Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

If my bedroom were open in a public place. No reason to accept a camera
in my private bedroom than there is to put a speed camera on a private road.

I agree that is a problem - camera should not be substitutional for
traffic police but I have no problem with them being a supplement.

They shouldn't but they do and they should not be killed for it. The
motoring death toll is equivalent to 100 Sohams a year. Would that
those deaths, each every bit as tragic to the family and friends,
attracted the same level of attention. But then we all know that
motoring deaths are just one of those things.

Tony

 

That doesn't seem to be an option on offer to us, though.

Is that not a failure in parental supervision?

Can we lose the unnecessarily emotive saccharine, please?

Don't forget that far more children are injured and killed every year by
parents and guardians than strangers.

 

It's certainly one option. It's basically what we used to have - policing by
human being. Sure, it's got it's failings, but it makes a lot more sense
than the current policy of robotic policing of one small part of the road
legislation while ignoring all others, and exempting from prosecution those
who are fundamentally dishonest enough to drive cars not registered to
themselves.

 

Indeed they are; our society is built around motorised transport and the
convenience it provides. However it is fundamentally true that if you have
metal vehicles capable of travelling at speed mixed with humans then
injuries and deaths will happen.

Our dependence on motorised transport demands a heavy sacrifice, in terms of
lives directly lost, dependency on diminishing resources and damage to the
environment, but we choose, as a society, to pay that price. If this was
not the case we would see hundreds of thousands marching through London,
demanding the outlawing of cars, bikes, trucks, planes, trains, etc.

It is tragic that people die on the roads, but the only way to prevent it is
to make a change to our lifestyles that none of us are prepared to make.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

I've dont that lots of times. Mum's car, Dad's car etc...

 

Got a breakdown of the 3500 deaths? How many were car occupants, how many
bystanders? How many were caused by people driving stolen cars? Etc.

(The number of deaths was steadilly reducing before "speed kills" began, and
since speed kills and proliferation of speed cameras, it hasn't changed at
all.)

 

Obviously, Tony was saying that parents shouldn't be put to death for not
supervising kids. I agree, just take the kids off them and throw the parents
in jail.

 

Adrian wrote>

I take it you are not a parent. But yes as a parent we fail and make
mistakes sometimes. That doesn't absolve motorists for driving in a way
to minimise the chances of killing a child in those circumstances.

Not if you count children injured and killed by strangers in motor vehicles.

Tony

 

That would be good. We could extend it to all laws and leave it to the
police to lock up who they think deserves it. Of course, people might
complain.

Tony

 

AndrewR wrote

It doesn't have to be like that. Nobody would accept it from the airline
industry or the railway industry if they just shrugged their shoulders
and said "Well you know, accidents happen, what do you expect?" There
are plenty of ways of reducing accidents. Nobody would accept an
airline pilot saying "I know you told me to hold on the apron but I
could see the other plane coming in to land and knew if I was sharpish
about it I could get on the runway and take off before he touched down".
The pilot wouldn't be allowed near a plane ever again for that sort of
action.

Tony

 

Minimize by not travelling then. Is that what you are proposing? If not,
then you are simply reaching a ballance.

I wonder how many kids would run out into the road if cars drove at 100mph
with 1 car every 2 seconds down residential streets?

 

Especially the parents of said kids, given the traffic on the 2 mile school
run.

 

When? Most of the current regulations have been in place since I
passed my test over 20 years ago, and as far as I can tell a goodly
number of the current traffic restrictions date back to the early
years of the last Century, when they were introduced in response to
motorists' consistent failure to exercise good judgement.

Guy

 

Straw man. The valid comparison would be city centre CCTV cameras,
with which I have no problem at all.

You are confusing cause and effect, I think. The cause of reduced
traffic policing at a time of rising police numbers is that traffic
policing is not a "core duty", and is not included in the indicators
by which forces' performance is measured. I think this is the result
of a certain faction in the press, who seem to think that the proper
role for the Police is guarding Middle Britain's video recorders
rather than preventing middle britain form killing people on the
roads.

Ah, so you think residential streets should be off-limits to anyone
not adequately deferential to motor traffic? JS Dean predicted that
would happen, and it seems he was right.

Where residential streets have been turned into "home zones" the
result has been a massive improvement in road safety. The improvement
is achieved by reducing the danger at source, rather than by deferring
to it. As a side-effect, community life also improves.

I suggest you read "One False Move" by Mayer Hillman and John
Whitelegg, though, as they said it far better than I can.

Guy

 

Namely: driving carefully and attentively.

Guy

 

[19 lines snipped]

Naah. It means you can spot the idiots at a distance. A little like
foglights.

The NHS kills 24 times as many people a year as the roads do.

 

Speed Kills has been a consistent theme of road safety education since
I was old enough to notice. And the fact is, speed /does/ kill, with
the probability of fatality related to the fourth power of speed.

Another thing which I think kills is the kind of driver who is so
determined toget to his destination as fast as possible, that they are
not prepared to accept the restrictions of road traffic law. That
doesn't sound like the actions of a safe driver, does it?

Guy

 

No, that may _help_ to _reduce_ fatalities, but it won't end them.

If you accept that deaths will happen because of the life we choose then,
beyond that, we're just quibbling over how many are "acceptable".


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Be a good enough start, though.

With the balance of acceptable risk being decided by the ones least
likely to die, in the case of driving.

Guy

 

But we do accept it from both of those industries. We know that planes and
trains crash, often causing massive loss of life. The only way to have zero
fatalities is to have zero transport beyond walking.

Yes, there are plenty of ways of "reducing" accidents, but the point that
was originally being made was that every death on the roads causes just as
much tragedy as a child being murdered.

Once we accept that transport is necessary we sign-up to some people having
to die for that principle.

You can either take the stance that every death has terrible consequences
and should, therefore, never be allowed to happen (in which case we have to
give up our vehicles) or you can accept that people have to die.

If you take the former view, which we almost all do, then there's no moral
high-ground in complaining about the number of people killed.

It's like the old joke of a guy chatting to a woman in a bar ... "Would you
sleep with me for a million pounds?" he asks. She thinks about it and then
says that she would. "Well I haven't got a million pounds", he tells her,
"so will you sleep with me for fifty pounds?". She slaps him across the
face and yells, "What kind of girl do you think I am?".

"We've already established what kind of girl you are", he tells her, "now
we're just haggling over the price".


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.