safe speed on reporting scotland
Discussion
miniandy said:
He's doing well - the reporter seems to be on his side.
I have a feeling this may be a "seminal" moment.Finally theres no PC bullsh*t....its still all about how you interpret the fugures, but looks like BBC Scotland is on our side ...5 mins to go and not a politician in sight...its going to be a long 5 mins
Prof Beard said:
Apart from the "emotional" content (I'm very sorry about the young lady though) which didn't really seem appropriate, it was a fairly well balanced report, I thought
Well I thought it was very fair and more balanced than most - they at least acknowledged that there is more to road safety than speed, and even that unfortunate family recognised that...
Prof Beard said:
Apart from the "emotional" content (I'm very sorry about the young lady though) which didn't really seem appropriate, it was a fairly well balanced report, I thought
Who noticed that there was '400m of clear visibility' before that crash? That's far enough to stop comfortably from over 120mph, and far enough to do an emergency stop from about 170mph.
How is it that they can claim that 'speed' causes these crashes? Anyone paying attention would have stopped very easily.
safespeed said:
Apart from the "emotional" content (I'm very sorry about the young lady though) which didn't really seem appropriate, it was a fairly well balanced report, I thought
Who noticed that there was '400m of clear visibility' before that crash? That's far enough to stop comfortably from over 120mph, and far enough to do an emergency stop from about 170mph.
How is it that they can claim that 'speed' causes these crashes? Anyone paying attention would have stopped very easily.
WELL DONE SIR......finally we had a programme which is happy to report "the truth"...you appreciate,like the majority of us that statistics are open to interpretation.......but for once that interpretation was not supplied by a.The police b.a politician c.a Government apologist...
Paul McSmith......long mae yer lum reek
>> Edited by huge on Wednesday 9th November 20:35
>> Edited by huge on Wednesday 9th November 20:48
safespeed said:
Who noticed that there was '400m of clear visibility' before that
crash? That's far enough to stop comfortably from over 120mph,
and far enough to do an emergency stop from about 170mph.
How is it that they can claim that 'speed' causes these crashes?
Anyone paying attention would have stopped very easily.
Exactly. I know when I am driving at 120 - 140 mph I am most certainly
paying attention.
However, I found yesterday that driving at 85 mph
[ on the cruise control ] my mind was wandering.
Standard psychology stuff - humans like continuously varying
environments to keep their brains active.
dcb said:
Who noticed that there was '400m of clear visibility' before that
crash? That's far enough to stop comfortably from over 120mph,
and far enough to do an emergency stop from about 170mph.
How is it that they can claim that 'speed' causes these crashes?
Anyone paying attention would have stopped very easily.
Exactly. I know when I am driving at 120 - 140 mph I am most certainly
paying attention.
However, I found yesterday that driving at 85 mph
[ on the cruise control ] my mind was wandering.
Standard psychology stuff - humans like continuously varying
environments to keep their brains active.
I guess that explains why turning up at Parliament every day is so debilitating ?
safespeed said:
Who noticed that there was '400m of clear visibility'
Indeed I thought that, due to that, had the driver been doing 150mph or 50mph the possible outcome might have been the same, so not really a 'speed related' accident, but I suppose they had to get the 'dead baby arguement' in there somewhere, other than that a good performance!
You see, this is why my neighbours think I'm a lunatic. I was shouting at the TV. It took them ages to give the full 'heart-rending' story, but they did mention at the beginning that she was stationary at the back of a queue. At that stage I was immediately sceptical about the whole speed-related angle.
Well done Paul, got your point over cogently without any heart-rending dramatics, as opposed to the programme maker.... Very sorry for the lovely girl (and her family) who died, but the driver had 400m clear road... obviously under some other influence at the time!
What I found surprising is how quickly the Scameraman picked up on "regression to the mean" but then quickly put in his oar about 6.5 million pounds re-invested in scameras!?
More lies, more money for rather oversized staff and luxurious offices methinks.
Well done Paul for getting your comment in there as well (about expanding or inefficient budgets)
More power to your hand/arguments PAUL!!!!
and hopefully more exposure!!!
PAUL SMITH The bane of the Scamerati!!! Love it!!!
What I found surprising is how quickly the Scameraman picked up on "regression to the mean" but then quickly put in his oar about 6.5 million pounds re-invested in scameras!?
More lies, more money for rather oversized staff and luxurious offices methinks.
Well done Paul for getting your comment in there as well (about expanding or inefficient budgets)
More power to your hand/arguments PAUL!!!!
and hopefully more exposure!!! PAUL SMITH The bane of the Scamerati!!! Love it!!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff