Pedestrian Behavioural Science?

Progress?

Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm

No, Physics, isn't it?

It took you until PhD level to work out that kinetic energy is related to speed?!

Now, tell me which bits of these you struggle to grasp, and I'll try to explain them to you......

S-L-O-W-L-Y........

The effects of the release of kinetic energy only come into the equation if the kinetic energy is released.

Or to put it into scientific terms:

If your child gets hit at 20 it dies.

If it gets missed at 40 it lives.

Now, here comes the really technical bit:

If drivers are concentrating on constantly changing, inappropriate, arbitrary, hidden, missing, etc, etc speed limit signs, hidden, or otherwise, speed cameras, traffic "calming", congestion engineering, or, conversely, are not concentrating at all because they are driving at a speed too slow for the conditions, that child is going to die.

If they are allowed to concentrate on driving: it will live.

Now, was this the irrefutable fact that sensible old highly "educated" self proclaimed "safe" driver you were alluding to?

Or was there another that silly old dogbreath speedophile pimply schoolboy Bogi-brain (13) selfish brat puerile acerbic angry little Billy no-mates sad friendless knob of cheese me had missed?

By the way, had you missed the point that the only time I have ever received a speeding ticket was when two highly trained traffic cops, in a car loaded with highly calibrated instrumentation, were so busy looking at it that they completely missed the fact that I was driving 5mph below the limit, rather than 5mph above?!

And that's doing up to 50k pa (for more than three times as long as you).

But I wouldn't dream of claiming that I was a safe driver.

Only that I try to be, and try to improve on that.

I suggest you spend a little more of you time out of the Ivory Tower little girl.

Papii!!

And AM PhD

Have you ever studied the subject beyond " 'Speed Kills', hmmmmmmmmmmmm, well, the higher the speed, the higher the kinetic energy, the higher the kinetic energy, the higher the damage".

"SO IT MUST BE TRUE!"

Well, if you believe that:

Why aren't you arguing that efforts should be concentrated on reducing rail-road speed, as, despite being fenced off, they are responsible for as many fatalities per passenger mile as tarmac roads?

And they can't stop as quickly.

Nor steer round hazards.

Or even reducing the speed of aircraft.

After all:

Their safety over comparable journeys is equivalent, or even worse, than cars.

How about reducing their speed to 20mph?

Oh, but they wouldn't work if you did that!

HELLLO-OO!

Neither would the road transport system!

Welcome to the real world!

Instead of regurgitating government spin:

("Speed Kills", look at TRL 323, proves that a third of fatalities are down to speed, waddaya mean misjudging the safe and legal speed of approaching traffic when pulling out of a junction doesn't count, or "speeding" through traffic lights at red, or in the case of the american anti-car lobby, even driving below a minimum speed limit, oh, well, TRL 323 must be wrong then, just give us a while and we'll get the TRL to create a model of selected roads that proves the faster you go the more you die, oh, waddaya mean their new model contradicts the results of the real life study into asleep at the wheel accidents: that must be wrong too, and those annual results from the West Midlands Police: no way is speed responsible for only a few percent of accidents, it must be at least a third, waddaya mean what are we going to do about the other two thirds that cost money to clamp down on.....).

Why don't you do what I've done:

I've looked at the subject with an open mind, and decided that all the evidence points to the fact that trying to make people go too slow (not allowing everyone to go as fast as they want, as I continually point out, but you all seem to have a certain difficulty with reading plain English) shows that it is counter productive.

All you seem to be able to bring to the argument is that "of course speed kills":

It releases kinetic energy!

Kinetic energy kills.

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

No, it doesn't.

Crashing does.

And limiting speeds to inappropriate levels and or distracting people with a choice of watching their speedo or driving at an inappropriately slow rate causes crashes.

But now I come to think of it:

You don't need a PhD in Physics to work that out.

Just common sense.

If I needed to review that evidence:

I really must be as dumb as AM claims!

Oh, well:

Over to you.......

 

Bogush, aged 19 & 3/4: come on give up the pretence. It's so obvious you're a little child, recently passed his test, having a laugh. Aren't you? You are , you are, you are, aren't you? Eh. Eh.

The good news is that the pimples - or is it supurating pustules - will go away by the time you're 30.

Sorry, Papps, the message further back commencing "good grief, Papps", was me, not anonymous.

I regret I can now blow your theory out of the water, Papps. I, and my driver, emerged without a scratch from a car that rolled at well over 100mph. And no, our helmets weren't even marked, so no head impact at all.

Conversely, a chap died a couple of months ago when he fell off a motorcycle at less than 15mph.

It's OK, Jack. We all know the last message from Jack Russell wasn't you.

Suspect AM, or pal.

Youngsters can't help giving themselves away as such, can they? Strange how lack of maturity shines through intellectual snobbery, isn't it?

AM....if you want to learn about defensive driving, take an advanced driving course, talk to a police instructor, or read through the police "Roadcraft" manual.

Then come back when you know what you're talking about.

EVERY driver should know and apply defensive driving.

Boy are you people on some weird ****. Nurse, nurse, they're over here ...

Roadcraft?

Roadcraft?

I'm sure I should know what that means!

Oh, yes!

It's all coming back now:

It's that book I read about the time AM was born that indicated that I was probably right about what I thought was wrong about the Highway Code of the day.

Now if only I could remember what it was I thought was wrong with Roadcraft.

That they subsequently changed...........

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

If only I had the memory of a PhD student.......

I might have remembered to ask her to calculate what speed exactly her young 500hp souped up Fiesta driver friend must have been doing to convert her empty road into a full one before she got half way across.

And how powerful a speaker needs to be to kill a dog.

Or did she just step out into a road she thought was empty despite the approaching dog killing crescendo of "BOOM BOOM BOOM" from a mobile Blackpool Illuminations.

Perhaps her mind was on higher things.

Like theoretical physics.

Or perhaps it was travelling faster than the speed of light and arrived before its image did, and long before the "BOOM BOOM BOOM"?

 

PS How does an intellectual spell intelectual?

And a PC lady with a PhD spell mouthy, crappy, flashy, bombed,  spastic, twat, saftey, saftey, shag, throbbing, crap.......

As for:

"Obviously if something unexpected happens (someone makes a mistake, a mechanical failure, an animal or child steps out...)the car will travel much further before the driver can react at higher speeds."

Have you bothered to calculate how much further it will travel if the driver is looking out for inappropriate hidden limits and checking his speedo instead of driving at a reasonable speed for the conditions and watching the road so that he can avoid the accident in the first place, rather than minimising the impact speed.

 

If I wasn't in my dotage I might have remembered to post these excerpts from posts from traffic officers on another forum too:

 

"Those of us at the sharp end know that we are hanging on by our fingernails, gradually being replaced by the much cheaper (and far more profitable) speed camera. Unfortunately, the camera does not catch disqualified/drink drivers, dangerous drivers etc etc."

 

"The 'measure the results' rather than 'get results' faction started gaining currency well before the arrival of El Presidente Blair. Who was in power when PACE came in? Not saying it was a bad idea, but there are many who'd argue it was a flawed concept.

But if your underlying message is that complex law enforcement solutions usually bring simple failure I'm with you all the way."

 

"You have my sympathy MLC for I was there prior to the late 70's/80's, the halcyon days and then the rot started.

Until such time you have the higher echelon made up of those that have been through 'The Mill', instead of rising through the ranks from inside offices and on the backs of others. Instead of pontifying from warm offices and golf course, show service to the Public who pay their wages instead of personal advancement - how many Chiefs do you know that serve more than 6 years in the same Force? - then your saddled with what you have got today. They come, churn up the Force and depart to pastures new to do the same again. Can you name one who has yet to mention the destruction of Public support and co-operation through Speed Cameras erected at sites against the critera of accident spot.

My day in North Riding Yorkshire Constabulary we had three cars out on the A.1 between Dishforth and Scotch Corner with two on nights. Other roads were similarly covered. Now you have a job to see one.In addition to the central role of Traffic enforcement a benefit never appreciated by the 'new boys' was the amount of crime a well staffed Traffic Division cleared up through attacking the travelling criminal which no camera or electronic device will capture.

Until you get Chiefs with some backbone and prepared to take a stand on Policing matters of importance against HMG and the Home Office PC boys and their paper exercises then you are doomed."

 

"Before I joined the Police I passaed through Dartmouth and served as a Naval Officer. You simply cannot compare the two. I wouldn't have been given command of a Frigate five years from joining the Navy. My level of experience simply wouldn't have reached the required level, despite having been at sea for four of those years. However, 'fast-track'officers serve two years probation, disappear into office posts for three years and can re-emerge as Superintendants with a Divisional Command. They may have never attended a serious incident/accident in their life. The Police Service is rapidly reaching a point where it is led by civilians in uniform. You cannot understand the job unless you've been there. Most of the new breed haven't."

 

From:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/home/index.htm

 

Whilst all the above Jack Russells appear, yet again, to be the Jack Russell (though he appears to have turned over a new leif):

Pete Bog also appears to be the Jack Russell!

Anonymous appears to be Kev.

Perhaps unsurprisingly.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly Kev appears to be Georgedarewdrew!

They really are very good.

Or they really are Mr, Mrs, and spotty offspring!

 

AM, on the other hand, appears to be a one-off.

As I suspected from the start.

Right, then...........

Why don't you take a leaf from Kimmy baby and put up a few barriers to the trolls on your forum ?

Leaving the thing wide open like this means that nobody knows who is who or who is saying what.

My old brain gets sooooooo confused these days, so why don't you have a heart and tidy up this mess.

Maybe you just like the sound of your own voice and don't give a damn what the other dopplegangers say eh ?

Is THAT it ?

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

"My old brain gets sooooooo confused these days, so why don't you have a heart and tidy up this mess."

We'd noticed.

By the way:

Are you Kimmy Baby?