Car cop's lethal death toll -- The Welsh Traffic Talban speaks..

Thank you for pasting that in Andrew - very interesting.

--

jeremy
['75 RD250A ] | ['02 Fazer 600 in blue]
____________________________________________
jeremy dot ovenden at hazelweb dot co dot uk

 

No, what these tragedies prove is that a few speed cameras scattered
about cannot prevent every fatality on the roads.

Suppose you've got a bad head and a cough. You take some paracetamol.
Your head gets better but your cough gets worse. Do you conclude that
paracetamol doesn't work?

Jim.

 

Alan wrote:bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along
the lines of:

Only France, IIRC.

--
Cab :^) - Ormiga Atomica
GSX 1400 - 'Tarts Handbag' (tm) Bike, dead 550/4 Rat
UKRMMA#10 (KoTL), IbW#015, Bob#4, POTM#3

P.S. Remove your_head from the cab. ICQ: 83023471

 

Ok, that's a good point, thanks.

I don't believe "excess" speed is a cause of road accidents.

Figures are all subject to interpretation.

Archie

 

<fx: tumble weed>

--

jeremy
['75 RD250A ] | ['02 Fazer 600 in blue]
____________________________________________
jeremy dot ovenden at hazelweb dot co dot uk

 

I don't know. I am here to learn from others who know more about the
subject than I do.

(Cue comment from Bastard Bear)

Yes, I agree. I was saying that earlier. I am here to learn.

BTW Thanks for those other figures and source posted by you earlier.

Archie

 

Take two oranges and force them together at 30mph. Big mess.

Now put one orange in a cardboard box and repeat the experiment. The
orange in the box will fare a little better, but the unboxed one is
still going to be pretty buggered.

Now wrap the first orange in bubble wrap, put it back in the cardboard
box, put the box in a reinforced titanium cage, cover that in steel
plate, and put some bull-bars on the front. Force them together at
60mph and the orange in the box is unscathed but the other one is
Tropicana.

Now blame the pulp for not looking out for the other orange.

 

Yes. There are more bikes on the road than ever before, and cars have gotten
safer whilst their owners have compensated by becoming even more clueless
myopic cunts than before.

 

<VBG> I was thinking *exactly* the same thing!

 

"Bystander" wrote in message

I don't know what type of speed camera they are using in North Wales, but
the Truvelo type in use in Hampshire are useless at detecting speeding
motorcycles as they face forward and a M/C only has a numberplate at the
back. Consequently, the cars slow down for the cameras and the M/C don't.
Thus increasing the speed differential. The motorcyclists have even less
respect for the law than they used to, which wasn't much anyway.

Ian

 

Nice generalisation - I'm such a law breaker me - two fingers to the law
etc. Not.

As AndyR says - why should the cars need to slow down? Would they slow down
if they didn't have to?

yes, motorcycles are more OBVIOUS when they break the law for many reasons,
however proportionally
they're a minority when it comes to 'being naughty'.

But don't let that get in the way of a good rabble rouse.

 

The use of motorcycles has also increased markedly in that time.

 

How about the bikers not having full beam on during the day? Maybe drivers
wouldn't mis-judge the bikers position so often.

MrBitsy

 

"dwb" wrote in message

However, the death rate per 100,000 kilometres for motorcyclists is 14 times
that for car drivers. Seems a pretty high price for being 'naughty'.

Ian

 

If we are to have cameras, they need to be hidden. We get drivers braking
in the vicinity of cameras regardless of their speed and this is ading
danger.

A visible camera will only slow down people around them but hidden
cameras will cause people to be more carefull everywhere. Surely if
cameras aid safety, this would give benefit to everyone.

Of course, I would prefer riders and drivers to travel within the HC and
be sensible. It is the attitude of the stupid that is causing cameras to
be used. If we change our attitudes then the cameras will die a natural
death.

Of course, this sense is not going to materialise, so we can only look
forward to more restrictions being put in place.

MrBitsy.

 

Of course they are. The biker is not part of the cause at all, its all the
trees fault.

Of course - the rider will ride just as irresponsibly on either.

Maybe give away free brains to bikers at the start of each 'track'?

MrBitsy.

 

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

MrBitsy.

 

A biker hitting one of those 'dangerous trees' at half the speed, will have
more chance of surviving.

Of course, if the biker was to ride sensibly then I would agree with your
statment.

A speed trap doesn't force anybody to change their route - only those who
want to break the law.

60mph, along the type of roads riders like to break the law is very
involving!


MrBitsy

 

Yes I know, that is so irritating.

I can tell - its the others. I used to ride a Suzuki 250 (Ram Air, ooh
er!), so I am not anti bike but a light on full beam does seem to confuse
some drivers.

MrBitsy

 

"Dan White" wrote in message ...

In 1992 the death rate comparing the number of vehicles per 100 million
kilometres driven was 1.4 for car drivers and 12 for motorcyclists. In 2002
the same rates were 1.0 and 14. The accident rate for all severites for cars
has dropped from 93 to 80. For motorcyclists the rate has remained at about
600 with some years better than others. Which suggests that cars have become
safer and motorcyclists remained just as irresponsible. However, there are
now twice as many people riding large motorcycles as in 1992, whilst the
numbers riding smaller motorcycles has dropped. Why have a large motorcycle
if you don't want to go fast?

Ian