SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?
Discussion
OTBC said:
It's statistical innumeracy, comparing death relates on the roads with population levels makes no sense if you ignore death rates PER MILE WALKED OR CYCLED.
Thus if you don't understand the issue you would compare the death rates of vulnerable road users with, say Amsterdam. On the face of it London is tremendously safe! It's brilliant, safer than Amsterdam, that must prove we have safe roads!
Bum gravy.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/07/...
So, looking at this graph, you might think that London (in yellow) is fantastically safe! Just look how much lower the number of fatalities there are, compared to Amsterdam, per capita. London had just 1.7 cycling fatalities in 2012 per million population, where Amsterdam had 6.5 – nearly four times higher. Which "proves" what?
That this is an entirely misleading comparison. It doesn’t take into account the fact that, across London, cycling only accounts for around 2% of all trips made, whereas in Amsterdam cycling accounts for nearly 40% of all trips made. There is much, much more cycling in Amsterdam per capita, so comparing cycling fatalities purely on a per capita basis is absurd. It’s like concluding it’s much safer to cycle in London than in Amsterdam if you have a Dutch name, because many more people with Dutch names are killed cycling in Amsterdam than in London. You see?
How much of this is down to stupidity or dishonesty is difficult to say. If nothing else it demonstrates an inability to understand data.
What does any of this have to do with the subject in hand?Thus if you don't understand the issue you would compare the death rates of vulnerable road users with, say Amsterdam. On the face of it London is tremendously safe! It's brilliant, safer than Amsterdam, that must prove we have safe roads!
Bum gravy.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/07/...
So, looking at this graph, you might think that London (in yellow) is fantastically safe! Just look how much lower the number of fatalities there are, compared to Amsterdam, per capita. London had just 1.7 cycling fatalities in 2012 per million population, where Amsterdam had 6.5 – nearly four times higher. Which "proves" what?
That this is an entirely misleading comparison. It doesn’t take into account the fact that, across London, cycling only accounts for around 2% of all trips made, whereas in Amsterdam cycling accounts for nearly 40% of all trips made. There is much, much more cycling in Amsterdam per capita, so comparing cycling fatalities purely on a per capita basis is absurd. It’s like concluding it’s much safer to cycle in London than in Amsterdam if you have a Dutch name, because many more people with Dutch names are killed cycling in Amsterdam than in London. You see?
How much of this is down to stupidity or dishonesty is difficult to say. If nothing else it demonstrates an inability to understand data.
DIVERSION...OTBC said:
1. That's because of the Greatest Con The Speedophiles ever pulled. Aggressive, speeding twunts using public roads as their very own race track depresses walking and cycling rates. Any correspondingly low casualty rate for vulnerable road users is then trumpeted as "proof" that our roads are safe! It's a doozy, it's brilliant, bully people off the roads then claim fewer people getting killed or maimed is a triumph! Take Germany, similar levels of car ownership to the states but massively higher walking and cycling rates, and hence a healthier population. We in the UK ARE BREEDING A GENERATION OF CAR-dependent slugs with an attendant catastrophic increase in obesity, the worst in Europe, with a cost to the NHS of millions, a rise in diabetes and heart disease, a rise in pollution and congestion.
2. The countries with lower rates of childhood obesity are the ones with a successful policy of encouraging walking and cycling, in the UK, TRAGICALLY, we are going in the opposite direction.
1. And it's got absolutely *nothing* to do with road safety because we have the safest roads in the world. Unfortunately because of the deception of you guys who keep banging on about the supposed dangers of the roads many parents have been scared into transporting their children everywhere by car. 2. The countries with lower rates of childhood obesity are the ones with a successful policy of encouraging walking and cycling, in the UK, TRAGICALLY, we are going in the opposite direction.
It would be great to segregate cyclists form traffic and I support all moves for that, but unfortunately we have to spend too much on speed cameras and infrastructure for cars thanks to the self-defeating nonsense you and your ilk spout.
2. Given how you nut-jobs love quoting casualty figures out of context, you need to remember that the netherlands has significantly higher cycling casualties than we do. Indeed this has even been stated in parliament, with an MP stating (IIRC) "the uk need learn nothing about cycling safety from the Dutch".
Its only when the figures are put into context that we (obviously) see the dutch cyclists are significantly safer than British.
OTBC said:
It's statistical innumeracy, comparing death relates on the roads with population levels makes no sense if you ignore death rates PER MILE WALKED OR CYCLED.
Odd that you should berate people for doing that - considering you did exactly that in your post above when making statements about child deaths worldwide, pedestrian deaths in Italy and cycling deaths in Denmark.Where was the context for these statements. Did you look at population density, traffic density, miles travelled, road conditions etc etc before making those statements?
WinstonWolf said:
What does any of this have to do with the subject in hand?
DIVERSION...
It was in response to a post maintaining our roads are safe by merely comparing population levels. That's misguided, it's nowhere near the whole story. DIVERSION...If just one person cycles in the UK and doesn't get hurt and a million people cycle in the Netherlands and two riders get hurt, which country do you think has the safer roads? See what I mean? You need to make a proper comparison, simply listing KSI rates per head of population is masking the issue and makes no sense.
So, if you do an accurate comparison between European countries and discount miles travelled by vulnerable road users you are concealing the reality. Which is that cyclists are in much greater danger in the UK. So are children. So are all vulnerable road users. Do you understand?
Put it this way, many more people cycle in Denmark than the UK, in Copenhagen the majority of people cycle to work or school and per mile travelled it's ten times safer than in the UK, yet more cyclists get hurt in Denmark, because there are a lot more cyclists! Only 2% of people in the UK cycle to work and they are in a great deal more danger than TheDanes, per mile travelled. This also reinforces the safety in numbers principle where more cyclists equals safer roads, witness London where the cycling rates have doubled but the accident rates have halved because drivers are more aware and may even cycle themselves so are aware of the frequent mistakes drivers make around cyclists.
As a rough guide a community that doubles cycling rates sees a third drop in KSI rates.
So, we can see that our record per mile traveled is appalling, one of the worst of the entire continent.
Now, if you compare the flat road of ALL road casualties you also obscure the reality. Like I said, the advances in vehicle safety are aimed at the occupants so the risk is transferred outside the vehicle.
So the dominance of motor traffic not only makes the roads more dangerous it also masks how the danger is transposed.
OTBC said:
WinstonWolf said:
What does any of this have to do with the subject in hand?
DIVERSION...
It was in response to a post maintaining our roads are safe by merely comparing population levels. That's misguided, it's nowhere near the whole story. DIVERSION...If just one person cycles in the UK and doesn't get hurt and a million people cycle in the Netherlands and two riders get hurt, which country do you think has the safer roads? See what I mean? You need to make a proper comparison, simply listing KSI rates per head of population is masking the issue and makes no sense.
So, if you do an accurate comparison between European countries and discount miles travelled by vulnerable road users you are concealing the reality. Which is that cyclists are in much greater danger in the UK. So are children. So are all vulnerable road users. Do you understand?
Put it this way, many more people cycle in Denmark than the UK, in Copenhagen the majority of people cycle to work or school and per mile travelled it's ten times safer than in the UK, yet more cyclists get hurt in Denmark, because there are a lot more cyclists! Only 2% of people in the UK cycle to work and they are in a great deal more danger than TheDanes, per mile travelled. This also reinforces the safety in numbers principle where more cyclists equals safer roads, witness London where the cycling rates have doubled but the accident rates have halved because drivers are more aware and may even cycle themselves so are aware of the frequent mistakes drivers make around cyclists.
As a rough guide a community that doubles cycling rates sees a third drop in KSI rates.
So, we can see that our record per mile traveled is appalling, one of the worst of the entire continent.
Now, if you compare the flat road of ALL road casualties you also obscure the reality. Like I said, the advances in vehicle safety are aimed at the occupants so the risk is transferred outside the vehicle.
So the dominance of motor traffic not only makes the roads more dangerous it also masks how the danger is transposed.
OTBC said:
The square root of sod all. It has a lot to do with the thread subject though, comparing KSI rates per population rate masks the fact that children are by any measure at much greater danger from drivers than paedophiles.
The thread subject is to do with the revelations in Rotherham and should those who failed to act face prosecution.Do you have any comments on that?
Proven liar Millwheel sets out a false equivalence and asks why drivers are prosecuted when paedophiles aren't, he also falsely claims ethnicity was concealed. It is a fair response to point out to him that drivers are a much greater danger to children than predators by any measure, so if he raises the issue of allocation of resources it's on-topic to point this out.
OTBC said:
Proven liar Millwheel sets out a false equivalence and asks why drivers are prosecuted when paedophiles aren't, he also falsely claims ethnicity was concealed. It is a fair response to point out to him that drivers are a much greater danger to children than predators by any measure, so if he raises the issue of allocation of resources it's on-topic to point this out.
Should those that failed to act face prosecution?All over the Country those in the public sector looked the other way while youngsters were being targeted for sex. Chris Huhne got his wife to take the points and performed an illegal 'misspoke' and got porridge?
Great British values.
Meredydd Hughes was in charge of South Yorks. while it was going on and he is a 'serial speeder'.
It's all very regrettable.
Great British values.
Meredydd Hughes was in charge of South Yorks. while it was going on and he is a 'serial speeder'.
It's all very regrettable.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 30th October 15:14
WinstonWolf said:
Should those that failed to act face prosecution?
You've got us back to post one.OBTC, tell me ('cos you're clearly very young) have you heard of the saying 'teaching your Grandmother to suck eggs'? If so, when you teach your grandmother to suck eggs, do you repeatedly ask her if she understands too?
If you think you think you are telling us something new, then if you like I'll point you to my posts about cycle helmets over the past years where I've been saying the same as you.
Where you have got it completely wrong is your assertions about speeding drivers. Let me tell you as a person who also won't cycle in the uk, it's got *nothing* to do with speeding motorists.
As the figures show, (indeed your figures show) the drivers in most other european countries have a worse safety record than ours, so if what you are asserting is true then the cyclists in other countries would be in greater danger.
The reasons cyclists are safer in other countries is due to them having better facilities, greater segregation, strict liability etc etc, resulting in there being greater numbers of cyclists and as every survey has always shown, the greater the number of the cyclists the greater their safety is.
Regarding pedestrians, in my experience in europe there are more, better and more tightly controlled pedestrian areas than we have here in the uk. In the uk everything is given over to the motor car and *everybody* suffers because of that imo. But that's still nothing to do with speeding drivers.
If we could persuade those kerb crawling outside schools to use bicycles instead they may be easier to catch. But they don't have number plates do they?
When hidden cameras have been used to identify and prosecute fly tippers shouldn't numberplate reading cameras have been used outside schools to identify those hassling kids outside schools? 'Kerb crawling school kids again (INSERT VRM here)?'
Because fly tippers and Japanese Knotweed is a bigger scourge on society than those targeting kids for sex. It is political correctness gone mad.
When hidden cameras have been used to identify and prosecute fly tippers shouldn't numberplate reading cameras have been used outside schools to identify those hassling kids outside schools? 'Kerb crawling school kids again (INSERT VRM here)?'
Because fly tippers and Japanese Knotweed is a bigger scourge on society than those targeting kids for sex. It is political correctness gone mad.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 30th October 16:24
OTBC said:
Proven liar Millwheel sets out a false equivalence and asks why drivers are prosecuted when paedophiles aren't, he also falsely claims ethnicity was concealed. It is a fair response to point out to him that drivers are a much greater danger to children than predators by any measure, so if he raises the issue of allocation of resources it's on-topic to point this out.
Firstly You have not proven anything! You have merely persisted in your tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting "La la la la I'm not listening", and asking ME to prove a simple fact that you have yet to disprove.Secondly my point correctly observed by others here is should officials be censured for the neglect of their duty, not whether paedophiles are prosecuted.
As somebody else stated;
Diversion!!OTBC said:
We compare extremely poorly with Europe with regard to child casualties on the roads, a child is three times more likely to be killed on the roads in the UK than in Italy....
I just wanted to revisit this statement after finding some interesting information whilst looking at DFT stats for another thread:Whilst it is true that children are more likely to be killed on the UKs roads when they are involved in Pedestrian accidents than Italy, we are actually quite high up the list. Countries like Denmark, Austria, Belguim, Greece - all have worse records than the UK has when it comes to child pedestrian deaths. Luxemburg has a fatality rate amongst child pedestrians 4 times that of the UK (11.2 deaths per million).
When it comes to Children being killed in all RTCs however (i.e. when passengers in cars etc) - the UK compares very favourably indeed. For example - the UK has a fatality rate amongst 0-14 year olds of 4.7 per million - whereas in Italy it is 7.2.
In fact - when we look at the overall fatality rate of children aged 0-14 in RTCs - the UK comes out as the best in Europe.
See pages 223 and 224.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 2nd November 14:01
Moonhawk said:
I just wanted to revisit this statement after finding some interesting information whilst looking at DFT stats for another thread:
Whilst it is true that children are more likely to be killed on the UKs roads when they are involved in Pedestrian accidents than Italy, we are actually quite high up the list. Countries like Denmark, Austria, Belguim, Greece - all have worse records than the UK has when it comes to child pedestrian deaths. Luxemburg has a fatality rate amongst child pedestrians 4 times that of the UK (11.2 deaths per million).
When it comes to Children being killed in all RTCs however (i.e. when passengers in cars etc) - the UK compares very favourably indeed. For example - the UK has a fatality rate amongst 0-14 year olds of 4.7 per million - whereas in Italy it is 7.2.
In fact - when we look at the overall fatality rate of children aged 0-14 in RTCs - the UK comes out as the best in Europe.
See pages 223 and 224.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Over to you otbc. Whilst it is true that children are more likely to be killed on the UKs roads when they are involved in Pedestrian accidents than Italy, we are actually quite high up the list. Countries like Denmark, Austria, Belguim, Greece - all have worse records than the UK has when it comes to child pedestrian deaths. Luxemburg has a fatality rate amongst child pedestrians 4 times that of the UK (11.2 deaths per million).
When it comes to Children being killed in all RTCs however (i.e. when passengers in cars etc) - the UK compares very favourably indeed. For example - the UK has a fatality rate amongst 0-14 year olds of 4.7 per million - whereas in Italy it is 7.2.
In fact - when we look at the overall fatality rate of children aged 0-14 in RTCs - the UK comes out as the best in Europe.
See pages 223 and 224.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 2nd November 14:01
Rotherham abuse officers investigated from BBC News website 18 November said:
"The amount of public concern across the country about this episode and the impact on confidence in the police means it is important that a fully independent investigation is conducted to establish how South Yorkshire Police dealt with child sexual exploitation.
"I sincerely hope that victims and their families will see this investigation as a positive step towards answering the many questions they must have.
from:"I sincerely hope that victims and their families will see this investigation as a positive step towards answering the many questions they must have.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30103480
That's the second time I've read the stuff I chose to highlight in bold in relation to the police failing to properly deal with child sex offenders and their victims.
It could seem public perception of the police is the most important thing, not failures to prosecute offenders or safeguard victims.
An IPCC Commissioner 'sincerely hopes'? If people did the job they signed up to do we wouldn't need Commissioners of a supposedly independent regulator having to have 'hopes'.
Making it an offence not to report child abuse would mean that IPCC Commissioners would have to hope less?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 19th November 02:30
carinaman said:
from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30103480
That's the second time I've read the stuff I chose to highlight in bold in relation to the police failing to properly deal with child sex offenders and their victims.
It could seem public perception of the police is the most important thing, not failures to prosecute offenders or safeguard victims.
An IPCC Commissioner 'sincerely hopes'? If people did the job they signed up to do we wouldn't need Commissioners of a supposedly independent regulator having to have 'hopes'.
Making it an offence not to report child abuse would mean that IPCC Commissioners would have to hope less?
Deterrence is the most important issue, this is primarily based on the certainty of detection. Unfortunately, I doubt if the full facts will ever be in the public domain, too many vested interests at all levels. Dismantling insular empires of all sizes would be good start though.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30103480
That's the second time I've read the stuff I chose to highlight in bold in relation to the police failing to properly deal with child sex offenders and their victims.
It could seem public perception of the police is the most important thing, not failures to prosecute offenders or safeguard victims.
An IPCC Commissioner 'sincerely hopes'? If people did the job they signed up to do we wouldn't need Commissioners of a supposedly independent regulator having to have 'hopes'.
Making it an offence not to report child abuse would mean that IPCC Commissioners would have to hope less?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 19th November 02:30
WinstonWolf said:
OTBC said:
Proven liar Millwheel sets out a false equivalence and asks why drivers are prosecuted when paedophiles aren't, he also falsely claims ethnicity was concealed. It is a fair response to point out to him that drivers are a much greater danger to children than predators by any measure, so if he raises the issue of allocation of resources it's on-topic to point this out.
Should those that failed to act face prosecution?
Not necessarily related to the topic in hand, although it might be, let's consider a hypothetical situation-
A does something bad
B could possibly have prevented A from doing the bad thing
C says to B, "why didn't you stop A from doing the bad thing?"
B says to C, "because I wasn't able to"
C says "well, you should have been able to, and you need to be punished"
In order for this to work, C needs to be in a position of authority over B
Which leads us into two questions, the first being why didn't C make sure B was stopping A from doing bad things?
and the second question
Why is C concentrating on B, when it's A that is doing the bad things?
A does something bad
B could possibly have prevented A from doing the bad thing
C says to B, "why didn't you stop A from doing the bad thing?"
B says to C, "because I wasn't able to"
C says "well, you should have been able to, and you need to be punished"
In order for this to work, C needs to be in a position of authority over B
Which leads us into two questions, the first being why didn't C make sure B was stopping A from doing bad things?
and the second question
Why is C concentrating on B, when it's A that is doing the bad things?
singlecoil said:
fatjon said:
"Their priorities are all wrong. There's no money to made from protecting kids from being raped is there?"
^ this
It's not about death rates, relative risks, outcomes or some greater good. It's about money.
If it is about money (which I don't for a moment concede) then the only people who have to pay it are the ones who are daft enough to speed here enforcement is operating.^ this
It's not about death rates, relative risks, outcomes or some greater good. It's about money.
ked up by paedos while the police are out tax collecting.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff