RE: Helicopters To Catch Speeding Drivers

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

Oh, right...

Do you have the deaths figures from 1975 to 2007?

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

Oh, right...

Do you have the deaths figures from 1975 to 2007?

1975 = 6366 killed.
1965 = 7952 killed.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th September 23:14

[Wilder]

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

You can't have it both ways - on one hand you argue that there are insufficient funds to resource the police as a force in general, on the other you state that allocation of funds is up to the force itself.

So in other words, you are confirming that the police force as a whole is run completely wrong with wrong priorities?

No, I'm saying that for the Police (at least some forces) a helicopter is money well spent.

Now its not my point Im making here, but an observation I think some of those objecting to the use of helicopters were making.
I think the salient point is that most people view chasing some scrote who just stole a car, or some other police chase scenario as less deserving for government funding than for example, flying an injured motorcyclist/car driver, or trapped climber to hospital within the golden hour. I appreciate the rammifications of letting such a car thief loose, but I can also understand the point that people perceive that ground patrols can and perhaps be used in more cases, rather than use relatively expensive air support.

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter. They don't insist that the money is spent on a helicopter, they don't insist that it isn't, that's an operational decision for the Police. Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you. And irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one. If the NHS want one they can have one, but they don't want to pay for one from their budget, they'd rather it remain charity run.

Ok, Ill answer these points one at a time:

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter.

Last time I checked the police wasnt a profit making organisation so money for a helicopter comes from...the taxpayer after all. It doesnt matter who decides on whether a helicopter is or isnt necessary - that decision is still made at the taxpayers expense.

irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one

This comes back to the funding coming from the taxpayer, and those funds being apportioned at tresury level for NHS or police use.
This available use is dictated by budget, but this argument comes back to the fact that the general public expressing an opinion on PH (and I suspect in the general population as well) would prefer NHS to have more funds at their disposal - specifically for air transport than the police for the reasons stated.

Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you.

The argument is a little hollow and rather misleading as one person with an opposite view would quantify your statement.
If 1,000 agreed with me and 1 disagreed - your statement would still be correct.
Count those above who in this thread support the usage, compared to those who question it and see for yourself what the approximate ratio is...
The numbers with concerns seem to rather outweigh those (the bibs only it seems) who support that usage in the main.
I am suprised you simply wont see the arguments put forward for peoples objections.

Edited by Wilder on Tuesday 9th September 00:07

[vonhosen]

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

You can't have it both ways - on one hand you argue that there are insufficient funds to resource the police as a force in general, on the other you state that allocation of funds is up to the force itself.

So in other words, you are confirming that the police force as a whole is run completely wrong with wrong priorities?

No, I'm saying that for the Police (at least some forces) a helicopter is money well spent.

Now its not my point Im making here, but an observation I think some of those objecting to the use of helicopters were making.
I think the salient point is that most people view chasing some scrote who just stole a car, or some other police chase scenario as less deserving for government funding than for example, flying an injured motorcyclist/car driver, or trapped climber to hospital within the golden hour. I appreciate the rammifications of letting such a car thief loose, but I can also understand the point that people perceive that ground patrols can and perhaps be used in more cases, rather than use relatively expensive air support.

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter. They don't insist that the money is spent on a helicopter, they don't insist that it isn't, that's an operational decision for the Police. Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you. And irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one. If the NHS want one they can have one, but they don't want to pay for one from their budget, they'd rather it remain charity run.

Ok, Ill answer these points one at a time:

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter.

Last time I checked the police wasnt a profit making organisation so money for a helicopter comes from...the taxpayer after all. It doesnt matter who decides on whether a helicopter is or isnt necessary - that decision is still made at the taxpayers expense.

If you take money from the Police budget to give to the ambulance service, the Police may decide to cut other services before they lose the helicopter, the choice is theirs.

Wilder said:

irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one

This comes back to the funding coming from the taxpayer, and those funds being apportioned at tresury level for NHS or police use.
This available use is dictated by budget, but this argument comes back to the fact that the general public expressing an opinion on PH (and I suspect in the general population as well) would prefer NHS to have more funds at their disposal - specifically for air transport than the police for the reasons stated.

If you give the ambulance service money from the Police budget, that doesn't mean they'll spend it on a helicopter. The evidence suggests that they prefer to spend their money on ambulances, cars & bikes, leaving the helicopter to be run as a charitable asset outside of their budget.
What makes you think if you give them a larger budget they'll invest in a helicopter ?

Wilder said:

Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you.
As above:
This is the whole point, the numbers objecting seem to vastly outweigh those (the bibs only it seems) who support that usage in the main. I am suprised you really cant see the argument for peoples objections.

The numbers objecting where ?
On 'little' (in real terms) old PH ?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th September 00:01

[FishFace]

The police helicopter has been linked with speed enforcement so it naturally becomes the enemy of PH.

[Wilder]

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

You can't have it both ways - on one hand you argue that there are insufficient funds to resource the police as a force in general, on the other you state that allocation of funds is up to the force itself.

So in other words, you are confirming that the police force as a whole is run completely wrong with wrong priorities?

No, I'm saying that for the Police (at least some forces) a helicopter is money well spent.

Now its not my point Im making here, but an observation I think some of those objecting to the use of helicopters were making.
I think the salient point is that most people view chasing some scrote who just stole a car, or some other police chase scenario as less deserving for government funding than for example, flying an injured motorcyclist/car driver, or trapped climber to hospital within the golden hour. I appreciate the rammifications of letting such a car thief loose, but I can also understand the point that people perceive that ground patrols can and perhaps be used in more cases, rather than use relatively expensive air support.

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter. They don't insist that the money is spent on a helicopter, they don't insist that it isn't, that's an operational decision for the Police. Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you. And irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one. If the NHS want one they can have one, but they don't want to pay for one from their budget, they'd rather it remain charity run.

Ok, Ill answer these points one at a time:

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter.

Last time I checked the police wasnt a profit making organisation so money for a helicopter comes from...the taxpayer after all. It doesnt matter who decides on whether a helicopter is or isnt necessary - that decision is still made at the taxpayers expense.

If you take money from the Police budget to give to the ambulance service, the Police may decide to cut other services before they lose the helicopter, the choice is theirs.

Wilder said:

irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one

This comes back to the funding coming from the taxpayer, and those funds being apportioned at tresury level for NHS or police use.
This available use is dictated by budget, but this argument comes back to the fact that the general public expressing an opinion on PH (and I suspect in the general population as well) would prefer NHS to have more funds at their disposal - specifically for air transport than the police for the reasons stated.

If you give the ambulance service money from the Police budget, that doesn't mean they'll spend it on a helicopter. The evidence suggests that they prefer to spend their money on ambulances, cars & bikes, leaving the helicopter to be run as a charitable asset outside of their budget.
What makes you think if you give them a larger budget they'll invest in a helicopter ?

Wilder said:

Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you.
As above:
This is the whole point, the numbers objecting seem to vastly outweigh those (the bibs only it seems) who support that usage in the main. I am suprised you really cant see the argument for peoples objections.

The numbers objecting where ?
On 'little' (in real terms) old PH ?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th September 00:01

Please, if your going to quote me, please make sure you read what I wrote first.
I said above, money to be used SPECIFICALLY for air transport only (no free choice). What do you think, perhaps thats why so many air ambulances rely on the charity of the public to keep flying eh?
Just ask Richard Hammond, and while were on the subject, I cant remember the last time we had a collection for the police helicopter as a worthy cause....

The people objecting to it --where? (read this thread again for a start and it will become clear)
You know, having one point of view and religiously sticking to it no matter what is said to the contrary is never going to yield a balanced argument.
I can only draw the conclusion from this and other replies that you clearly wouldnt acknowledge smoke if your ass was on fire.

Edited by Wilder on Tuesday 9th September 00:21

[vonhosen]

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

You can't have it both ways - on one hand you argue that there are insufficient funds to resource the police as a force in general, on the other you state that allocation of funds is up to the force itself.

So in other words, you are confirming that the police force as a whole is run completely wrong with wrong priorities?

No, I'm saying that for the Police (at least some forces) a helicopter is money well spent.

Now its not my point Im making here, but an observation I think some of those objecting to the use of helicopters were making.
I think the salient point is that most people view chasing some scrote who just stole a car, or some other police chase scenario as less deserving for government funding than for example, flying an injured motorcyclist/car driver, or trapped climber to hospital within the golden hour. I appreciate the rammifications of letting such a car thief loose, but I can also understand the point that people perceive that ground patrols can and perhaps be used in more cases, rather than use relatively expensive air support.

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter. They don't insist that the money is spent on a helicopter, they don't insist that it isn't, that's an operational decision for the Police. Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you. And irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one. If the NHS want one they can have one, but they don't want to pay for one from their budget, they'd rather it remain charity run.

Ok, Ill answer these points one at a time:

But the government don't give them funding for a helicopter.

Last time I checked the police wasnt a profit making organisation so money for a helicopter comes from...the taxpayer after all. It doesnt matter who decides on whether a helicopter is or isnt necessary - that decision is still made at the taxpayers expense.

If you take money from the Police budget to give to the ambulance service, the Police may decide to cut other services before they lose the helicopter, the choice is theirs.

Wilder said:

irrespective of whether the Police have a helicopter or not, it has no bearing on the decision of the NHS to have one

This comes back to the funding coming from the taxpayer, and those funds being apportioned at tresury level for NHS or police use.
This available use is dictated by budget, but this argument comes back to the fact that the general public expressing an opinion on PH (and I suspect in the general population as well) would prefer NHS to have more funds at their disposal - specifically for air transport than the police for the reasons stated.

If you give the ambulance service money from the Police budget, that doesn't mean they'll spend it on a helicopter. The evidence suggests that they prefer to spend their money on ambulances, cars & bikes, leaving the helicopter to be run as a charitable asset outside of their budget.
What makes you think if you give them a larger budget they'll invest in a helicopter ?

Wilder said:

Whilst you don't want it used for pursuits others hold the opposite view to you.
As above:
This is the whole point, the numbers objecting seem to vastly outweigh those (the bibs only it seems) who support that usage in the main. I am suprised you really cant see the argument for peoples objections.

The numbers objecting where ?
On 'little' (in real terms) old PH ?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th September 00:01

Please, if your going to quote me, please make sure you read what I wrote first.
I said above, money to be used SPECIFICALLY for air transport only (no free choice). What do you think, perhaps thats why so many air ambulances rely on the charity of the public to keep flying eh?
Just ask Richard Hammond, and while were on the subject, I cant remember the last time we had a collection for the police helicopter as a worthy cause....

The people objecting to it --where? (read my answer again and it will become clear)
You know, ahving one point of view and religiously sticvking to it no matter what is said to the contrary is never going to yield a balanced argument.
I can only draw the conclusion from this and other replies that you clearly wouldnt acknowledge smoke if your ass was on fire.

I'll acknowledge it, but it's a case of me seeing the flames supplying it coming from yours.

To the best of my knowledge they've tried getting the ambulance service to take the helicopters within the service, but they don't want them, they'd rather have more ambulances & staff.
It still doesn't mean if you take money from the Police that they'll give up the helicopters before they give up other services.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

Oh, right...

Do you have the deaths figures from 1975 to 2007?

1975 = 6366 killed.
1965 = 7952 killed.

All of them, you obtuse git...

[vonhosen]

Richard C said:

By your book you choose to balme the accidents on speed; if youy look at the real data speed is a major factor in how many 5 or 6%.

In all types of collisions (combined), exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in about 5%.
In fatality collisions it's a factor in about 12%.

In all types of collisions (combined), driving too fast for the conditions is a factor in about 12%.
In fatality collisions it's a factor in about 17%.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 9th September 07:09

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

Oh, right...

Do you have the deaths figures from 1975 to 2007?

1975 = 6366 killed.
1965 = 7952 killed.

All of them, you obtuse git...

I'm not going to type them all out now I haven't got time. They are freely available on the net.

[WildCat]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

Oh, right...

Do you have the deaths figures from 1975 to 2007?

1975 = 6366 killed.
1965 = 7952 killed.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th September 23:14

In 10 years there was a big improvement. We have one of the last Morris 1000's ever made .. und one first registered in 1965. There were no significant improvements to cars in that decade. Car manufacturers started to make significant improvements in the 70s - which improve in each year's models und extras.

If folk were "hit at 20 mph" in those cars of 1965 to 1978 say - they would probably be seriously injured or die..

I could give Europe's hospital stats too. Medics have never had the "alleged skills of Jesus" in that they can "raise the dead" - but improvements in the medicines .. the equipment und medical science has led to medics being able to save more lives or prolong those lives with bettered quality of life. Back in 1965 - chances of surviving such trauma were less even if the hospitals did not have rampant "killer bugs" (They did ,.,though - they just did not know what it was ..as it was described as a "mystery virus" )

[WildCat]

By the way mr annie - the NHS und the local authorities/highways agencies do contact the insurannce companies of those involved in an accident to claw back some or even all of the costs incurred in treatment/repairing roads.

You could say all pay in hiked insurance to cover incidents in much the same way as all our insurance policies pay for flood damage to homes built - quite foolishly - on the flood plains und the naff, jerry-built und inadequate drainage which lead to flash flooding in other areas of the UK.

All car drivers pay a surcharge to fund the MIB for those who cannot be bothered to take out insurance or run from scenes of accidents If you guys would actually nail these und the authorities that be make the fine punitive .. thus making any insurance policy a cheaper option - then we may get somewhere in reducing this charge to us all.

There could also be a regulation of the old heap at £60-£100 at the auctioneeers too

These cars are usually unroadworthy und in the hands of the most dangerous - the unlicenced

They are not even registered und when tugged by ANPR - these can end in the police pursuit leading to tragedy. Papers ){local) are full of such incidents each day.

Oh und by the way - the M25? I have never driven on that road at the speed limit of a UK motorway. It usually busy .. with a free flow speed of 45-50 mph if we lucky.. So when I hear of "incident" on M25 on national traffic news - it will not be speed as the cause of it. It will be failure of COAST by those involved

But back to the topic. I do not mind a helicopter tracking the chavs in the afore-mentioned "prat-mobile" ... leading the police to block, box in und rein them in without killing anyone - including these thugs.

I do have concerns about deploying a helicopter purely to cop someone a few mph over the lolly on an empty road though - because the opportunity cost of this ist the accident caused by those thugs in the pratmobile or the walker's demise - who foolishly went on the Fells in T-shirt, short und flip-flops



I think some folk need to get their priorities right. I would rather some one gets away with 57 mph on Derbyshire's 50 mph blanket zone (which used to be 60 mph) than some person die because that facility was not monitoring the obviously downright dangerously illegal und unregistered prat-mobiles

[Wilder]

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

[vonhosen]

WildCat said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

Richard C said:

The contradiction is yours annie vxr. Of course enforcement is stupidly ineffective. Yes we only have 10 deaths a day. Enforcement is irrelevant to that number. We had about 10 deaths a day 10 and 15 years ago and there has been no improvement despite a far better population of crash resistant cars and better medical techniques etc. simply blaming it on more cars doesn't wash. more cars = slower speeds sue to congestion and by your credo that should reduce deaths shouldn't it ?

1992 = 4229 deaths
2007 = 2946 deaths

A reduction of over 30%.

Are you claiming credit for that...?


Nothing to do with advances in medical science and vehicle design, then...?

What I'm saying is that Richard C's claim of 'no improvement' is false.

The reduction will be a culmination of a lot of factors & the lower you go the harder it gets to gain further reductions.

Oh, right...

Do you have the deaths figures from 1975 to 2007?

1975 = 6366 killed.
1965 = 7952 killed.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 8th September 23:14

In 10 years there was a big improvement. We have one of the last Morris 1000's ever made .. und one first registered in 1965. There were no significant improvements to cars in that decade. Car manufacturers started to make significant improvements in the 70s - which improve in each year's models und extras.

If folk were "hit at 20 mph" in those cars of 1965 to 1978 say - they would probably be seriously injured or die..

I could give Europe's hospital stats too. Medics have never had the "alleged skills of Jesus" in that they can "raise the dead" - but improvements in the medicines .. the equipment und medical science has led to medics being able to save more lives or prolong those lives with bettered quality of life. Back in 1965 - chances of surviving such trauma were less even if the hospitals did not have rampant "killer bugs" (They did ,.,though - they just did not know what it was ..as it was described as a "mystery virus" )

But in 1950 it was only 5012 killed.

[Wilder]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

Edited by Wilder on Tuesday 9th September 20:21

[vonhosen]

Wilder said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

You can speak hypothetically all you like, it makes no difference.

[Wilder]

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

You can speak hypothetically all you like, it makes no difference.

Exactly, which is why people are agrieved at attitudes such as yours ....
The will of the people of this country is disregarded by people so arrogant that they think they have to answer to no one.

If thats your best answer to the argument, its sadly lacking..

Edited by Wilder on Tuesday 9th September 21:44

[vonhosen]

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

You can speak hypothetically all you like, it makes no difference.

Exactly, which is why people are agrieved at attitudes such as yours ....
The will of the people of this country is disregarded by people so arrogant that they think they have to answer to no one.

If thats your best answer to the argument, its sadly lacking..

I have no say in whether we have a helicopter or not, mine is an opinion just like yours.
I just happen to think that your idea of taking funds from the Police for what you personally perceive as misuse of it, is pie in the sky.

I don't see anything to suggest you are 'tuned in' to the will of the people with your statement.