Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Nobody is hanged; it is no different to asking a crowd of bystanders
for a description of the mugger. Except it's generally more accurate.

Neither would I. On the other hand, I see definite benefits in ANPR.

Just as they have to go to great efforts to get their money back after
credit card fraud or phishing scams. Criminals are bastards that way.

An odd idea. I have already mentioned one thing ANPR could deter:
leaving the scene. It happens more and more, as people realise that
the penalty for leaving the scene is lower than that for drunk
driving. If somebody clones my number plate (which they have
threatened to do, thanks to my unpopular views on speeding) I will
just have to fight.

Nabbing the plate number of the vehicles in the vicintiy at the time.
Compare with the descriptions ("dark coloured Renault") and you
rapidly end up outside the house of the Naughty Man.

Other criminals pose less risk to society than careless motorists, as
measured by deaths and serious injuries caused.

Not at all. A harsher treatment of those who flee the scene might,
though.

Within a decade most cars would be chipped.

Guy

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

No, there isn't. An MOT is merely a snapshot of the condition of certain
arbitrary aspects of a car's condition on one day.

It *in no way* inherently implies roadworthiness, nor does the absence of
an MOT - or even a failure certificate - inherently imply the opposite.

It's perfectly possible for a lethal shed to pass an MOT. Equally, it's
perfectly possible for a completely safe car to fail on a minor
technicality.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

That does not disagree with my previous comment.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

As do I. It doesn't mean I don't have big reservations, though.

Not so. Just ask a certain footballer, who thought that but has been proved
wrong. He's got plenty of time to rue his mistake.

 

You'll get sand up your nose, burying your head in the sand like
that...

Guy

 

Yep. Could often be so.

John B

 

Just zis Guy, you know? says...

I don't have an MOT on the car I drive every day, but WGAF?

 

I don't hide form it, I work to minimise it, rather than pretending it
is not a problem. You seem to prefer to carry on rregardless on the
grounds that because you can't be perfect you're not going to try at
all.

And impose a whole lot of other controls, so that we can actualkly
allow people with marginal skills to benefit from car ownership. Only
problem is, a large number of drivers think they are better than they
are and end up spoiling it. Sometimes permanently.

Every single set of figures ever published shows that risk rises with
increasing speed. Some (e.g. P**l Sm*th) pretend this is not so;
their methods never stand up to scrutiny.

Wherever you are, whatever the conditions, there is no possible doubt
that the risk is higher, all other things being equal, if you are
travelling faster than if you are travelling slower.

Probability of fatality rises with the fourth power of speed. Speed
kills. Proportion of pedestrians hit at 40mph who die: 90%.
Proporiton at 30mph: 45%. Speed kills. It is not rocket science.

And speed increases the probability of bad driving ending up in a
crash, and if a crash happens, of it ending up as a fatality. There
is simply no way of avoiding the laws of physics here.

Oh I am all in favour of tackling the other causal factors as well
(1/3 of crashes are caused primarily by excess speed, another 1/3 only
have it as a nacessary subsidiary cause), but that would involve
depriving a fairly significant proportion of the driving public of the
privilege of driving. Which would be /very/ unpopular.

Quite. The test is designed to make it as easy as possible to get a
license.

Bikers can be targeted (with some justificaiton) as mad irresposbile
testosterone-fuelled louts who kill themselves. There are votes in
"think of the children", with the children in question being
seventeen-year-old tearaways.

Yup. Which party is going to go to the electorate with periodic
retests and losing your license if you fail?

Which, of course, they aren't, as the camera partnerships are
non-profit. Of course, ion the old days when you culd have empty
boxes and the cameras wer ehidden, it was much easier to justify their
being a genuine enforcement measure. Who was it pressed for their
effectiveness to be emasculated by painitng them yellow?

Two such in one post argues otherwise, but I'll let it pass.

OK, so we'l remove the Road Traffic Act and scrap the Highway Code.
I'm going into the undertaking business, I foresee a bright future.

Rules are the fabric of a civilised society, and always have been.

I don't. Neither do I do 80mph even on a deserted motorway.

If I want to drive at 80mph, I must lobby for a change in the law.

Guy

 

Really? Cameras are not policing. The reduciton in traffic policing
is the result of the Daily Mail's demands that the Police guard Middle
Britain's video recorders rather than prosecute Middle Britain for
driving badly, which only kills a few thousand a year, after all.

Look at Michael Howard's recent speeches: zero tolerance of antisocial
behaviour, but tear down the cameras. Rank hypocrisy. Lock up those
who offend against Middle Britain, but take no action on the crimes
Middle Britain commits en masse.

Guy

 

That being the "one point" mentioned

A failure certificate does not imply lack of roadworthiness? Hmmmm.

Intellectually I can see this might be true; neither has ever applied
to any car I have owned, driven or gone near (and as a former spanner
enthusiast that encompasses a lot of dogy old motors). All the good
ones passed the MoT, all the failures were for good reason.

Anyone who takes a car for MoT without first checking the lights is,
of course, asking for everything they get.

Guy

 

dave says...

I have zero toleerance of Aussies.

 

He presented himself later. A recent case had a woman who, according
to witnesses, had been drinking, killing a woman. She left the scene,
leaving the woman possibly alive (reports are unclear), and presented
the next day. She was fined £200 and six points.

Guy

 

If anyone is interested we do have 0 tolerence in victoria.

 

And the lack of an MOT is, ISTR, against the law, as is drink driving.

John B

 

I'm not going to go through and refute your points because I'm retiring from
this thread.

The moral debate was interesting, but I think that we've now found our way
back to well-trodden paths and I don't think either of us either has
anything new to add or any hope of convincing the other of our view-point.

I did enjoy the chat though.


--
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.

 

With current investment, 3,500 people die because of traffic each year.
72,000 die from medical errors each year
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3560730.stm).

Priorities dear chap.

 

You can of course reduce congestion (which is what those people presumably
mean) by providing more capacity on the roads and on public transport.

 

Except even that's not actually true! Here are some examples of studies of
accident patterns following increases in speed limits which don't match your
claim.

Garber and Graham (1990) USA
(40 States) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
(89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatalities increased by 15% <-- yes, I know
Decrease or no effect in 12 States <-- but, ooh look.

Pant, Adhami and Niehaus (1992) USA
(Ohio) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
(89 km/h to 105 km/h) Injury and property damage crashes increased but not
fatal crashes

Lave and Elias (1994)
(40 states) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
(89 km/h to 105 km/h) Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant
in 14 of 40 States)

Parker (1992) USA
(Michigan) Various No significant changes

Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia
(Victoria) 5-20 km/h increases
(3-12 km/h increases) Crashes increased overall by 8%
35% decline in zones raised from 60-80

Parker (1997) USA
22 states 5-15 mi/h
(3-24 km/h) No significant changes

I make no excuses for the fact that I've just picked the examples I like. If
you're going to start making statements like "Every single set of figures
ever published shows that risk rises with increasing speed", you'd better be
right, or people will start to doubt your word - or think you're a tit.

Also this from "Freeway Speeds and Speed Variations Preceding Crashes,
Within and Across Lanes" - Kockelman, University of Texas, 2004:

ABSTRACT
Relationships between speed choice and crash occurrence have been difficult
to identify. This work examines vehicle speeds (and their variations)
derived from single loops for several Southern California freeways, within
and across freeway lanes, together with corresponding crash data. While a
variety of factors clearly influence speed and speed variance, there is no
evidence in or across these crash data sets and observations of their
corresponding series of 30-second traffic conditions that speeds or their
variation trigger crashes.

This simply isn't true. Driving at a speed which apparently requires no
concentration leads to lack of concentration. It's human nature to become
bored without stimulation and to become complacent.

Where does that 1/3 of crashes caused primarily by excess speed come from?
And what proportion of those accidents occurred below the speed limit?

Top 10 contributory factors in accidents. (Source DfT's 'Review of the
contributory factors system')

1) Inattention 25.8%
2) Failure to judge another's path or speed 22.6%
3) Looked but did not see 19.7%
4) Behaviour: Careless/reckless/thoughtless 18.4%
5) Failed to look 16.3%
6) Lack of judgement of own path 13.7%
7) EXCESSIVE SPEED 12.5%
8) Pedestrian walked out (Pedestrians fault) 10.9%
9) Poor turn/manoeuvre 8.4%
10) Slippery road 8.2%

The thing about the camera partnerships is that they're like any other
'government' body. They become a self serving entity. They have to be
'successful' to carry on receiving funding - whether that be from the local
authority, central government or from fines. You will *never* find a
spokesman for a CP saying that cameras need to be reduced or that the
strategy doesn't work simply because he's not about to put his and his
colleagues jobs at risk. Working for a public sector employer which receives
a proportion of its money for 'projects'. I know how it works. Think Yes
Minister.

Do you want to stop people speeding or catch people speeding?

 

Aren't the C&U Regulations made under the powers granted to the Secretary of
State by a Road Traffic Act (and thereby effectively a part of it)?

 

In the cases you've quoted the drivers are obviously getting away with it.
It's a shame. The first case should have been 5 years in jail, the second
case was attempted murder and should have been at least 10-15 years.

Mind you, rapists get let out after 3 years, but kids copying CD's can
go to jail for 10 years. Welcome to the 21st century.