Yesterday\'s DT Motoring had an article re the much-hated North Wales Chief Constable ,Mr Brunstrom .Guess what, he\'s not mad !
He may or may not be mad. But he makes other mad .......
www.arrivedeprived.org.uk
|
|
|
|
So that's sorted that then...
|
|
|
You state that three times more people are killed on the road than murdered, that doesn't mean that every one of those people is killed due to a speeding motorist.
Also, did you know that deaths on our roads have been reducing every year, for a long way back? Except, for the last few years, since such emphasis has been put onto cameras, the deaths have been increasing. (sorry, I don't have the number of years etc. to hand.
It's interesting how you can read one article, which relates one statistic, ignoring all others, and come to a conclusion.
It's also interesting how often Brunstrom relies on incomplete statistical evidence. Almost as if he knows that showing the complete picture would undermine his position.
I heartily recommend following the link someone just posted for a fuller picture.
|
Actually, if I've got my pages right, I'd recommend this one:
www.safespeed.org.uk/
even more strongly. Very well written, and (shock, horror) resorting to FACTS to prove it's point.
|
Sorry for the third post in a row, but just realised that something I posted in my first was incorrect. I posted that road deaths have increased, this is not the case.
The point is that since the introduction of cameras the rate of decrease has slowed. Not increased, as would be the case if cameras were saving lives.
|
|
Given the total number of of miles driven in the UK (25 million cars at 10,000 miles average p.a. ? at least 250 billion per year, and increasing?), I do wonder how realistic it is to expect any further reduction in the number of fatal accidents below the present level, other than by more advances in on-board safety devices to enhance the chances of survival in any sort of accident. Risk simply cannot be eliminated without making normal life intolerable.
|
It would also be useful to give a breakdown of fatalities. How many are caused by: drunk drivers; drunk pedestrians; old people and children walking in front of vehicles?
Speed cameras do not catch careless and drunk motorists.
|
The trouble with this rediculously infantile argument is that if taken to it's logical conclusion...
All drinkers should be locked up
All smokers should be locked up
All people who eat fish caught at sea should be locked up (or the fisherman - not sure which)
Driving a vehicle is a net benefit and a social and economic activity,
- stamping on someone's head, shooting or stabbing them with intent or otherwise is NOT!
|
I'm with Roger Jones and Sooty Taipipes on this. Slow traffic down and you slow the economy down. That's going to kill far more people from depression or suicide or even illness borought on by sitting in endless traffic jams than the number of lives that may be saved by persecuting drivers who are merely trying to be efficient.
HJ
|
Brunstron himself is aware that if he is caught speeding (his taxpayer provided car is a Mercedes capable of 160mph) he is finished.
I here and now pledge £100 to any person or organization that will commit to following him with the appropriate equipment until he is caught.
I assume he would not object to being followed, after all if he's got nothing to hide he shouldn't mind being watched, just like the rest of us, and if he's caught he's a criminal and criminals can't be police officers.
|
|
He has actually admitted to speeding in past interviews, but claimed that he feels 'increasingly guilty' when he does now. So he should if he truly believes his own rhetoric about it's effects.
|
|
Thommo, you can be a criminal and in the police. If you and I are on 'recreational' drugs we get the sack, drugged up plods get counselling in some forces!
|
|
\"Slow traffic down and you slow the economy down.\" In what way, Honest John? HGV traffic is speed limited already. In many instances, keeping speed down on major roads reduces conflict reduces jams and allows better flow - M25. In urban areas, average speed is already low, due to congestion and is little affected by maximum speeds reached between jams. I suspect a strong element of wishful thinking:)
|
|
In response to Nortones, HGV speed limiters are often cited by Backroomers as the reason why they cannot get anywhere due to one speed limited HGV trying to overtake another speed limited HGV because the driver of the overtaking HGV is trying to get somewhere within his legislated drivers driving hours. I would have been able to answer this question more fully if being held up by slow drivers and stupid speed limits did not reduce the amount of
|
One wonders which makes the council tax payers of Gwynedd happier
a. The fact that Brustrom's lot have caught lots of motorists speeding, including over 100 police officers and his own daughter.
b. The fact that his men have a 6% clear up rate on burglaries.
|
|
It's very telling about the state of this country, when people such as Brunstrom, with their hideously warped sense of reality and twisted imaginations hold positions of such influence and power, you don't have to look far to see the horrendous results.
|
|
In town (I drive in London a lot) the main cause of congestion and low average speeds is the excessive number of traffic lights, none of which are inter-linked to allow a steady passage at the posted speed limit, and extended all-red periods to allow non-existent pedestrians to cross at a snail's pace.
|
|
|
|
"Speed cameras do not catch careless and drunk motorists."
No, but they do catch people who break the speed limit, so they do exactly what it says on the tin.
Until someone invents a camera that can spot careless/drunk driving, at least it's a start.
|
Sadly, IIRC most fatalities involve either drunk/high drivers, motorcyclists, or cars/drivers with some other infringement. Sadder still that road safety messages focus on speed and not other forms of potential danger. Still more sad that enforcement is primarily directed at slowing people down to the (by and large) exclusion of other risks.
It may well be a start. However, if you start in the wrong direction then it can take a very long time to arrive at your intended destination and your passengers can get very irate in the process. They also begin to question your navigation ability.
|
Of course, there is a camera that can spot dangerous and drunk driving.
Its called a traffic policemam. We used to have them here - remember what they looked like?
|
Yes, I remember them - years ago, before everybody started bleating about how traffic police were persecuting the poor motorist and why didn't they get out of their high-powewred cars and back on the beat to catch muggers.....
Hence the rise of cameras! It's all about efficiency.
|
|
...and there's never been any significant advertising intended to persuade people not to drive while drunk ?!?!?!?!
|
...and there's never been any significant advertising intended to persuade people not to drive while drunk ?!?!?!?!
Of course there has, which shows that it is a serious issue.
So let's also have officers on hand who can detect those who nevertheless drink and drive, and catch them.
While they're at it, they can look for speeding, mechanical defects, agressive driving, sleepy drivers, and so on. Its a question of efficiency, methinks.
|
"road safety messages focus on speed and not other forms of potential danger"
Your quote that prompted my query. Not quite consistent with your subsequent confirmation that this is not the sole focus....
|
Try counting the proportion of vehicles with defective lights: only one headlight or a brake light not working for example.
You will find that about five percent (one in twenty vehicles) has one or the other u/s.
Travel at night on a rural road, what do you find: a convoy of vehicles led by one with only one headlight travelling at perhaps 20mph below the speed limit and a series of people trying to overtake.
Result: accidents.
Who do you blame: the person overtaking for misjudjudgement or the idiot who cannot be bothered to change a light bulb until the day before the annual MOT?
|
I don't recall ever "bleating" that there should be fewer traffic police, so not quite everybody took that view.
I was once stopped by a traffic car on the motorway, when young(er) and callow(er?). At the time I was scared rigid but the talking to that I received made me think carefully - not just about driving style but also about other factors, such as how long I left for the journey, how tired I was, and so on.
With retrospect, I appreciate the positive effect that WPC had, and am glad she was there. Her job was about improving road safety, not (per se) being an efficient fine collection process.
PS - Do I spot a note of envy for the desirable cars that were given to the policemen concerned, SR?
|
Forgive the slight exaggeration in using the word "everybody" - no worse than your earlier assertion about road safety messages focussing on speed.
There are plenty of other opportunities for education without relying on the police to do it. Maybe if young, callow (or otherwise) drivers would take some responsibility for their own actions they would pursue some of these options rather than wait for the worst to happen. Why should it take being stopped by the police to shake them into action? even if there were more traffic patrols, they can't be everywhere - what if the worst happens. Is it the police's fault for not having stopped that driver at some point to "educate" them?
The comment that prompted the suggestion of a "note of envy" referred to "campaigners" and politicians demanding that traffic officers be removed from their high-speed pursuit vehicles and dumped into Metros or back onto foot patrol.
|
Forgive the slight exaggeration in using the word "everybody" - no worse than your earlier assertion about road safety messages focussing on speed.
OK. I do see "slow down" messages far more often than "take care" messages, though, and I see speed enforcement regularly but no enforcement of other less tangible issues. On the last long drive that I took, I felt that I was at risk of accident on two occasions; both of these were caused by reckless drivers who was either not looking or not caring; both were below the speed limit.
There are plenty of other opportunities for education without relying on the police to do it. Maybe if young, callow (or otherwise) drivers would take some responsibility for their own actions they would pursue some of these options rather than wait for the worst to happen. Why should it take being stopped by the police to shake them into action? even if there were more traffic patrols, they can't be everywhere - what if the worst happens. Is it the police's fault for not having stopped that driver at some point to "educate" them?
In an ideal world, I would agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that such drivers do not realise that they need education. They need someone to tell them, or they need to have a serious accident. I'd rather they were told.
A NIP will not have that effect, IMHO. For whatever reason, they are seen as revenue collectors, especially amongst that group. Thus, the arrival of a NIP is not seen as a prompt to change their general driving behaviour, but simply an indication that they failed to escape and need to learn better evasion measures.
Of more concern is that cameras, visible or otherwise, are avoidable if you know how. Radar detectors exist and the determined speeder knows the camera sites. This kind of avoidance is widely regarded as acceptable now that cameras are seen as "unfair". Thus, the drivers who need their atitudes to change (i) tend not to be NIPped as they know how to avoid it and (ii) aren't jolted into action by a NIP. Meanwhile, the NIPs arrive in droves for those who are generally ok behind the wheel but who drift over 30 from time to time*.
I don't see crime or accidents as the "fault" of the police, and don't follow the logic of your argument here.
The comment that prompted the suggestion of a "note of envy" referred to "campaigners" and politicians demanding that traffic officers be removed from their high-speed pursuit vehicles and dumped into Metros or back onto foot patrol.
Fair enough!
*note that I am not condoning this, and personally regard 30 limits as some of the most important. My point is that the drivers we need to "get" most, are the best at avoiding current enforcement methods.
|
|
|
|
|
