Board logo

cops...
A1 - 20/11/08 at 10:54 PM

this is a kinda rant, but i want to know what everyone thinks...
i heard on the news todya that the cops are having a major 'road safety' clamp down in the borders, naming everyone stopped. theyre also trying to get a 6 point penalty for doing 20mph over the limit....
does this strike anyone else as wrong? why name everyone they stop? why crack down on so called road safety when theres so much crime happening?theyre always short on men when people raise the subject of policing the streets, yet they can afford to put more men on the sides of the road stopping people having harmless fun? (that doesnt include powersliding on the wrong side of the road in rush hour by the way, as much fun as it would be) i think its cause catching real criminals doesnt get them as much easy money...

blakep82 - 20/11/08 at 10:58 PM

i think its a kind of name and shame thing

instead of people thinking, i'll go a bit faster, it'll get me home quicker.

they might think
If i go a bit faster to get home quicker, if i'm caught, my name will be in the paper, work will find out, family, friends etc etc.

kinda supposed to make people worry about being embarassed

BenB - 20/11/08 at 10:58 PM

I bet they won't name and shame their mates when they're speeding with the blues + twos on to get to the chippy before it closes....

.... oh I forgot, that would never happen.....

.... it must be pure coincidence that I live next to a policestation and the incidence of sirens going off increases dramatically around knocking off time when everyone wants to go back to the station.... and I've never seen a policecar parked on double yellow lines with the blues on whilst a PC inspects the local burger bar.....

One rule for us......

A1 - 20/11/08 at 11:04 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7660699.stm

thats the wall of fame...i know the road well, the stretch they were caught on is a mile long straight...its actually possible to reach much higher speeds, but our good friends like to wait in the tracks going off it about halfway down...
i recon we should take it as a bit of a challenge, see how high a speed we can get! might as well go out in style!

RK - 20/11/08 at 11:48 PM

Hey whatever it takes to generate a few more bob for the government. Oil prices are down...

Canada EH! - 21/11/08 at 12:49 AM

Don't come to Ontario Canada lads, 50 kmh over the limit and they impound your car for a week, you get to pay the pound fees as well, suspend your licence, and $2000.00 Canadian fine (about 1000.00 pounds).
Then the insurance company looks at your record and puts you in the same class as the drunks and can't drives.
OH! and they park at off ramps out of sight, and nic you for no seatbelt.

Flamez - 21/11/08 at 06:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by A1
this is a kinda rant, but i want to know what everyone thinks...
i heard on the news todya that the cops are having a major 'road safety' clamp down in the borders, naming everyone stopped. theyre also trying to get a 6 point penalty for doing 20mph over the limit....
does this strike anyone else as wrong? why name everyone they stop? why crack down on so called road safety when theres so much crime happening?theyre always short on men when people raise the subject of policing the streets, yet they can afford to put more men on the sides of the road stopping people having harmless fun? (that doesnt include powersliding on the wrong side of the road in rush hour by the way, as much fun as it would be) i think its cause catching real criminals doesnt get them as much easy money...



Why not treat road safety on its own merit.

Over 300o people a year are killed on our roads and over 100,000 seriously injured. Speed and young drivers are the major contribution.

Power sliding on a major road in rush hour, oh dear....

If you want to drive fast and safely [for all] then there is only one place. the track

The consequences for killing or injuring someone on our roads does not bear thinking about, destruction of family life, conscience and a prison sentence.

There my rant over

[Edited on 21-11-08 by Flamez]

oldtimer - 21/11/08 at 07:47 AM

Sadly I think the above statistics are out by a factor of at least 10. There were some 3000 road deaths not 300, not sure but I thought is was 100,00 killed or seriously injurred and some 300,000 injured. So, the levity is a little badly placed.

JAG - 21/11/08 at 08:32 AM

1st; 3000 killed on British roads every year - roughly.

However; That's 3000 people a year out of how many drivers/passengers?

The UK population is about 65,000,000. If we assume 1/10 of the population use the roads every day then the number per year is;

(65000000/10) x 365 = 2372500000 passengers on our roads per year.

3000 killed is 0.00012644%

I think that is a very good record and we don't need to do any more.

(I also understand that if you're one of the 3000, or their family it doesn't feel so good)

Edited due to forgetting to multiply my %age by 100 - cheers Flakmonkey

[Edited on 21/11/08 by JAG]

vinny1275 - 21/11/08 at 08:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by JAG
1st; 3000 killed on British roads every year - roughly.

However; That's 3000 people a year out of how many drivers/passengers?

The UK population is about 65,000,000. If we assume 1/10 of the population use the roads every day then the number per year is;

(65000000/10) x 365 = 2372500000 passengers on our roads per year.

3000 killed is 0.0000012644%

I think that is a very good record and we don't need to do any more.

(I also understand that if you're one of the 3000, or their family it doesn't feel so good)


The %ages put the figures in context Justin - I'd like to add that the "speed kills" lobby are skewing this. Those 3000 deaths are for all road accident deaths in the UK - people falling asleep, being drunk or on drugs, car thieves trying to get away from the police, buses toppling over or hitting low bridges......

Not all road deaths are linked to speed. The government has *no* reliable data on the ultimate cause of the accidents where people have died. That number of people can only be reduced by properly analysing the accident reports and finding out what caused it, not by saying that all speed is anti-social. I wouldn't mind betting that if you analysed them all properly, while you might find a quite high proportion were speeding, that it wasn't the main cause of the accident.

The problem for us is that catching people speeding is easier, cheaper, and brings more revenue than people being caught drink-driving or driving under the influence of drugs, or driving without seatbelts, or having kids not properly restrained, or who are reading a map, or texting, or on the phone, or any combination of the above.

And, finally, just remember. A speed limit is an arbitrary number, *not* an indication of a safe speed to drive. 70 on the motorway is not safe if it's pea-soup fog and you can't see more than about 20 yards. Unfortunately, the government focussing on speed alone is reinforcing the message that as long as you're not above that magic number, you're a safe driver.

Rant over. When's the Friday singalong start?

oldtimer - 21/11/08 at 09:17 AM

I am no maths expert. But I can not follow the logic of your calculations.

65000000(pop)/3000(deaths) = 1 in 21666 of death.

100/21666 = 0.0046% chance of road death p/a.

65000000/100000(killed/injured) = 1 in 650.

100/650 = 0.14% chance of death or serious injury p/a.

Drivers don't just kill themselves...pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are more likely to be victims than drivers.

Speed limits or 30 mph , 70 mph etc are not arbitrary, vast amounts of time and effort goes into testing to work out safest speeds.

If you think it's OK to speed ask yourself one question. If you had a loved one killed by a speeding motorist, would your response be "no problem mate, I condone speeding and regularly speed myself"

mr henderson - 21/11/08 at 10:10 AM

quote:
Originally posted by A1
this is a kinda rant, but i want to know what everyone thinks...
i heard on the news todya that the cops are having a major 'road safety' clamp down in the borders, naming everyone stopped. theyre also trying to get a 6 point penalty for doing 20mph over the limit....


Doing 20mph over the sped limit seems to me like being very silly, anyone who does 50 in a 30 limit is asking for lots of trouble, and quite honestly, I think they deserve it.

One of the problems about controlling those people who drive with little concern for others is that dangerous or careless driving is extremely difficult, almost impossible to prove in court, if it doesn't result in an accident. That is why virtually all such cases come about as a result of an accident.

When you are trying to stop people behaving in a way the MIGHT lead to an accident, it is hardly surprising that speed, which is the only measurable and provable aspect of such behaviour, is the thing that gets targetted.

I have often driven at a few mph over a speed limit, but not since I was young and silly have I ever done 50 in a 30mph zone.

John

vinny1275 - 21/11/08 at 10:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
Speed limits or 30 mph , 70 mph etc are not arbitrary, vast amounts of time and effort goes into testing to work out safest speeds.

If you think it's OK to speed ask yourself one question. If you had a loved one killed by a speeding motorist, would your response be "no problem mate, I condone speeding and regularly speed myself"


Actually, the 70mph limit *was* arbitrary, introduced in the 50s / 60s after someone was spotted in a race-prepared Shelby I think, doing about 160 up the M1. That limit has stuck as our maximum limit.

And I delberately didn't say I condone speeding. I sometimes might exceed the limit myself, but you've missed my point. By concentrating heavily on enforcing speed, and not other forms of bad driving (Look at the correlation in the increase in the number of speed cameras, and the decrease in the number of traffic police as evidence of this), the govt and police are reinforcing the impression that as long as you aren't driving faster than the magic number on the magic boards, you're driving safely, and if you're above it, you're driving unsafely. Neither of these things is true all of the time.

My final point - if the government put a bigger %age of the money they took in speeding fines into other road safety initiatives (better driver training, road design, pedestrian / cyclist training etc)., rather than paying for more speed cameras, they could feasibly cut the accident / death rate by a considerable amount. Concentrating on speeding is not working, and if you look at the numbers, deaths are starting to go up again in spite of the concentration on it.

flak monkey - 21/11/08 at 10:56 AM

quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
I am no maths expert. But I can not follow the logic of your calculations.

65000000(pop)/3000(deaths) = 1 in 21666 of death.

100/21666 = 0.0046% chance of road death p/a.

65000000/100000(killed/injured) = 1 in 650.

100/650 = 0.14% chance of death or serious injury p/a.



In a year the chances are, if 1/10 of the popluation use the road, (I think this is a bit conservative!) The higher the number, the lower these figures become.

(65M/10)*365 = number of journeys = 2,372,500,000 journeys

With 3000 fatal accidents over this number of journeys then you are talking about 0.000126% journeys resulting in a fatal accident. Or a one in 790,833 chance.

Or the chance of being involved in a journey causing an injury being 100,000 injuries being 0.0042%. Or a one in 23,725 chance.

Pretty good stats really.

David

Moorron - 21/11/08 at 11:52 AM

I do like complaining about the cops and so on, but i am staying out of this one because it winds me up.

However I will post about the speed thing. What gets me upset is the headline ‘speed is a factor in 95% (or whatever height number) of all fatal incidents on the roads’. Well let’s just examine that for a minute.

1, the words ‘speed’ and ‘speeding’ seem to get misused, speed is a measurement of travel and speeding implies the misuse of it i.e. driving too fast. They are totally different things and those using it in the statistics or headlines know this. The dumb public don’t notice this and now the word ‘speed’ means you are guilty of ‘speeding’ and are a child killer

2, how can 2 objects collide if one or both of them are not moving? So yes ‘speed’ (not speeding) had played a huge factor in the collision, how could it not. Again the true meaning is lost or misused.

I don’t think I am being smart or picky, I just see it as an evil misuse of the true meaning and those in power shouldn’t do this. To try and get my point across i could say this:

‘The road surface condition of the public roads are a major factor in 100% of all fatal incidents on the roads’ Of course it is, but its not to blame for all the incidents (I think it should be in some of them, trying to do an emergency stop on a pothole is going to effect your braking performance). After repeating this in adverts on tv and whatnot then soon the public will be convinced that every incident was the roads fault.

I am only 30, but I do enjoy driving (even slowly) but I have noticed in the last few years that i am constantly watching every other driver as I assume they are out to kill me. The driving standards have dropped….alot, yet there are more and more measures to tackle it with speed cameras and its not working. I am not even talking about the boy racers, drunks or those who think they are immune to death on the roads i am on about the normal family outings in heavy rain at 7am in the dark without any lights on!

Because the government got greedy and classed and fooled us all with the ‘speed kills’ thing its now not just effecting our view on it but also the outcome of everyone watching their speeds but not giving a damn about road safety.

Ps I think I have worn out the [‘] key on the keyboard with the post lol

A1 - 21/11/08 at 02:48 PM

this all gets me on to another view that would, i believe sort out many problems...
if the driving tst was made a bit harder, and put you on a skidpan and track, then this would mean that people would know what to do when they, lets say hit ice and lose the backend...
it would also mean that less people pass the test, which means fewer people on the roads which reduces congestion, the chances of accidents, reduces emmisions and road wear which means the government has to spend less money repairing them etc...
also if people knew how to drive fast properly, they wouldnt end up putting their car through a hedge. i know lots of you ng people crash, but thats because theyre learning how to drive...if it was taugh in the test, they wouldnt be trying things on the roads...

A1 - 21/11/08 at 03:11 PM

for example, today, i was on the bypass, it wasnt busy, and it was only made dangerous by the fool who decided to indicate then start to pull out, then didnt then as i was about to pass him, did pull out!
why dont the police have a rule of quality of driving, as all the times ive had to take avoiding actions have been due to people driving badly, mostly at low speeds.

chrisg - 21/11/08 at 03:15 PM

Why is speed the only motoring offence that the government seems interested in?

I'd rather see the number of traffic officers returned to the levels before the government switched to policing by camera.

The answer, as ever, is cash

A living, breathing police officer with discretion and the ability to detct ALL motoring offences costs upwards of £50k per year, a single speed camera can, and has, made that amount in a week.

We need these police officers to remove the drunk, drugged, tired, uninsured, untaxed, unlicenced drivers in their bald tyred, no braked, dangerous vehicles
from our roads.

Basically if you support speed cameras you are aiding and abetting ALL the people in that list.

Get rid of speed cameras and give us back our police officers and watch the road deaths reduce.

Chris

oldtimer - 21/11/08 at 03:27 PM

The number of people using the road and the number of journeys made per year is totally irrelevant. Road accidents are accidents on a road to all people - including pedestrians hit on the pavement, not making any journey. I have checked my figures for logic and they remain true. Your chances of being killed in a road accident 1 in 21666 and being killed or seriously injured 1 in 650. It is simply number involved/population. It is fatuous to multiply by the number of journeys - you may as well multiply by the number of days in the month.

mr henderson - 21/11/08 at 03:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
Why is speed the only motoring offence that the government seems interested in?



Because it's the only one which can be measured, and result in a sucessful prosecution.

The opinion of a slilled police officer as to whether someone has been driving dangerously is worth approximately nothing in a court when the defence lawyers go into action. The chance of a conviction is so low, and so expensive, they don't bother. For goodness sake don't think I agree with that state of affairs

John

oldtimer - 21/11/08 at 03:51 PM

It is very true that speeders are an easy target. Everyone wants the "drunk, drugged, tired, uninsured, untaxed, unlicenced drivers in their bald tyred, no braked, dangerous vehicles " off the road, sadly this is also the group that when discovered by police will often drive off at speed endangering everyone else.