Speed cameras again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3564128.stm

"Police would be allowed to put speed cameras on sections of road where
there have been no crashes, under a planned change to rules on their
use.
The new rules, reported in the Times newspaper, would see the maximum
distance of mobile camera sites extended from 5km to 20km. "

and just to get everyone excited

"Richard Brunstrom, head of road policing for the Association of Chief
Police Officers, told the Times: "We have a particular problem with
motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and
dying on the next corner." "

Oh dear.

 

Well take away the cameras and we'll all just pick our own corner to die on.


--
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.

 

But only the next corner? Better put a camera on the corner obviously.

 

and here are today's options

a) a speed camera every 10 metres
b) killing Mr Brunstrom
c) banning all motorcycles.

what option would you chose?

 

Hmmm. Can I phone a friend?
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

d) fucking Blunkett in the skull.

 

No, I really wouldn't choose that option.

 

d) removing my numberplate.

 

You've got one?

What are you doing here then?


--
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 think a and c are a little extreme. Perhaps legal moves in the High Court
and the ECHR may finally change the present situation where you are required
to make a statement incriminating yourself under duress without first
receiving a caution.

Or possibly Joe Public will wonder just why it is that when speed cameras
were introduced the year on year downward trend in deaths on the roads began
to tail off and is now on the up. All Joe Public has to show for it are more
points on his licence, a smaller bank balance and a possibly a dead friend
or relative.

 

Looking on the bright side, the accidents may have taken out a **** or
two.

I'm pissed off that my (car) insurance went up because of a single SP50
fine. It motivated me to move from the co. I'd been with for 7 years
and go somewhere else.

"So, you're adding 20% onto my policy despite 9 years without a claim
and this being the first speeding conviction in over 10 years?"

"Well, they all do it."

"OK, I'm a busy bloke, lets save some time. Give me your best price and
I'll renew now"

"This is our best price"

"So when I go elsewhere and get a better price you won't offer to match
it?"

"No"

"Ok, then cancel the renewal"

"Are you sure?"

"Are you sure that you can't better the offer under any circumstances?"

"Yes"

"Cancel it then"

Fuckers. Don't bother with Churchill.

Hastings, on the other hand I've got nothing but praise for. So far.

 

This bit

'Government figures show there were more than 3,500 deaths on
Britain's roads in 2003, up from 3,431 in the previous year. '

Out of how many vehicles, how many journeys, how many oodles of miles.
When will people wake up and realise risk can't be eliminated and more
to the fucking point it really shouldn't be.

 

They realise risk can't be eliminated. The thing is though, they have
to be seen to be doing something.

I don't think I agree that risk *shouldn't* be eliminated- if through
legislation/technology/whatever the Government can cut deaths and
injuries on the road then surely they should do this for the good of the
country's purse.

 

So the sheeple are fooled and stick them back in power.

<realises this has been done to death but in the mood for a rant>

It is through meeting challenges and risks and over coming them that
we learn and develop. By removing yet another way for us to be 'free',
they are removing a learning opportunity and limiting growth and
thought.

But that's what they want isn't it.

Oh hell I think I've just had a Conservative moment.

I think I'm in a minority as I'm generally happy to pay my taxes and
think the services provided with it are more than adequate, in some
places excellent and there are people with great commitment working to
improve others.

It's the under lying philosophies that are leading me to feel
increasingly uncomfortable with the 'ethos' 'zeitgeist' label it how
you will.

 

So that's motorbikes banned for a start then.

 

secured a place in history by writing:

There is always a cost associated with reducing risk - if there weren't for
any given risk, we'd have eliminated it already, since tolerating risks
that can be removed without penalty would be pretty dumb. The problem is
the mantra that says 'speeding is the risk we should focus on', failing to
acknowledge that every measure introduced to curb speeding (or lower
speeds) has costs - including those associated with slowing the transport
system down generally and those associated with pissing off a lot of people
who may speed where the increased risks in doing so are minimal, but
generally are far less likely to cause accidents than Joe Average.

We could eliminate accidents almost completely by slowing the traffic down
to walking pace - but the cost of doing that is clearly unacceptable. So
we choose a level of focus on speed that has acceptable costs in the
nation's eyes for the number of accidents / injuries / fatalaties.

You'd expect the tolerance for deaths on the roads to be broadly similar
from one nation to the next, and in the long term this would result in
broadly similar accident rates, at least amongst similarly wealthy nations
(with similar vehicles, roads etc). The fact that we have amongst the
'safest' roads when measured against other Western economies suggests to me
that we are probably putting unnecessary emphasis on the issue and are
likely to reap the effects of the costs. Put bluntly: If the rest of the
world can put up with a higher death rate in return for being able to drive
faster, why can't we?

 

Only if he is a, ahem, 'problem solver'.

 

I agree very much that enforcing personal safety reduces the freedom
and development of an individual, but providing the option of reduced
risk is laudable.

Umm. Possibly only as a means to an end. I doubt that it's personal.

Errm, in English?

 

The problem is, that there are still a lot of ill-educated fuckwits
that seriously thing option c is the best option.
--
Cab :^) - almost as fast as G.i.n.g.e.
GSX 1400 - 'Tarts Handbag' (tm) Bike, dead 550/4 Rat
UKRMMA#10 (KoTL), IbW#015, Bob#4, POTM#3

email addy : cab_dot_ukrm_at_rosbif_dot_org

 

Ethos - from the Greek, characteristic beliefs of a group.
Zeitgeist - From the German time ghost, or in other words:

That's the spirit of the age,
That's the spirit of the age.
I am a clone, I am not alone...