middle-class anti-social behaviour
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 11 Aug 2010 11:37 Mike P <mikewpearson73(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> "I'll do as I like and stuff everyone else" seems to be the gist of >> this interview. I think she makes some valid points. >> >> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7933708/Julie-Spence- int...> >> >> "Mrs Spence has been critical of Theresa May, the Home Secretary, for >> taking an over-simplistic view of policing and being too quick to scrap >> "all things Labour". She supported the now defunct policing pledge - a >> 10-point promise guaranteeing issues such as response times - as long >> as it was not used as another target to measure police against. " > This woman's replacement (or boss, or another CPO) was interviewed on > R5L yesterday morning. > > He said, in not so many words, that she was talking bollocks. The class > thing she made a point of is bollocks, and rather refreshingly for a > plod, he said that bad driving causes most accidents, not speeding. He > said of course, speed is a factor in some, but most are caused simply by > inattention and/or bad driving. He won't last long. Bit on Radio4 the other day about Oxfordshire's speed camera removal. 70- odd camera sites across the county. In the 10 days since the cameras were all switched off, apparently they're still recording vehicles exceeding the limit - but not being used for prosecution. Much was made of the fact that one camera over five days showed an 88% increase. No mention of any collisions, of course. Another showed an 18% increase. Again, no mention of any collisions - and that one was mentioned far fewer times than the 88% one. No mention of the other five days at that camera, or the other 70-odd sites. Did I detect a hint of freshly picked cherries? I may just have done...
From: Brimstone on 11 Aug 2010 12:20 "Mike P" <mikewpearson73(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:09d29820-8114-4af2-955d-ada95b255388(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Aug, 22:38, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "I'll do as I like and stuff everyone else" seems to be the gist of this >> interview. I think she makes some valid points. >> >> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7933708/Julie-Spence-int...> >> >> "Mrs Spence has been critical of Theresa May, the Home Secretary, for >> taking >> an over-simplistic view of policing and being too quick to scrap "all >> things >> Labour". She supported the now defunct policing pledge - a 10-point >> promise >> guaranteeing issues such as response times - as long as it was not used >> as >> another target to measure police against. " > > > This woman's replacement (or boss, or another CPO) was interviewed on > R5L yesterday morning. > > He said, in not so many words, that she was talking bollocks. The > class thing she made a point of is bollocks, and rather refreshingly > for a plod, he said that bad driving causes most accidents, not > speeding. He said of course, speed is a factor in some, but most are > caused simply by inattention and/or bad driving. > The subject of the article I linked to made no mention of collisions or road accidents.
From: nospam on 11 Aug 2010 15:51 Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Much was made of the fact that one camera over five days showed an 88% >increase. No mention of any collisions, of course. Another showed an 18% >increase. Again, no mention of any collisions - and that one was >mentioned far fewer times than the 88% one. > >No mention of the other five days at that camera, or the other 70-odd >sites. > >Did I detect a hint of freshly picked cherries? I may just have done... And statistical misrepresentation. The week before they were turned off 8 people were caught speeding. The week after 15 people were speeding (but not caught) which is an 88% increase. Alternatively the week before 8 of the 10,000 passing the camera were speeding (0.08%) and 15 the week after (0.15%) which is an increase of 0.07%.
From: GT on 12 Aug 2010 06:11
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:6as$EGGcxaYMFwNF(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk... > In message <8ccno2FlurU2(a)mid.individual.net>, JNugent > <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> writes >>Ian Jackson wrote: >> >>> In the village where I live, there is a 30 limit. For a couple of >>> hundred yards, in the centre, past the shops, even 20 is too fast. I >>> usually drop to around 15. But it's surprising how many thrash through >>> at 50 or 60. Would a 20 limit really change their ways? >> >>A camera might. It sounds like the sort of place where one would actually >>be fully justified. > > Exactly. Rather than catching drivers doing 35 in a 30 limit (usually one > which really should be a 40), justice is better served by catching them > doing 25 in a 20 limit where even 15 is too fast. Sounds like another case of a town being on the main link road between big cities - drivers want to get from big place A to big place B, but unfortunately the road passes through some towns and villages and the drivers are fed up and have lost interest in the speed limit changing from 60 to 50 to 30 to 40 to 20 to 50 to 60 to 30 etc etc. Sounds like it would be better to spend the money improving the road, so drivers can confidentally drive along the road and pedestrians can safely walk along the pavement. A camera might help in the 100 yard stretch past the school where the cars slow down to avoid a financial penalty, but what about 200 yards up the road where the old people cross after their Tuesday afternoon bingo and the cars have sped up again, or 200 yards after that, next to the playfield, where the boys frequently kick their ball over the fence and run into the road to collect it... Speed cameras are seen by drivers as a financial penalty, not a critisism of their driving over the limit. Speed cameras don't inprove safety on the whole road, only in the tiny stretch where the white markers are painted. Speed cameras actually decrease safety on a road, because after passing the camera, drivers can speed up again safe in the knowledge that there will be no police presence (as there is a camera doing their work) and there is not going to be another camera for at least another mile. To improve road safety, we have to improve the design of the road - this costs money and won't happen, so the only alternative is to change peoples attitude to driving and their speed, which also isn't likely to happen in the next 10 years, so we have to find other ways of seperating pedestrians from cars - ample crossing points, clear views of the road (no parking on the main roads). fences along the edge of the pavements at 'problem' points etc etc. These measures are not expensive and would work! |