Have they nothing better to do than to persecute motorists
09 November 2007, 01:20 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your mum should be in a cinquitcento! no woman who drives like that should be in a vehicle that weighs two tonnes plus!!!!
09 November 2007, 01:22 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
I think the point of this suggestion is to hit those who speed WELL over the limit get hit harder than those who don't.
And it is impossible to argue against that point - the Infraction System on SN has different points for the percieved disruption of a post.
We all know that a fighter pilot aged 35 in a performance car will cope with speed better than a 75 year old in a Proton - but, you cannot have one speed limit for one and another for the other (at least, I don't think you can!?)
It could be argued that doing 36 MPH in a 30 MPH limit will not cause an accident, but doing 45 MPH in a 30 MPH limit will give rise to a much higher risk.
Whatever the symantics, the fact is that a child hit at 45 MPH will probably die - at 30 MPH that child will probably live ...... whether the driver is a fighter pilot or grandad with failing sight doesn't make any odds about the outcome if that collision occurs.
When I got 'done' speeding about 15 years ago, I certainly did not like it and I got as stroppy as some on here get when caught. I wrote to the Chief Constable in the strongest possible terms regarding his officers hitting the 'school run' as it was an 'Easy Target' ..... his answer sticks in my mind to this day and it was, simply, .......
"Mr Lewis, the only Soft Target we are interested in is a childs body"
Since then I am an absolute supporter of a speed limit, if fairly applied, and of heavy penalties for those who purposefully ignore that limit.
And it is impossible to argue against that point - the Infraction System on SN has different points for the percieved disruption of a post.
We all know that a fighter pilot aged 35 in a performance car will cope with speed better than a 75 year old in a Proton - but, you cannot have one speed limit for one and another for the other (at least, I don't think you can!?)
It could be argued that doing 36 MPH in a 30 MPH limit will not cause an accident, but doing 45 MPH in a 30 MPH limit will give rise to a much higher risk.
Whatever the symantics, the fact is that a child hit at 45 MPH will probably die - at 30 MPH that child will probably live ...... whether the driver is a fighter pilot or grandad with failing sight doesn't make any odds about the outcome if that collision occurs.
When I got 'done' speeding about 15 years ago, I certainly did not like it and I got as stroppy as some on here get when caught. I wrote to the Chief Constable in the strongest possible terms regarding his officers hitting the 'school run' as it was an 'Easy Target' ..... his answer sticks in my mind to this day and it was, simply, .......
"Mr Lewis, the only Soft Target we are interested in is a childs body"
Since then I am an absolute supporter of a speed limit, if fairly applied, and of heavy penalties for those who purposefully ignore that limit.
09 November 2007, 01:39 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Luan Pra bang;7397101]The trouble is sometimes bad drivers don't crash very often. My mother is one of those that drives a great big 4x4 and can hardly see out of it. She pretty much drives at 45 mph every where wether its a 30 limit or a 70 limit. She has loads of speeding tickets as she is pretty oblivious to everything around her but, by some strange piece of chance has not been involved in an accident for over 20 years. as far as I know she has only ever been in one car accident in her driving life.
IDIOT GET PEOPLE LIKE HER OFF THE ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IDIOT GET PEOPLE LIKE HER OFF THE ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
09 November 2007, 02:44 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC NEWS | UK | Rising speed penalties pondered
Rising speed penalties pondered!!!!!
Dont get me wrong, i agree with clamping down on people who think its ok to roar through built up areas, in fact anyone who thinks its ok to blast through a built up area at 50 or 60 should be shot but how many times have you hit a road that has had the speed limit lowered, for instance there is a road near me which is a dual carriageway, away from houses and near industrial units you'd think at least 40 or 50 - er no its a 30mph i dont know anyone that does 30 down it and the police know this.
how many roads do you go down that has had the speed limit lowered and you think bloody hell thats a bit low.
I'm all for road safety but this is ridiculous
many a time you see them with their scamera vans - a right result sarge.
I geuinely believe it has bugger all to do with safety and more to do with raising revenue because this bloody goverment is that incompetant with OUR money they need to look into anyway to tax us more.
Why wont a mainstream party support the millions of motorists that are on the roads
when will it end? i've asked the question before, is the days of the performance car nearing an end.
Well i think its round the corner
P.s. and as for Cameron, you can stick your green policies where the sun doesn't shine.
Rising speed penalties pondered!!!!!
Dont get me wrong, i agree with clamping down on people who think its ok to roar through built up areas, in fact anyone who thinks its ok to blast through a built up area at 50 or 60 should be shot but how many times have you hit a road that has had the speed limit lowered, for instance there is a road near me which is a dual carriageway, away from houses and near industrial units you'd think at least 40 or 50 - er no its a 30mph i dont know anyone that does 30 down it and the police know this.
how many roads do you go down that has had the speed limit lowered and you think bloody hell thats a bit low.
I'm all for road safety but this is ridiculous
many a time you see them with their scamera vans - a right result sarge.
I geuinely believe it has bugger all to do with safety and more to do with raising revenue because this bloody goverment is that incompetant with OUR money they need to look into anyway to tax us more.
Why wont a mainstream party support the millions of motorists that are on the roads
when will it end? i've asked the question before, is the days of the performance car nearing an end.
Well i think its round the corner
P.s. and as for Cameron, you can stick your green policies where the sun doesn't shine.
I must be developing extra patience these days because I find it so much cheaper and less of a worry to obey the speed limits. I do think it is important in built up areas though.
I like the idea of Brendan's clever traffic lights and I agree with Clare in that we need far more traffic cops to really police the roads and to catch the real criminal drivers such as the uninsured, unlicenced and MOT'd etc.
It is of course easy to hit the motorist for speeding with scams and make lots of cash out of it and save money on speedcops. This is a flawed philosophy and demonstrates that this creepy lot in charge are interested in cash rather than protecting the people.
As a matter of interest, I know a 73 year old who is known as "sideways" and leaves many others for dead on the racetracks!
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 09 November 2007 at 02:46 PM.
09 November 2007, 02:48 PM
#37
I think the point of this suggestion is to hit those who speed WELL over the limit get hit harder than those who don't.
If we can agree that it is impossible to determine a safe speed for a given stretch of road, regardless of weather conditions, number of parked cars on it, time of day, vehicle weight, tyre condition, braking systems, driver ability, alertness, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Then there is no value in including "speed limit" into the equation. The current speed limits CANNOT be considered to be a guide as to the speed you should be travelling in order to remain safe IMHO. They are simply a speed you should stay within in order to not break the law. These are clearly two seperate things.
Again. I'm not saying there is an easy solution to this, but what I don't like is saying "right, from now on we're going to keep ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the same, APART FROM, we're now going to charge people double for breaking this meaningless law."
-
I never get stroppy when caught for speeding. (and that's happened a few times!).. because its my own stupid fault. If there was a law which said you must crash your car into a lamp post every time you went out, it would still be my fault if I knew the law and didn't do it.
What I'm saying, is that I think the law is based on a meaningless measurement.
-
In other words. I support your statement about a "childs body" being something to protect, and I couldn't agree more.. that's why I tend to drive WAY SLOWER than 30MPH in built up areas, and near schools - and that's in my high performance car being driven by an ex semi-pro test driver, and limit handling world record holder. I personally think 30MPH is way too fast in many circumstance.
I'm asking.. Is the "speed limit" system, actually protecting that childs body? Or would a different system be more appropriate and save more lives?
Last edited by ex-webby; 09 November 2007 at 02:51 PM.
09 November 2007, 03:13 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
), a driving course, IAM lessons etc.
09 November 2007, 03:20 PM
#39
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 November 2007, 09:19 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As pointed out earlier every circumstance is different. I would argue that any conviction was 'unfair' if an experienced traffic cop declared it to be so.
Point in fact, someone 45 mph driving on a 40 limit road which had a 50mph limit a week before, at 4am, no traffic around and a sober driver. If this speed happened to catch this driver, would he feel aggreived if someone else he knew could swerve all over the road at 40 mph pissed as a fart on the school run, knowing the guy wouldn't trigger the speed camera.
All sense of personal judgement has been taken out of the equation which is very dangerous.
I would severly limit fixed cameras and do away with all mobile traps. I find a lot of the time I'm looking for these cameras or traps even if I'm going under the limit. I would also come down very hard on anyone deemed at fault through speeding any damage or injury through their driving, something that does not happen at the moment. From joyriding to mowing down and killing others the penalties are simply not harsh enough.
Last edited by scoobynutta555; 09 November 2007 at 09:22 PM.
10 November 2007, 01:32 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, in Portugal / Lisbon there is a fantastic system for preventing speeding. Traffic lights have sensors 200m or so in front. Trigger the sensor by too high a speed, the lights go red. You're brought to a stop then allowed to continue. It's brilliant, no-one wants to be brought to a stop so they stick to the limit.
MEMO:
What's the uplift/commercials/projected margin on this Brendan? In commercial terms it surely seems suicidal - I can not project any return to fund the install let alone schedule the maintenance?
It's therefore clearly an absurd idea and should immediately be discounted (I can bring in environmental issues here too in case anyone, God forbid, starts liking it). So, please go away and think of something that will be self sustaining, self propagating, works well on paper and that I can then seriously propose in the boardroom and then to our shareholders.
Aim for something that lessens our responsibilities but make our whole division look more pro-active. Make it easily outsourcable (we dont need the hassle!) and out-manegable. Ohh and a bullet point on some tenuous link to more 'safety' for all the 4 wheeled numpties out there (who'll crash whatever you do, LOL) might help me get it through with the politicos. I'll be on the Blackberry meantime.
DIIMH! [Do it, implement it, make it happen]
Chief Con
PS try and bundle in a foreign research trip
Last edited by Diesel; 10 November 2007 at 01:37 PM.
10 November 2007, 02:40 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with this whole thing is that speeding is a flawed system for measurement of safety.
Lets argue, that a brand new Porsche with ceramic brakes on soft rubber in the dry, being driven by a fighter pilot who's just had 4 cups of coffee, is safe to be driven down a road at 60MPH.
Are you telling me now that a robin reliant, being driven by a 75 year old, who's on the final 5 miles after driving from Scotland to Essex, non-stop, on barely legal tyres on a wet road is just as safe at 60MPH?
The whole system is innacurate, and meaningless, which means that either those who drive alert, with excellent, road worthy cars and an excellent understanding of road safety, are made to drive far too slowly, or alternatively, those with crap cars, with dodgy brakes, and nearly bald tyres, with a total disregard for safety are allowed to drive WAY beyond their, and their cars' capabilities.
-
So, what happens? It ends up some kind of weird average.. which means nobody wins.
Now.. I'm not suggesting there is an easy solution to this, as "what do you do?". But I think from both sides..
From Us:
There's no point saying "This road should be a much higher speed limit", unless you mean "If I was driving a sack of crap down this road, half asleep, in the wet, it would be safe to go much faster".
From Them:
All this blanket, automated camera based, non-intuitive, judgement free, penalties is NEVER going to solve the problem. Mr 60MPH will still have accidents, regardless of whether he's within the speed limit. The only way to get close is to have twice as many police on the roads, and get them empowered to judge what's safe and what's not.
-
It would be very interesting indeed to see stats as follows :
Percentage of speeding-fine receivers, who have caused an accident.
Percentage of non-speeding-fine receivers, who have caused an accident.
Then we'll find out whether speeding fines are targetting those who cause accidents or not.
-
As you can probably tell, I wasn't completely in favour of the news this morning!!
Lets argue, that a brand new Porsche with ceramic brakes on soft rubber in the dry, being driven by a fighter pilot who's just had 4 cups of coffee, is safe to be driven down a road at 60MPH.
Are you telling me now that a robin reliant, being driven by a 75 year old, who's on the final 5 miles after driving from Scotland to Essex, non-stop, on barely legal tyres on a wet road is just as safe at 60MPH?
The whole system is innacurate, and meaningless, which means that either those who drive alert, with excellent, road worthy cars and an excellent understanding of road safety, are made to drive far too slowly, or alternatively, those with crap cars, with dodgy brakes, and nearly bald tyres, with a total disregard for safety are allowed to drive WAY beyond their, and their cars' capabilities.
-
So, what happens? It ends up some kind of weird average.. which means nobody wins.
Now.. I'm not suggesting there is an easy solution to this, as "what do you do?". But I think from both sides..
From Us:
There's no point saying "This road should be a much higher speed limit", unless you mean "If I was driving a sack of crap down this road, half asleep, in the wet, it would be safe to go much faster".
From Them:
All this blanket, automated camera based, non-intuitive, judgement free, penalties is NEVER going to solve the problem. Mr 60MPH will still have accidents, regardless of whether he's within the speed limit. The only way to get close is to have twice as many police on the roads, and get them empowered to judge what's safe and what's not.
-
It would be very interesting indeed to see stats as follows :
Percentage of speeding-fine receivers, who have caused an accident.
Percentage of non-speeding-fine receivers, who have caused an accident.
Then we'll find out whether speeding fines are targetting those who cause accidents or not.
-
As you can probably tell, I wasn't completely in favour of the news this morning!!
The only thing I would add is that over a decade ago we had the safest roads in Europe. We were the envy of our neighbours. Since the mid eighties road casualties have continued to rise year on year. This unabated rise is almost without exception. It is also true to say that during this time was when the speed camera came out on our roads.
It is entirely obvious that since we no longer have the safest roads in Europe, we are doing something wrong. We have lost our lead, and have to accept that the policies we are following are responsible for this.
Judging the actual cause is hard. Its clear something is wrong, and in fact it is more likely to be a combination of factors. It is also clear that year on year more and more cameras are used. More drivers have points, more people are losing their jobs, yet more people are dying. This idea of hitting drivers over the head with punitive measures is just not delivering the results we all need.
The policies we are following have to be re-thought. If we don't, all we will have is a rich Government, rich speed camera manufacturers and extra deaths that could have been avoided.
Last edited by Luminous; 10 November 2007 at 02:44 PM.
10 November 2007, 08:20 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The only thing I would add is that over a decade ago we had the safest roads in Europe. We were the envy of our neighbours. Since the mid eighties road casualties have continued to rise year on year. This unabated rise is almost without exception. It is also true to say that during this time was when the speed camera came out on our roads.
It is entirely obvious that since we no longer have the safest roads in Europe, we are doing something wrong. We have lost our lead, and have to accept that the policies we are following are responsible for this.
It is entirely obvious that since we no longer have the safest roads in Europe, we are doing something wrong. We have lost our lead, and have to accept that the policies we are following are responsible for this.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsa...2006_final.pdf
The only big headline last year was that fatalities are not dropping very much (see Fig 10). It's a problem, that's true, but when you see how low they were to start with compared to all the other countries, it's perhaps because they can't fall much lower?
Fill your boots with other road safety stats if you want to see how the UK compares (approximately):
European Commission - Road Safety -
BTW, one simple fact as to why people are asked to go slower: they may still be crap drivers, but an accident at 30mph will cause a lot less damage than the same one at 50mph.
10 November 2007, 10:21 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, one simple fact as to why people are asked to go slower: they may still be crap drivers, but an accident at 30mph will cause a lot less damage than the same one at 50mph.
10 November 2007, 11:19 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick Update on last Memo:
Head of Press & PR, Rhys Hughes (one of us - Meredydd's lad - luckily) has just called re todays bad publicity for the increased speeding points proposal. Whilst this is a predictable 'iIll go as fast as I bloody well like like' whinging public and media response (esp the older ones, used to the discretion the old school management) we do still need to respond.
My initial thoughts are that if we ban someone for doing ninety on the motorway twice, they will be off the road for 6 months. In the current system however, we have 4 bites of the points cherry - this potentialy produces a greater income and has less chance of 'downtime'. Clearly the new proposal is less in our commercial interest, and it is no wonder I am starting to get calls from our friends in the vans. This is particularly untimely given the final salary pension discussions we are currently having with these sub-contractors. I'll rope in Meredydd to a quiet meet and re-assure our speeding Gestapo that although 90 in a 60 is a bit dodgy its probably not that much of an issue on a motorway - well the Germans aren't dropping like flies are they, and my driver goes faster than that when I'm late for a W.I. speech!
If the politicos lean on me,so as we are all seen to be doing something - no matter how unpopular or ineffective - it might have to go the other way. So if you have any Google links to motoring related deaths or decapitations (doesnt have to be drug or drink free - just needs to involve some forward momentum) these will be most welcome. The more grusome the better really - lets shake up these greasy arsed local journos who have never been to a murder scene or mortuary LOL. Also as the Independent Police Complaints Comission is cool with it; even if the mum doesnt even know her lad's dead, lets go to press asap - our needs are greater! Bloody whining parents - 'my lad does no wrong' as usual, so why's his head on the floor love????!!!
So, lets all keep an eye on the speedo for a few days now (or put the blues on permanently) as I dont want any more truth being spread about hypocrisy and missing the bigger picture; its just not in anyone's interest.
BTW Im in Cape Caneveral for the next few days now, as they have a device that can reverse GPS a car's speed! We can therefore log anyone with a Sat Nav's speed and bill them accordingly. These Yankls are so much more commercial than us!
DIIMIH
Chief Con {
must set up my own Blog rather than bother you here}
Head of Press & PR, Rhys Hughes (one of us - Meredydd's lad - luckily) has just called re todays bad publicity for the increased speeding points proposal. Whilst this is a predictable 'iIll go as fast as I bloody well like like' whinging public and media response (esp the older ones, used to the discretion the old school management) we do still need to respond.
My initial thoughts are that if we ban someone for doing ninety on the motorway twice, they will be off the road for 6 months. In the current system however, we have 4 bites of the points cherry - this potentialy produces a greater income and has less chance of 'downtime'. Clearly the new proposal is less in our commercial interest, and it is no wonder I am starting to get calls from our friends in the vans. This is particularly untimely given the final salary pension discussions we are currently having with these sub-contractors. I'll rope in Meredydd to a quiet meet and re-assure our speeding Gestapo that although 90 in a 60 is a bit dodgy its probably not that much of an issue on a motorway - well the Germans aren't dropping like flies are they, and my driver goes faster than that when I'm late for a W.I. speech!
If the politicos lean on me,so as we are all seen to be doing something - no matter how unpopular or ineffective - it might have to go the other way. So if you have any Google links to motoring related deaths or decapitations (doesnt have to be drug or drink free - just needs to involve some forward momentum) these will be most welcome. The more grusome the better really - lets shake up these greasy arsed local journos who have never been to a murder scene or mortuary LOL. Also as the Independent Police Complaints Comission is cool with it; even if the mum doesnt even know her lad's dead, lets go to press asap - our needs are greater! Bloody whining parents - 'my lad does no wrong' as usual, so why's his head on the floor love????!!!
So, lets all keep an eye on the speedo for a few days now (or put the blues on permanently) as I dont want any more truth being spread about hypocrisy and missing the bigger picture; its just not in anyone's interest.
BTW Im in Cape Caneveral for the next few days now, as they have a device that can reverse GPS a car's speed! We can therefore log anyone with a Sat Nav's speed and bill them accordingly. These Yankls are so much more commercial than us!
DIIMIH
Chief Con {
must set up my own Blog rather than bother you here}
Last edited by Diesel; 10 November 2007 at 11:21 PM.
10 November 2007, 11:32 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fill your boots with other road safety stats if you want to see how the UK compares (approximately):
European Commission - Road Safety -
European Commission - Road Safety -
D (not Chief Con
)
12 November 2007, 02:26 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dissagree.
If we can agree that it is impossible to determine a safe speed for a given stretch of road, regardless of weather conditions, number of parked cars on it, time of day, vehicle weight, tyre condition, braking systems, driver ability, alertness, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Then there is no value in including "speed limit" into the equation. The current speed limits CANNOT be considered to be a guide as to the speed you should be travelling in order to remain safe IMHO. They are simply a speed you should stay within in order to not break the law. These are clearly two seperate things.
Again. I'm not saying there is an easy solution to this, but what I don't like is saying "right, from now on we're going to keep ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the same, APART FROM, we're now going to charge people double for breaking this meaningless law."
-
I never get stroppy when caught for speeding. (and that's happened a few times!).. because its my own stupid fault. If there was a law which said you must crash your car into a lamp post every time you went out, it would still be my fault if I knew the law and didn't do it.
What I'm saying, is that I think the law is based on a meaningless measurement.
-
In other words. I support your statement about a "childs body" being something to protect, and I couldn't agree more.. that's why I tend to drive WAY SLOWER than 30MPH in built up areas, and near schools - and that's in my high performance car being driven by an ex semi-pro test driver, and limit handling world record holder. I personally think 30MPH is way too fast in many circumstance.
I'm asking.. Is the "speed limit" system, actually protecting that childs body? Or would a different system be more appropriate and save more lives?
If we can agree that it is impossible to determine a safe speed for a given stretch of road, regardless of weather conditions, number of parked cars on it, time of day, vehicle weight, tyre condition, braking systems, driver ability, alertness, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Then there is no value in including "speed limit" into the equation. The current speed limits CANNOT be considered to be a guide as to the speed you should be travelling in order to remain safe IMHO. They are simply a speed you should stay within in order to not break the law. These are clearly two seperate things.
Again. I'm not saying there is an easy solution to this, but what I don't like is saying "right, from now on we're going to keep ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the same, APART FROM, we're now going to charge people double for breaking this meaningless law."
-
I never get stroppy when caught for speeding. (and that's happened a few times!).. because its my own stupid fault. If there was a law which said you must crash your car into a lamp post every time you went out, it would still be my fault if I knew the law and didn't do it.
What I'm saying, is that I think the law is based on a meaningless measurement.
-
In other words. I support your statement about a "childs body" being something to protect, and I couldn't agree more.. that's why I tend to drive WAY SLOWER than 30MPH in built up areas, and near schools - and that's in my high performance car being driven by an ex semi-pro test driver, and limit handling world record holder. I personally think 30MPH is way too fast in many circumstance.
I'm asking.. Is the "speed limit" system, actually protecting that childs body? Or would a different system be more appropriate and save more lives?
Les
12 November 2007, 06:58 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 November 2007, 10:43 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you see that councillor chap on Dispatches tonight? He was fighting the Pratnerships as they suck up all the county road safety budget, leaving none for any other stuff, like education at schools etc.
I know I rant a lot, but this stuff is just so bad for our collective safety, and my kids', and I saw through it a long time ago.
D
I know I rant a lot, but this stuff is just so bad for our collective safety, and my kids', and I saw through it a long time ago.
D
13 November 2007, 12:16 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, watched Dispatches last night. Good to see someone on primetime tv making a stand. Richard Littlejohn has done a good piece on it today too in his column in The Mail.
He lightheartedly advocated fining those in the NHS who don't wash their hands between patients. Then complains that even thought the NHS kills more peple per year from superbugs etc there doesn't seem to be the zeal around to stop this compared to the actions taken against drivers.
He lightheartedly advocated fining those in the NHS who don't wash their hands between patients. Then complains that even thought the NHS kills more peple per year from superbugs etc there doesn't seem to be the zeal around to stop this compared to the actions taken against drivers.
13 November 2007, 03:31 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree that it is long time that not only that children were taught traffic sense as a pedestrian in a proper manner, but that there was a jaywalking law in this country so that all pedestrians could be fined for the ridiculously dangerous manner in which which they behave on the roads these days, especially in towns.
Les
13 November 2007, 04:09 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
BTW, if anyone's still awake, a ton of info here. A few bits in the original (raving lefty) article, plenty from the pro and anti contributors following.
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | The anti-speed-camera campaign is built on twisted truth and junk science
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | The anti-speed-camera campaign is built on twisted truth and junk science
13 November 2007, 04:11 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: There is only one God - Elvis!
Posts: 8,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest its not the kids that need teaching to cross the road its the bloody adults, i swear some of the things i've seen on the road with pedestrians astounds me it really does.
A jaywalking law would be a great idea
A jaywalking law would be a great idea
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post