Topic: Grumpy woman's rant...

[lincsyokel2]

The results of lack of vehicle control

EXACTLY!!  BINGO, YOU GOTIT!!!

thats the primary cause. You can kill somone with a car at 3 mph IF YOU ARENT IN CONTROL!!!And the reason you arent in control is down to driver skill, training and experince!! Nothing to do with speed!!!  And so thats the issue you have to deal with!!! Not speed!!!


Again, i challenge you to show me one single scientific study that has shown speed is a major factor in RTA's. I challenge you to explian why the governments own figures only show 20% of RTA's have speed as a factor - if they know this, why arent they addressing the maijor reasons for that cause the other 80% of RTA's? Explain why the deployment of speed cameras has had no provable effect on the graph of RTA's per year europe wide.

Please address these issues if you think Im wrong, otherwise all you are doing is avoiding uncomfortable truths, and peddling incorrect government an dpolice propganda used to hide the truth that speed cameras are really about revenue generation. If you want to accept duff road safety and believe the crap they tell you , thats up to you, but i want real road safety that works, i have grandkids.

you seem to have an issue with speed cameras. don't you have a reliable speedometer in your vehicle?

No i have an issue with faulty road safety.

See I cant understand why you are arguing the issue. Do you not want our roads to be safe? If so, then surely you want a road safety policy that works, do you not ? So why are you defending the total reliance on speed cameras when they DONT DO THE JOB!! How can you justify speed cameras for road safety when they dont catch drunk driver, or untaxed drivers, or uninsured drivers, or drugged drivers, or stolen vehocles, or cloned vehicles or joy riders.

In the period that Speed Cameras habe been running, convictions for speeding by these cameras has gone up ten fold, yet RTA's have not dropped correspondingly. Doent that tell you something? - thats there isnt a connection between the two? At the same time, convictions for dangerous driving have dropped to a tenth of what they were before speed cameras. Now thats nothing to do with road safety, because you cant catch dangerous drivers with a speed camera, it requires a copper in a car on the street. Whats happening is that the coppers are sitting in the police station with there feet up letting the cameras catch speeders, whilst all the rest of the  poor drivers who affect road safety are being largely unpoliced.

It seems to me that the people arguing with me dont actually give a toss about road safety, they  just believe what theyare told without thinking it out for themselves, like sheeple. The difference here is ive given this some thought, and done my own research, and concluded Government and police road safety strategy is massively flawed and not doing the job.  And there is a massive body of independant evidence to support this view. There is no independant verifiable evidence to support the view you are peddling, execept the police's own fiddled and mathematically manipulated figures (and thats another thread entirely, they way the fiddle the numbers - google 'regression to mean value' if you want a clue))

So tell me why you are objecting to people like me who want the focus of government switched to the real causes of  poor road safety. Obviously you are happy with being sold a duff product and millions of pounds being wasted on effectively a revenue generation exercise, with no real improvement on road safety for the millions of pound spent.

Please try and answer some of the points i made if you reply, its  only courteous, i answer your points, and you simply ignore all my arguments except a selected one liner you have a cheap shot at. Tonybloke does the same, its poor debating and an insult to the effort i put in to present my argument in a logical manner with evidence. Lets have some evidence to support your views, eh, or shall we just assume there isnt and you really are wrong wrong wrong ?

[Aden Roller]

I wish you luck with your campaign lincsyokel2  ;)

[Aden Roller]

All speeds are safe??

So why did you say "drive at the appropriate, safe speed" - surely that implies that some speeds are not safe.
I don't think it would be safe to drive at 600mph down my road but by your logic that would be OK.

Thats because  your road isnt suitable. You can drive round a Grabnd prix Track at 2209 MPH, because its  built for it.

Clearly, its not possible to control a vehicle at 600 mph on a domestic street. It may well be safe on a suitable track. SO there again, its not the speed, it the road and the driver.

So perhaps this means reduce the speed and you have a safe road user?
Obviously not.  ::)

[lincsyokel2]

All speeds are safe??

So why did you say "drive at the appropriate, safe speed" - surely that implies that some speeds are not safe.
I don't think it would be safe to drive at 600mph down my road but by your logic that would be OK.

Thats because  your road isnt suitable. You can drive round a Grabnd prix Track at 2209 MPH, because its  built for it.

Clearly, its not possible to control a vehicle at 600 mph on a domestic street. It may well be safe on a suitable track. SO there again, its not the speed, it the road and the driver.

So perhaps this means reduce the speed and you have a safe road user?
Obviously not.  ::)

You train the driver to recognise  the road conditions arent suitable. You  are getting back to forcing peopel to slow down using the blunt instrument of law (bad, amkes peopel resent being forced and more likely to ignore) and teaching them to do it because they recognise the conditions areinapproriate and adjusting ther espeed because they know its the correct thing to do (good, no compulsion, more responsible, less likely to have accidents)

[tonybloke]

I have no issues at all with speed cameras, I think they are a great way of raising revenue from folk who don't have reliable speedometers in their vehicles, or those who are just too ignorant to stick to the speed limit.

the safety cameras the police use round here have number plate recognition technology, and do detect un-taxed / insured cars, don't they have modern technology in the land of the cabbage?

road safety and speed cameras are separate issues, why are you getting them mixed up?

(I have driven at 160 mph on a race-track, and used to compete in Drag racing at Santa Pod, so I ain't afraid of speed, by the way.)

[Ellen K]

^^ Speed cameras - yes, they are a tax on stupidity.  Keep to the speed limit and let others fill the Treasury's coffers.  Works for me  :)

[lincsyokel2]

I have no issues at all with speed cameras, I think they are a great way of raising revenue from folk who don't have reliable speedometers in their vehicles, or those who are just too ignorant to stick to the speed limit.

the safety cameras the police use round here have number plate recognition technology, and do detect un-taxed / insured cars, don't they have modern technology in the land of the cabbage?

road safety and speed cameras are separate issues, why are you getting them mixed up?

(I have driven at 160 mph on a race-track, and used to compete in Drag racing at Santa Pod, so I ain't afraid of speed, by the way.)

No, speed cameras are peddled as the all singing solution to road safety, thats why they are actually called 'Safety Cameras' and peddled by organisations called 'Road Safety Partnerships'.  The clue is in the name.

So you ignored all the other points in my posts because you have no answer, and cant show im wrong? or was it out of pure ignorance?

Im so pleased for you you arent afraid of speed. I have an allotment and im not afraid of cabbages.

[lottie lou]

The results of lack of vehicle control at high speed kills. I know several families who have first hand experience.  :(

Yes I agree.  My dad, a passenger, was killed by a girl travelling at 80mph when she received a text message

[Hector]

Linksyokel...doesn't matter if you are a fab driver. If you are hit by a pratt at 30 you usually still survive without organ/brain damage....faster idiots cause more problems.

Having worked on a head injury unit I know what speed can do.

[tonybloke]

So you ignored all the other points in my posts because you have no answer, and cant show im wrong? or was it out of pure ignorance?

speed does not kill, it's the crashing at speed that does, simple! so, by slowing down the traffic, the likelihood of an accident is not diminished, but the likely outcome of a crash will be improved.

and by the way, ignorance cannot be pure.

[Carol]

I'm a grumpy old woman and I hate Smart Arses.  saying no more, this thread is turning a bore.

 :-X

[pumkinlover]

Will we ever find out if Goodlife got her shower cubicle repaired?????
it's been giving me sleepless nights  for weeks ;) ;) ;)

[Aden Roller]

I'm a grumpy old woman and I hate Smart Arses.  saying no more, this thread is turning a bore.

 :-X

And so say all most of us I think!

[claybasket]

I'm a grumpy old woman and I hate Smart Arses.  saying no more, this thread is turning a bore.

 :-X
[/quoteWell said just ripe out my veins  with my TEETH >:(

[lincsyokel2]

Linksyokel...doesn't matter if you are a fab driver. If you are hit by a pratt at 30 you usually still survive without organ/brain damage....faster idiots cause more problems.

Having worked on a head injury unit I know what speed can do.

Its perfectly possible to kill somone at 3 MPH. You cant possibly blame speed in that case, and not take into account driver skill. And the same applies to all accidents.

For the third, time, because you keep ignoring it:   Even by the  police's own statistics, speed is a contributory factor in only 20% of RTA's - and thats the POLICE telling you this!! Who do you actually want to repeat it to you before you believe it - Secretary of State for Transport ??

[saddad]

Its perfectly possible to kill somone at 3 MPH.

As we see in cases where cars reverse off drives over toddlers... or crush partners against a wall...
But speed makes a hell of a mess of anything you hit...  :-X

[lincsyokel2]

So you ignored all the other points in my posts because you have no answer, and cant show im wrong? or was it out of pure ignorance?

speed does not kill, it's the crashing at speed that does, simple! so, by slowing down the traffic, the likelihood of an accident is not diminished, but the likely outcome of a crash will be improved.

and by the way, ignorance cannot be pure.

IGNORANCE   
Lack of knowledge or information: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures".

Purity
Freedom from adulteration or contamination.
Freedom from immorality, esp. of a sexual nature.


So i dont see why you cant have ignorance that has not been adulterated by prejuducial knowledge, and is moral ignorance, ie refusal to acquire or accept certain knowledge. Such would be the nature of pure ignorance.

[tonybloke]

For the third, time, because you keep ignoring it:   Even by the  police's own statistics, speed is a contributory factor in only 20% of RTA's

ONLY 20% of road accidents? that seems enough, don't you think?

is there also some study into the number of serious injuries / deaths that happen at speeds exceeding the speed limit vs those at slower speeds?

[Hector]

Linksyokel...doesn't matter if you are a fab driver. If you are hit by a pratt at 30 you usually still survive without organ/brain damage....faster idiots cause more problems.

Having worked on a head injury unit I know what speed can do.

Its perfectly possible to kill somone at 3 MPH. You cant possibly blame speed in that case, and not take into account driver skill. And the same applies to all accidents.

For the third, time, because you keep ignoring it:   Even by the  police's own statistics, speed is a contributory factor in only 20% of RTA's - and thats the POLICE telling you this!! Who do you actually want to repeat it to you before you believe it - Secretary of State for Transport ??

I am not aware of ignoring anything but think we need a wee bit of perspective here...this is a forum thread...not Crown Court :) . I don't know if you realise it but your tone comes across as accusatory......not the stuff of genuine debate.

[lincsyokel2]

Linksyokel...doesn't matter if you are a fab driver. If you are hit by a pratt at 30 you usually still survive without organ/brain damage....faster idiots cause more problems.

Having worked on a head injury unit I know what speed can do.

Its perfectly possible to kill somone at 3 MPH. You cant possibly blame speed in that case, and not take into account driver skill. And the same applies to all accidents.

For the third, time, because you keep ignoring it:   Even by the  police's own statistics, speed is a contributory factor in only 20% of RTA's - and thats the POLICE telling you this!! Who do you actually want to repeat it to you before you believe it - Secretary of State for Transport ??

I am not aware of ignoring anything but think we need a wee bit of perspective here...this is a forum thread...not Crown Court :) . I don't know if you realise it but your tone comes across as accusatory......not the stuff of genuine debate.

heres a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407521/Only-20-road-accidents-caused-breaking-speed-limit.html

even in 2006, speed was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents.  There is a huge mass of evidence that shows you are on the wrong track. If you want to reduce road accidents, and make the road s safer, you need to addres sthe MAIN causes of road accidents, which is driver training, road layout and vehicle safety. THESE are the three main areas where improvements have caused the drop in road deaths. Why on earth do you want to concentrate o nthe one factor, speed, that has the minimal effect of road safety? Do you not want to improve it? 


The group most likely to cause accidents are under 25's - again, THIS is the group that shoudl have the resources dircted at it, not wasted on randonly siting cameras on the offchance you catch peopel speeding. Everyone speeds, even only montarily, its impossible to deny you do. But that momentary speeding is not the cause  of accidents.

Car accident statistics reveal a young population for who speeding is disturbingly commonplace.

    77% of young drivers will break the speed limit when overtaking.
    66% of young drivers will break the speed limit because they are in a rush.
    33% of young drivers will break the speed limit simply because it is night.
    47% of young drivers will break the speed limit in town areas.
    61% of young drivers will break the speed limit in country areas (where they are most likely to be involved in a fatal car accident).

So instead of wasting millions on cameras,  some of it would be better spent on compulsory advanced driver training for anyone under 25. In fact I woudl make it so that you cant drive after the age of 25 unless you have taken such a course.

There is a great variety of contributory factors that lead to road traffic crashes, most important of which are: the level of driver training; the general attitude of drivers; driver behaviour and the level of driver self-discipline, self regulation and law compliance. All of these relate to human factors in the road traffic environment.  None of these are addressed by speed cameras, and money spent on cameras diverts money away from these areas, hardly a good strategy for road safety.