Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Dozens of car fault death crashes finally being investigated at long last but not here.
Next: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while usingmobile phones
From: oldMaxim on 23 Mar 2010 07:47 On 16 Mar, 16:31, john wright <j...(a)pegasus.f2s.com> wrote: > On 14/03/2010 13:48, oldMaxim wrote: > > > > > > > On 14 Mar, 13:36, Conor<co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 14/03/2010 13:25, oldMaxim wrote: > > >>> ...why's this a stupid law?? > > >> Because the governments own official statistics prove it is a nonsense.. > >> The figures for KSI have decreased over the last decade, meanwhile the > >> number of those using a mobile phone have increased exponentially even > >> in the years the KSI figures have reached record lows. All of this is > >> occurring as the total billion km travelled per year and number of > >> registered cars keeps on climbing. So as a percentage, the risk factor > >> drops off a cliff to the point that it is statistically insignificant. > > >> Yes it isn't clever and neither are a lot of other things people do > >> whilst driving but the figures prove that it isn't the death dealer the > >> government would like you to believe. It is merely something else the > >> govt can use as a revenue generator. > > Lies, Damned Lies and statistics - fact remains there have been > > numerous tragedies on the road where it's been proven that mobile > > phone use was a major factor, in other words if the mobile was taken > > out of the equation then the tragedy would have been avoided - it's > > all very well expecting folk to make a decision on whether to take or > > make a call based on if it's safe to do so or not, but the sad thing > > is that there are just so many drivers on the road who just aren't > > very bright and think it's fine to compose a text while driving up the > > high street. ....revenue generator, or a tax on stupidity? > > "Numerous" is not a statistically valid concept. I'm coming to the > conclusion that people who say "Lies, Damn Lies and statistics" are > admitting they know nothing about data collection. Anyone can quote any > number of anecdotes, but they don't add up to a statistical case. > > -- > > John Wright- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ....yawn, I've come to the conclusion that you're either an accountant or a politician - nuff said
From: Peter Hill on 23 Mar 2010 14:43 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:57:10 +0000, john wright <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> wrote: >On 14/03/2010 16:14, Peter Hill wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:46:36 -0000, "Rob" >> <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Mr. Benn wrote: >>> || >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257809/Record-number-motorists-prosecuted-driving-using-mobile-phones.html >>> || >>> || When are people going to get the message? >>> >>> What message? that motorists are nothing more than a permanent reliable >>> revenue stream for the exchequer? >>> Anyone who's been driving long enough will have already got that. >> >> Anyone that's been driving long enough but hasn't learnt how not to >> contribute to the exchequer is too stupid to hold a licence. > >Where do you get the fuel free of duty and VAT then? Propane has no duty unless you buy Autogas. Run a hot air ballon, develop domestic gas appliances, run a pub with patio heaters, anything that needs a lot of gas and claim the VAT back. -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
From: oldMaxim on 23 Mar 2010 15:00 On 23 Mar, 18:28, john wright <j...(a)pegasus.f2s.com> wrote: > On 23/03/2010 11:47, oldMaxim wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 Mar, 16:31, john wright<j...(a)pegasus.f2s.com> wrote: > >> On 14/03/2010 13:48, oldMaxim wrote: > > >>> On 14 Mar, 13:36, Conor<co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> On 14/03/2010 13:25, oldMaxim wrote: > > >>>>> ...why's this a stupid law?? > > >>>> Because the governments own official statistics prove it is a nonsense. > >>>> The figures for KSI have decreased over the last decade, meanwhile the > >>>> number of those using a mobile phone have increased exponentially even > >>>> in the years the KSI figures have reached record lows. All of this is > >>>> occurring as the total billion km travelled per year and number of > >>>> registered cars keeps on climbing. So as a percentage, the risk factor > >>>> drops off a cliff to the point that it is statistically insignificant. > > >>>> Yes it isn't clever and neither are a lot of other things people do > >>>> whilst driving but the figures prove that it isn't the death dealer the > >>>> government would like you to believe. It is merely something else the > >>>> govt can use as a revenue generator. > >>> Lies, Damned Lies and statistics - fact remains there have been > >>> numerous tragedies on the road where it's been proven that mobile > >>> phone use was a major factor, in other words if the mobile was taken > >>> out of the equation then the tragedy would have been avoided - it's > >>> all very well expecting folk to make a decision on whether to take or > >>> make a call based on if it's safe to do so or not, but the sad thing > >>> is that there are just so many drivers on the road who just aren't > >>> very bright and think it's fine to compose a text while driving up the > >>> high street. ....revenue generator, or a tax on stupidity? > > >> "Numerous" is not a statistically valid concept. I'm coming to the > >> conclusion that people who say "Lies, Damn Lies and statistics" are > >> admitting they know nothing about data collection. Anyone can quote any > >> number of anecdotes, but they don't add up to a statistical case. > >> - Show quoted text - > > > ...yawn, I've come to the conclusion that you're either an accountant > > or a politician - nuff said > > ... Yawn.... neither. Having said that I've come to the conclusion that > you know f*** all about statistics. > -- > John Wright > > Use your imagination Marvin! > > Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ....I'm 100% convinced you know nothing about me or my qualifications.... still think your an accountant though ;-)
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 14:42 Conor wrote: > On 23/03/2010 11:04, Ret. wrote: >> Conor wrote: >>> On 22/03/2010 09:33, Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> One of the pieces of university research >>> >>> ....from a country with 3x the number of accidents per capita.... >>> >>>> stated that the majority of >>>> accidents caused by mobile phone using drivers during the research >>>> was rear-end shunts. The drivers were so engrossed in their >>>> conversations that they did not notice that the cars in front had >>>> slowed down. By the time they did notice - braking was too late and >>>> the shunt occurred. >>> >>> ..Because they were Americans.. >>> >>> >>>> It simply seems so obvious to me. >>> >>> The figures disagree. >> >> And yet, elsewhere, I have pasted several articles where lorry >> drivers have done just that - even when the stopped vehicles could >> be seen from half a mile in advance. Maybe those lorry drivers >> thought like you - that they could do two things at once efficiently? >> >> Kev > > Yes, several articles. How many people do it on a regular basis? > > As I said, the figures prove differently. You're claiming itis a major > danger and more dangerous than drink driving yet the figures prove > otherwise even though millions do it. I repeat, *I* am not claiming anything. Numerous pieces of research done by different people, different organisations and in different countries are claiming that. Kev
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 14:52
Conor wrote: > On 23/03/2010 11:09, Ret. wrote: >> Conor wrote: >>> On 22/03/2010 12:06, Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> The cause of collisions will be recorded *if* they are known, and >>>> *if* the police attend. >>>> >>> >>> Why are the figures a record low year on year? >> >> My argument would be that UK roads are becoming so congested that >> traffic is moving slower and slower, and overtaking, one of the >> riskiest of manoeuvres, is almost impossible on many roads today >> because the quantity of opposing traffic. >> > > Congestion went down over the last two years due to the downturn in > the economy. Not that I've noticed... > >>> >>>> If, however, numerous pieces of research demonstrate that drivers >>>> using a mobile phone have reduced hazard perception, and delayed >>>> response to situations requiring a response, surely it makes sense >>>> to take action to deal with that? >>>> >>> >>> But you claimed it was lower than DD? The statistics disagree. >> >> I haven't claimed anything - I've merely linked to research that >> shows that. >> > > Which you claimed was correct. I'm merely stating that I accept it. In any case I'm not sure that I understand your point. What am I supposed to be claiming was lower than DD? > >>> >>> There were no mobile phones in 1926. There are fewer KSI than there >>> were in 1926. Explain. >> >> See above. Vast improvement in car design and crash protection. Vast >> increase in traffic congestion. Introduction of speed cameras that >> has definitely reduced serious speeding. >> > > BWAHAHA. Speed cameras have done SOD ALL to reduce speeding except in > the 100 yards either side of them. I still see people hooning up the > motorway at 100MPH on a regular basis. Your observation is poor then. Putting aside motorways, I very rarely, these days, see anyone on normal NSL roads doing much above 70. The limit is 60 and most people today seem to remain within 10 of the limits. On NSL roads, where it is safe to do so, I travel at a speedo indicated 70 mph which is a true 65 mph. At that speed I am very very very rarely overtaken - if ever. Motorways are different - and are treated differently by the police. The allow a greater margin and hence motorists do tend to drive faster. But even there, the majority seem to stick around 80 - 85 mph (indicated) and its only a small minority who drive at 100mph. Tripod mounted laser cameras are used on bridge overpasses, and by the time you see them - they have been recording your speed for some distance. Only idiots exceed an indicated 90 mph on motorways today... Kev |