RE: Dangerous Driving Reviewed
Discussion
quote:
"That's balls. How does a Gatso which only enforces a 30mph limit prevent accidents which happen below 30mph? I'd wager that except where a school is right on a major road, most accidents around schools involve much slower moving vehicles - many are caused by parents not paying proper attention when entering and exiting parking spaces - you might prevent 1 in 10 potential accidents with a gatso. So what's the point?"
Because most people approach them faster than 30mph. And even if they are within the speed limit seeing a GATSO wakes people up and they begin to pay attention to their driving. Face facts 95% of the driving population have received no formal driver training. Instead, they’re taught how to pass a test. One out of ten accidents is one less isn’t it?
quote:
"No they are not - mostly they are on open stretches of road, far away from junctions. "
In accident spots? As I said, I appreciate that some are in ludicrous places.
quote:
"No offence intended but I think that's an extremely naive point of view, when the road safety and environmental agendas are set by people who, for the sake of their political credibility, hate cars and drivers. "
"Hate is a strong word. I understand what you mean but I think you’re making assumptions about people’s views."
"I appreciate that this is intended as a 'thought experiement' but in any real world context, the fact is that the economy relies on personal mobility and yet this is something which the state and it's apparatus are unable to provide for adequately, so we rely on cars etc.
Do we really want a world made of cotton wool and bubble wrap, where risk is the new racism? It's in the interests of humanity to see that this does not become the case."
We already have one. If you don’t want to work, hey no problem. Here’s a house and some cash….but don’t get me started on that one
"That's balls. How does a Gatso which only enforces a 30mph limit prevent accidents which happen below 30mph? I'd wager that except where a school is right on a major road, most accidents around schools involve much slower moving vehicles - many are caused by parents not paying proper attention when entering and exiting parking spaces - you might prevent 1 in 10 potential accidents with a gatso. So what's the point?"
Because most people approach them faster than 30mph. And even if they are within the speed limit seeing a GATSO wakes people up and they begin to pay attention to their driving. Face facts 95% of the driving population have received no formal driver training. Instead, they’re taught how to pass a test. One out of ten accidents is one less isn’t it?
quote:
"No they are not - mostly they are on open stretches of road, far away from junctions. "
In accident spots? As I said, I appreciate that some are in ludicrous places.
quote:
"No offence intended but I think that's an extremely naive point of view, when the road safety and environmental agendas are set by people who, for the sake of their political credibility, hate cars and drivers. "
"Hate is a strong word. I understand what you mean but I think you’re making assumptions about people’s views."
"I appreciate that this is intended as a 'thought experiement' but in any real world context, the fact is that the economy relies on personal mobility and yet this is something which the state and it's apparatus are unable to provide for adequately, so we rely on cars etc.
Do we really want a world made of cotton wool and bubble wrap, where risk is the new racism? It's in the interests of humanity to see that this does not become the case."
We already have one. If you don’t want to work, hey no problem. Here’s a house and some cash….but don’t get me started on that one
quote:
I disagree. A Gatso outside a school will dramatically reduce speeding in crowded situations. ie. schools turning out and reduce accidents or the likelihood of accidents.
I agree in principal, however I have NEVER seen a Gatso outside a school. Also, have you ever been near a school and seen the standard of driving and observation exhibited by these women ?? It really is amazing there are any children left, with 4*4s screaming up the roads in excess of 40mph.
quote:
But by and large they are placed approaching or covering junctions where they cause most people to brake
There are 3 speed cameras local to me, two of them are halfway down hills (which are 30mph limits) and hidden behind trees. If the idea is to SLOW people down then why are they hidden ?
quote:
Yes, and drivers like us are trained to extend our observations and look for these hazards, and to look for clues as to what is about to happen. Sticking to the limit just gives a more thinking time
I don't mean to be rude but have you ever driven on the UK roads ? Drivers have no idea of where you are, no clue who has right of way on a mini roundabout, no idea what lane to take on a roundabout, and no idea what indicators are for. Most drivers pay little/no attention to the road or hazards because they are playing with the stereo, on the mobile, doing their makeup, smoking, and now of course staring at the speedo cause as long as they obey the limit they are perceived as 'safe'
quote:
I agree, everybody needs educating, what happened to the green cross code ads on TV?
I completely agree.
quote:
If we're in a national and it’s safe to 135, I want to know why we are only doing 134."
You stated Stick to Posted speed limits as priority one. How does this work ? I assume that you mean stick to lower limits but NSL are fair game ? So how do you advocate 100mph plus as safe as your whole argument is based on a slower speed = more thinking time
quote:
Think about this, if there were no cars on the road pedestrians wouldn't get run over
Even when there were horses people got killed. It is the Road that is for vehicular use, and the pavement for pedestrians. How hard can it be ? If I walk across the road I look both ways a lot, and I move quickly.
quote:I'll stop you there.. often, seeing a gatso does anything but wake people up and make them concentrate on their driving - in many cases seeing a gatso causes people to fixate their attention on their speedometer and sometimes to brake instinctively irrespective of whether they're exceeding the speed limit.
most people approach them (gatsos) faster than 30mph. And even if they are within the speed limit seeing a GATSO wakes people up and they begin to pay attention to their driving.
quote:Agreed - most people view driving in a very utilitarian light
Face facts 95% of the driving population have received no formal driver training. Instead, they’re taught how to pass a test.
quote:I appreciate where you're coming from, but follow the argument to it's logical conclusion and where will it end? As I understand it, the UK has the lowest 'per capita' and 'per miles driven' KSI figures for any EU country. So must we persist until there are no deaths on the road at all, ever?
One out of ten accidents is one less isn’t it?
quote:All argument involves making certain assumptions and those I made are based on empirical and anecdotal evidence. By way of illustrating my assertion, observe Michael Meacher and his attempts to ban motorcycles from National Parks. If that's not based on motorist hating dogma, then what is it?
"Hate is a strong word. I understand what you mean but I think you’re making assumptions about people’s views."
quote:But to comply with that scheme you have to display the ability to breed like it's going out of fashion and never twice with the same partner..
If you don’t want to work, hey no problem. Here’s a house and some cash….but don’t get me started on that one
quote:
"No they are not - mostly they are on open stretches of road, far away from junctions. "
In accident spots? As I said, I appreciate that some are in ludicrous places.
[quote/]
Some; SOME,I have yet to see a gatso placed in an accident blackspot. Indeed as most of them are hidden their contribution to road safety is most likely to be a negative one. Have you got shares in them or something?
quote:
"No offence intended but I think that's an extremely naive point of view, when the road safety and environmental agendas are set by people who, for the sake of their political credibility, hate cars and drivers. "
"Hate is a strong word. I understand what you mean but I think you’re making assumptions about people’s views."
[quote/]
I can produce many posts from other websites containing anti car anti economy language which could not be construed as anything other than hate. For example "Time to start killing Porsche drivers" "What we need is concerted car smashing activity". I suggest you wake up!!! To the reality of green feeling.
quote:
Do we really want a world made of cotton wool and bubble wrap, where risk is the new racism? It's in the interests of humanity to see that this does not become the case."
We already have one. If you don’t want to work, hey no problem. Here’s a house and some cash….but don’t get me started on that one
No we don't already have one and I for sure don't want one. Last years figures for deaths in the construction industry prove you wrong. There is nothing wrong with risk reduction in any context but all we see from government is spin and you are being taken in.
None of the road safety measures put in place by government are effective. The fall in accidents in the last 20 years is almost entirely due to better technology. Even the seat belt law required better seatbelts before it was enforcable. All the claims about drink driving, speed, better roads etc are really claiming credit for the difference made by seat belts, air bags, tyres, bodyshell design, ABS etc
AAAARRRRHHHHH There I feel better now.
>> Edited by nonegreen on Friday 22 February 15:24
"I appreciate where you're coming from, but follow the argument to its logical conclusion and where will it end? As I understand it, the UK has the lowest 'per capita' and 'per miles driven' KSI figures for any EU country. So must we persist until there are no deaths on the road at all, ever?"
We will never achieve that but one less child dead on our roads is one less bereaved parent. If a GATSO reduces the speed of a vehicle its done its job. I would suggest that if somebody does nothing but look at the speedo or brake heavily when they see a GATSO they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Broad ranging I know and I¡¦m guilty of it. But at the other side of the speed trap do you say 'perhaps I was going to fast or not looking' or do blame the people that put the GATSO there
"All argument involves making certain assumptions and those I made are based on empirical and anecdotal evidence. By way of illustrating my assertion, observe Michael Meacher and his attempts to ban motorcycles from National Parks. If that's not based on motorist hating dogma, then what is it? "
I haven't seen that article so I'm not in a position to comment..is there a link?
"But to comply with that scheme you have to display the ability to breed like it's going out of fashion and never twice with the same partner.. "
LOL How true
"Some; SOME, I have yet to see a Gatso placed in an accident blackspot. Indeed as most of them are hidden their contribution to road safety is most likely to be a negative one. Have you got shares in them or something?"
No, not at all. But I think you are exaggerating a little.
"I can produce many posts from other websites containing anti car anti economy language which could not be construed as anything other than hate. For example "Time to start killing Porsche drivers" "What we need is concerted car smashing activity". I suggest you wake up!!! To the reality of green feeling. "
Suggest I wake up. Don't take offence but unless you do what I do you are blinkered to the real world.
"No we don't already have one and I for sure don't want one. Last years figures for deaths in the construction industry prove you wrong. There is nothing wrong with risk reduction in any context but all we see from government is spin and you are being taken in."
This was a joke..but one that is all to real
"None of the road safety measures put in place by government are effective. The fall in accidents in the last 20 years is almost entirely due to better technology. Even the seat belt law required better seatbelts before it was enforcable. All the claims about drink driving, speed, better roads etc are really claiming credit for the difference made by seat belts, air bags, tyres, bodyshell design, ABS etc"
So drink driving is okay and not responsible for accidents. I'm not behind the government at all, but to say that measures taken have had no effect on reducing accidents is rubbish. Sorry.
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Friday 22 February 17:09
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Friday 22 February 18:30
We will never achieve that but one less child dead on our roads is one less bereaved parent. If a GATSO reduces the speed of a vehicle its done its job. I would suggest that if somebody does nothing but look at the speedo or brake heavily when they see a GATSO they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Broad ranging I know and I¡¦m guilty of it. But at the other side of the speed trap do you say 'perhaps I was going to fast or not looking' or do blame the people that put the GATSO there
"All argument involves making certain assumptions and those I made are based on empirical and anecdotal evidence. By way of illustrating my assertion, observe Michael Meacher and his attempts to ban motorcycles from National Parks. If that's not based on motorist hating dogma, then what is it? "
I haven't seen that article so I'm not in a position to comment..is there a link?
"But to comply with that scheme you have to display the ability to breed like it's going out of fashion and never twice with the same partner.. "
LOL
How true "Some; SOME, I have yet to see a Gatso placed in an accident blackspot. Indeed as most of them are hidden their contribution to road safety is most likely to be a negative one. Have you got shares in them or something?"
No, not at all. But I think you are exaggerating a little.
"I can produce many posts from other websites containing anti car anti economy language which could not be construed as anything other than hate. For example "Time to start killing Porsche drivers" "What we need is concerted car smashing activity". I suggest you wake up!!! To the reality of green feeling. "
Suggest I wake up. Don't take offence but unless you do what I do you are blinkered to the real world.
"No we don't already have one and I for sure don't want one. Last years figures for deaths in the construction industry prove you wrong. There is nothing wrong with risk reduction in any context but all we see from government is spin and you are being taken in."
This was a joke..but one that is all to real
"None of the road safety measures put in place by government are effective. The fall in accidents in the last 20 years is almost entirely due to better technology. Even the seat belt law required better seatbelts before it was enforcable. All the claims about drink driving, speed, better roads etc are really claiming credit for the difference made by seat belts, air bags, tyres, bodyshell design, ABS etc"
So drink driving is okay and not responsible for accidents. I'm not behind the government at all, but to say that measures taken have had no effect on reducing accidents is rubbish. Sorry.
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Friday 22 February 17:09
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Friday 22 February 18:30
I get really annoyed by this sort of argument.
I simply do not accept that speed cameras are an effective way to improve general road safety. The idea that it is never safe to break the speed limit is absurd, as is the idea that by stopping people exceeding a speed limit you will make them safe drivers. In limited situations where there is an unavoidable risk of running somebody over, putting an absolute cap on vehicle speeds makes an accident survivable to a pedestrian, but there are very few situations where this applies and these are not the places where cameras are typically used.
Even supposing speed cameras *did* make an effective improvement to road safety, does this justify the huge expense and inconvenience they cause? Roads will never be infinitely safe and there must be a reasonable balance between cost and danger. Given the tiny correlation between speed and accidents (excess speed the prime cause of 4% of accidents?) and the huge cost that they cause to motorists, it seems clear to me that this balance is completely wrong at the moment.
I find the arguments in favour of speed cameras completely unconvincing, and IMO the people who promote them are fools, or cynically promoting anti-car propoganda for their own sinister purposes, or money grabbing b*stards trying to get away with yet another stealth tax.
I could go on but, for a change, I won't. But I'm not going to relax and it definitely isn't cool.
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)
I simply do not accept that speed cameras are an effective way to improve general road safety. The idea that it is never safe to break the speed limit is absurd, as is the idea that by stopping people exceeding a speed limit you will make them safe drivers. In limited situations where there is an unavoidable risk of running somebody over, putting an absolute cap on vehicle speeds makes an accident survivable to a pedestrian, but there are very few situations where this applies and these are not the places where cameras are typically used.
Even supposing speed cameras *did* make an effective improvement to road safety, does this justify the huge expense and inconvenience they cause? Roads will never be infinitely safe and there must be a reasonable balance between cost and danger. Given the tiny correlation between speed and accidents (excess speed the prime cause of 4% of accidents?) and the huge cost that they cause to motorists, it seems clear to me that this balance is completely wrong at the moment.
I find the arguments in favour of speed cameras completely unconvincing, and IMO the people who promote them are fools, or cynically promoting anti-car propoganda for their own sinister purposes, or money grabbing b*stards trying to get away with yet another stealth tax.
I could go on but, for a change, I won't. But I'm not going to relax and it definitely isn't cool.
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)
quote:
"Some; SOME, I have yet to see a Gatso placed in an accident blackspot. Indeed as most of them are hidden their contribution to road safety is most likely to be a negative one. Have you got shares in them or something?"
No, not at all. But I think you are exaggerating a little.
[quote/]
No I am not exaggerating even a tiny bit. I travel the UK extensively and I count the bloody things. They are there to collect revenue. It is stealing and Blair should be banged up with a razor blade butty for it.
quote:
"I can produce many posts from other websites containing anti car anti economy language which could not be construed as anything other than hate. For example "Time to start killing Porsche drivers" "What we need is concerted car smashing activity". I suggest you wake up!!! To the reality of green feeling. "
Suggest I wake up. Don't take offence but unless you do what I do you are blinkered to the real world.
[quote/]
So tell us what you do thats so in touch with the real world I would love to know
quote:
"None of the road safety measures put in place by government are effective. The fall in accidents in the last 20 years is almost entirely due to better technology. Even the seat belt law required better seatbelts before it was enforcable. All the claims about drink driving, speed, better roads etc are really claiming credit for the difference made by seat belts, air bags, tyres, bodyshell design, ABS etc"
So drink driving is okay and not responsible for accidents. I'm not behind the government at all, but to say that measures taken have had no effect on reducing accidents is rubbish. Sorry.
I never said drink driving is OK and I have stated my position on this before on other posts. A representative picture of society is a small number of TT fans, the majority of us falling into the category of social drinkers and a few, a tiny few alcoholics (for want of a better description). Prior to breath tests TTs were out of the picture anyway, social drinkers were responsible and kept to within current limits anyway. Alcoholics drove to pub got drunk and drive home, possibly crashed and burned on the way. Post breathyliser, same situation. Introduction of law makes no difference. We are a breeding society, even if you jail DD convicts there are plenty more coming up to replace them. A recent survey among Max Power kids confirmed that contrary to the Governments out of touch contention that DD was socially and culturally unnacceptable it is alive and well and living in the max Vauxhall CORSA. Not good for road safety but a pie in the face for the " Lets make speeding as socially unnacceptable as DD" bleeding heart liberal pinko "cars are bad and drugs are good" green parasites who are like leeches, draining the humanity out of the human race.
[quote/]
No I am not exaggerating even a tiny bit. I travel the UK extensively and I count the bloody things. They are there to collect revenue. It is stealing and Blair should be banged up with a razor blade butty for it.
If you can back up your comments with evidence I'l believe you. But to be fair, you won't be able to.
No I am not exaggerating even a tiny bit. I travel the UK extensively and I count the bloody things. They are there to collect revenue. It is stealing and Blair should be banged up with a razor blade butty for it.
If you can back up your comments with evidence I'l believe you. But to be fair, you won't be able to.
quote:
So tell us what you do thats so in touch with the real world I would love to know
I didn't want to say cause it changes peoples attitude to me. But so you know, I'm a Police Officer in a traffic divison soon to be returning to response car work. So, tell me about the many road accidents you've been to and the amount of times you've had to tell somebody a loved one is dead. Then the next day have a burning stolen car rolled at you by an angry mob of a 100 or so. Sorry, but unless you've done the stuff I see everyday you have no idea what goes on in the real world.
quote:
I never said drink driving is OK and I have stated my position on this before on other posts. A representative picture of society is a small number of TT fans, the majority of us falling into the category of social drinkers and a few, a tiny few alcoholics (for want of a better description). Prior to breath tests TTs were out of the picture anyway, social drinkers were responsible and kept to within current limits anyway. Alcoholics drove to pub got drunk and drive home, possibly crashed and burned on the way. Post breathyliser, same situation. Introduction of law makes no difference. We are a breeding society, even if you jail DD convicts there are plenty more coming up to replace them. A recent survey among Max Power kids confirmed that contrary to the Governments out of touch contention that DD was socially and culturally unnacceptable it is alive and well and living in the max Vauxhall CORSA. Not good for road safety but a pie in the face for the " Lets make speeding as socially unnacceptable as DD" bleeding heart liberal pinko "cars are bad and drugs are good" green parasites who are like leeches, draining the humanity out of the human race.
What do you mean by TT? And re the rest of your argument. From the position I see it from, and the people I deal with I can say that you are wrong. The law and the Ad campaigns have made a difference. All you need to do is look at the figures for 20yrs ago compared today.
>> Edited by Relaxitscool on Saturday 23 February 10:32
>> Edited by Relaxitscool on Saturday 23 February 10:34
quote:
So tell us what you do thats so in touch with the real world I would love to know
I didn't want to say cause it changes peoples attitude to me. But so you know, I'm a Police Officer in a traffic divison soon to be returning to response car work. So, tell me about the many road accidents you've been to and the amount of times you've had to tell somebody a loved one is dead. Then the next day have a burning stolen car rolled at you by an angry mob of a 100 or so. Sorry, but unless you've done the stuff I see everyday you have no idea what goes on in the real world.
[quote/]
It does not influence my view one way or another. But it does explain why your views are slghtly simplistic. As a citizen I apreciate you have a job which often has unpleasant bits. It annoys me that government makes this job worse. The job, however does not put you in touch with the real world. One of the difficulties all police face worldwode is that they largely deal with the worst aspects of society. It is only when they return to the real world of family they get a picture of what its like outside that environment. What your saying is that because you see other peoples tragedy and you experience the fear of facing an angry mob it gives you a deep insight into societies problems. Well I am sorry, but I disagree, for two reasons. Firstly we all have our own pain to deal with, its part of what makes us survive. We also face fear, perhaps less frequently than you, but with more intensity. I would far rather face a mob in uniform alongside a bunch of other guys than get lost in certain parts of Philadelphia or Gary Indiana at 3 am.
Secondly, you are as a police officer protected. Your employment is as guaranteed as any can be and any confusion about your position in society can be instantly put right by the production of your ID. Your pension has no equal in the commersial world and you reamain a member of a very big club for life. That is put in place by the tax payer as compensation for dreadfull hours and unpleasant tasks. I think this is as it should be.
Do not make the mistake of assuming everyone else has no understanding or experience of the real world because you sort it for us. You do not, as I do, have to fly round the world to make a living depending on nothing more than your wits. You do not have to support yourself and others in a free market economy which can change very rapidly and present enormous problems. Unless you have responsibilty for the livelihoods of many and you are accountable for that task you will not understand what it feels like to make things happen. In other words you have a reactive
role.
As you are no doubt aware we are 3 square meals away from the sort of insurrection that no police force will ever be able to deal with. You, me and everyone else do our bit to make sure those 3 squares end up on the table. We all contribute thats why its called civilisation. There is nothing unique about what you do, so don't be so arsey as to think none of know what were talking about. There is a huge body of experience and knowlege on this bulletin board. Your job is obviously where you got your driver skills, but your profession kill someone every half million miles driven. I have done just about 1 million miles and I never killed anyone. Should I now believe I am twice as good as you at driving?
quote:
I never said drink driving is OK and I have stated my position on this before on other posts. A representative picture of society is a small number of TT fans, the majority of us falling into the category of social drinkers and a few, a tiny few alcoholics (for want of a better description). Prior to breath tests TTs were out of the picture anyway, social drinkers were responsible and kept to within current limits anyway. Alcoholics drove to pub got drunk and drive home, possibly crashed and burned on the way. Post breathyliser, same situation. Introduction of law makes no difference. We are a breeding society, even if you jail DD convicts there are plenty more coming up to replace them. A recent survey among Max Power kids confirmed that contrary to the Governments out of touch contention that DD was socially and culturally unnacceptable it is alive and well and living in the max Vauxhall CORSA. Not good for road safety but a pie in the face for the " Lets make speeding as socially unnacceptable as DD" bleeding heart liberal pinko "cars are bad and drugs are good" green parasites who are like leeches, draining the humanity out of the human race.
What do you mean by TT? And re the rest of your argument. From the position I see it from, and the people I deal with I can say that you are wrong. The law and the Ad campaigns have made a difference. All you need to do is look at the figures for 20yrs ago compared today.
[quote/]
TT means tea total (Groucho Marx said "I was TT till prohibition." Think about it).
I meet a lot of people who think government action and policy are making a difference. They are still wrong. For example Teachers will tell you that GCSE is just as difficult to pass as GCE was. Well, no it isnt and the proof is very easy. More people pass and unless government have made a major change to the kids on a genetic level then QED. The point is the entire profession just like yours believes the propaganda. My original statement stands. :
I think your post was very interesting, despite my lack of agreement. If you want to come back at me on the DD figures lets take a look. I look forward to being proved wrong. Good luck with chasin cars and leave the red porsches alone.
/quote
I meet a lot of people who think government action and policy are making a difference. They are still wrong. For example Teachers will tell you that GCSE is just as difficult to pass as GCE was. Well, no it isn’t and the proof is very easy. More people pass and unless government have made a major change to the kids on a genetic level then QED.
/quote
Sorry as an ex-teacher I can tell you that this bit is B**ll*cks. There are several reasons GCSE results have improved compared to GCE:
The most important is the improvement in teaching styles. 20 years ago, parrot fashion was thought to be the best way to learn. It’s not by a long way, we learn by experience and so teaching has changed to be more geared to proper learning methods. Just a small fact we have learnt more about how the human brain learns in the last 10 years, than we have in the entire history of mankind.
Secondly the attitude to education has changed over the years. It used to be easy to walk into a job when someone left school, now people expect qualifications. Therefore students expect to get a higher standard (one key factor of success is expecting you will, as both you and I run a business we know this to be true). Equally parents will push their children more.
Thirdly education itself has changed its policy regarding examination. My father never even took a GCE because of the school system, but he is no idiot and if he were a child in school today he would take and pass some GCSEs.
Finally you assume that being able to pass an exam is down purely to whether or not you have the right parents. (Did you have the right parents to pass your driving test?) The last person that argued that, invaded Poland and murdered millions of people because he thought his race were superior.
Education is NOT genetics. Social expectations, background and quality of teaching are the major factors here (notice, not a lot to do with government policy). Your attitude is entirely pessimistic; you believe that no changes to our social community make any difference. GCE and GCSE qualifications are DIFFERENT reflecting IMHO the improvements made. The standard of knowledge and understanding is the same (if not harder) for GCSE.
Both you and I argue against speed cameras because they simplify a problem, which is far more complex. Simply reducing speed, or sticking to the speed limits does not reduce accidents. Careful driving, better training, better cars, better roads etc. do.
I meet a lot of people who think government action and policy are making a difference. They are still wrong. For example Teachers will tell you that GCSE is just as difficult to pass as GCE was. Well, no it isn’t and the proof is very easy. More people pass and unless government have made a major change to the kids on a genetic level then QED.
/quote
Sorry as an ex-teacher I can tell you that this bit is B**ll*cks. There are several reasons GCSE results have improved compared to GCE:
The most important is the improvement in teaching styles. 20 years ago, parrot fashion was thought to be the best way to learn. It’s not by a long way, we learn by experience and so teaching has changed to be more geared to proper learning methods. Just a small fact we have learnt more about how the human brain learns in the last 10 years, than we have in the entire history of mankind.
Secondly the attitude to education has changed over the years. It used to be easy to walk into a job when someone left school, now people expect qualifications. Therefore students expect to get a higher standard (one key factor of success is expecting you will, as both you and I run a business we know this to be true). Equally parents will push their children more.
Thirdly education itself has changed its policy regarding examination. My father never even took a GCE because of the school system, but he is no idiot and if he were a child in school today he would take and pass some GCSEs.
Finally you assume that being able to pass an exam is down purely to whether or not you have the right parents. (Did you have the right parents to pass your driving test?) The last person that argued that, invaded Poland and murdered millions of people because he thought his race were superior.
Education is NOT genetics. Social expectations, background and quality of teaching are the major factors here (notice, not a lot to do with government policy). Your attitude is entirely pessimistic; you believe that no changes to our social community make any difference. GCE and GCSE qualifications are DIFFERENT reflecting IMHO the improvements made. The standard of knowledge and understanding is the same (if not harder) for GCSE.
Both you and I argue against speed cameras because they simplify a problem, which is far more complex. Simply reducing speed, or sticking to the speed limits does not reduce accidents. Careful driving, better training, better cars, better roads etc. do.
It does not influence my view one way or another. But it does explain why your views are slghtly simplistic. As a citizen I apreciate you have a job which often has unpleasant bits. It annoys me that government makes this job worse. The job, however does not put you in touch with the real world. One of the difficulties all police face worldwode is that they largely deal with the worst aspects of society. It is only when they return to the real world of family they get a picture of what its like outside that environment. What your saying is that because you see other peoples tragedy and you experience the fear of facing an angry mob it gives you a deep insight into societies problems. Well I am sorry, but I disagree, for two reasons. Firstly we all have our own pain to deal with, its part of what makes us survive. We also face fear, perhaps less frequently than you, but with more intensity. I would far rather face a mob in uniform alongside a bunch of other guys than get lost in certain parts of Philadelphia or Gary Indiana at 3 am.
-----------
My job, does give a view of both the good and the bad this world has to offer. I was not born a Police officer. I took considerable life experience in with me when I joined, and I have a life outside work, which provides normality to me. Yes we all have our own pain to deal with. I have mine, but then I go to work and have other people’s pain to deal with aswell. Please don’t interpret this as a moan about my job because I see it as a way of life and would never want to do anything else. Because I see other peoples problems, share them and try to deal with them I do have an insight into life that you never see. What I see is a society that will be out numbered in a couple of years by those who believe that is okay not to work, that houses are free, and that its good to have 3 kids and promote the same views by the time your 19. You say you face fear of more intensity. Ask my wife what fear is when I don’t come home, she turns on the TV and sees that 150 officers have been hurt in rioting and knows I’m there. Tell me, have ever genuinely believed your life was about to end, ever had a double barrelled shot gun pointed in your face by a man bent on revenge cause his brother had died after being sold bad smack? Walking around Philadelphia is your choice. I do what I do because I’m asked to, if I say no, I get fined 4 days pay.
----------------
Secondly, you are as a police officer protected. Your employment is as guaranteed as any can be and any confusion about your position in society can be instantly put right by the production of your ID. Your pension has no equal in the commersial world and you reamain a member of a very big club for life. That is put in place by the tax payer as compensation for dreadfull hours and unpleasant tasks. I think this is as it should be.
-----------
My job is longer guaranteed. My pension costs me 11% of my wages per month.
-----------
Do not make the mistake of assuming everyone else has no understanding or experience of the real world because you sort it for us. You do not, as I do, have to fly round the world to make a living depending on nothing more than your wits. You do not have to support yourself and others in a free market economy which can change very rapidly and present enormous problems. Unless you have responsibilty for the livelihoods of many and you are accountable for that task you will not understand what it feels like to make things happen. In other words you have a reactive role.
------------
I never said that. All I said was, and going back to the original point was that I have a different view of driving than you because I see the wrecks and speak to the families. You do not. I have personally seen improvements when a GATSO has been placed in an accident spot, despite the fact that I don’t totally agree with them, thus I accept that they have done some good. Yes my role is reactive, but I did not say it was any more or any less important than your job.
------------
Your job is obviously where you got your driver skills, but your profession kill someone every half million miles driven. I have done just about 1 million miles and I never killed anyone. Should I now believe I am twice as good as you at driving
-----------
After an interesting debate, this sort of comment brings into question your reasoning
-----------
The point is the entire profession just like yours believes the propaganda. My original statement stands. :
------------
Again, you are speaking for people and an organisation you don’t know, except that which you read in the news.
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Saturday 23 February 14:31
-----------
My job, does give a view of both the good and the bad this world has to offer. I was not born a Police officer. I took considerable life experience in with me when I joined, and I have a life outside work, which provides normality to me. Yes we all have our own pain to deal with. I have mine, but then I go to work and have other people’s pain to deal with aswell. Please don’t interpret this as a moan about my job because I see it as a way of life and would never want to do anything else. Because I see other peoples problems, share them and try to deal with them I do have an insight into life that you never see. What I see is a society that will be out numbered in a couple of years by those who believe that is okay not to work, that houses are free, and that its good to have 3 kids and promote the same views by the time your 19. You say you face fear of more intensity. Ask my wife what fear is when I don’t come home, she turns on the TV and sees that 150 officers have been hurt in rioting and knows I’m there. Tell me, have ever genuinely believed your life was about to end, ever had a double barrelled shot gun pointed in your face by a man bent on revenge cause his brother had died after being sold bad smack? Walking around Philadelphia is your choice. I do what I do because I’m asked to, if I say no, I get fined 4 days pay.
----------------
Secondly, you are as a police officer protected. Your employment is as guaranteed as any can be and any confusion about your position in society can be instantly put right by the production of your ID. Your pension has no equal in the commersial world and you reamain a member of a very big club for life. That is put in place by the tax payer as compensation for dreadfull hours and unpleasant tasks. I think this is as it should be.
-----------
My job is longer guaranteed. My pension costs me 11% of my wages per month.
-----------
Do not make the mistake of assuming everyone else has no understanding or experience of the real world because you sort it for us. You do not, as I do, have to fly round the world to make a living depending on nothing more than your wits. You do not have to support yourself and others in a free market economy which can change very rapidly and present enormous problems. Unless you have responsibilty for the livelihoods of many and you are accountable for that task you will not understand what it feels like to make things happen. In other words you have a reactive role.
------------
I never said that. All I said was, and going back to the original point was that I have a different view of driving than you because I see the wrecks and speak to the families. You do not. I have personally seen improvements when a GATSO has been placed in an accident spot, despite the fact that I don’t totally agree with them, thus I accept that they have done some good. Yes my role is reactive, but I did not say it was any more or any less important than your job.
------------
Your job is obviously where you got your driver skills, but your profession kill someone every half million miles driven. I have done just about 1 million miles and I never killed anyone. Should I now believe I am twice as good as you at driving
-----------
After an interesting debate, this sort of comment brings into question your reasoning
-----------
The point is the entire profession just like yours believes the propaganda. My original statement stands. :
------------
Again, you are speaking for people and an organisation you don’t know, except that which you read in the news.
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Saturday 23 February 14:31
Smeagol, this is well off topic and my comment was intended as an analogy, however while I agree to a point the education system is overall better than it used to be in terms of producing a general education (i.e. a leading from ignorance) there are some major problems. It is also difficult to peg achievement standards over a long period, as we have switched, from predominantly measuring outputs to predominantly measuring inputs. Hence my agreement that teaching standards have improved. In a previous life I have worked for a LEA in a management capacity. I fully understand the changes that have taken place in the last 20 years and I agree with most of your post. Some of the work I now do is interfacing between education, training and industry, doing curriculum research and developing performance improvement strategies for people, processes and technology. Some of the data is very conclusive and some is not, however I went for the sweeping generalisation on the basis of the following.
There is clear evidence that young people are, in some respects less well equipped to join the world of work than they were 30 years ago. Industry is telling us that they need better standards in maths and English than that, currently certified by GCSE. Universities are complaining that the high pass rates in A levels are not allowing them to select properly. Parents are more sceptical about the quality of the education their children receive and more of them are finding money for private education. Perhaps even more alarmingly, an increase in home education is beginning here and if trends in the States are to be mirrored it will grow to account for a substantial number of children's educational experience. The private schools are rejecting the national curriculum and often offering international baccalaureate instead of A levels. Teachers in higher and further education are sceptical of the quality and relevance of some degree courses. The introduction of the NVQ and GNVQ frameworks while providing a method of comparing vocational qualifications and ensuring currency, are open to abuse and fraud. The careers service are losing credibility with industry because the education standards do not meet expectations. Finally, teachers are leaving the profession in such numbers that it is difficult to see how we can recruit fast enough to keep pace let alone increase headcount to reduce teacher pupil ratios.
While league tables, assessments and inspection reports seek to assure the public that throughout the education system improvements continue and all targets are met. The reality is that despite more than 10000 hours of compulsory education, young job seekers more frequently fail to meet basic skill requirements of employers than was the case 30 years ago. The reasons for this are complex and partially because of changes in commercial practise but some of the blame lies in the way people are educated. It is for this reason patches such as key skills etc are put in place. ( A recent discussion about key skills number at level 3 being equivalent to A level maths is indicative of lowering standards.)
I have no wish to go into more detail than this on what is after all a motoring board but far from being b****cks there is a great deal of evidence that standards of academic achievement have been relaxed.
There is clear evidence that young people are, in some respects less well equipped to join the world of work than they were 30 years ago. Industry is telling us that they need better standards in maths and English than that, currently certified by GCSE. Universities are complaining that the high pass rates in A levels are not allowing them to select properly. Parents are more sceptical about the quality of the education their children receive and more of them are finding money for private education. Perhaps even more alarmingly, an increase in home education is beginning here and if trends in the States are to be mirrored it will grow to account for a substantial number of children's educational experience. The private schools are rejecting the national curriculum and often offering international baccalaureate instead of A levels. Teachers in higher and further education are sceptical of the quality and relevance of some degree courses. The introduction of the NVQ and GNVQ frameworks while providing a method of comparing vocational qualifications and ensuring currency, are open to abuse and fraud. The careers service are losing credibility with industry because the education standards do not meet expectations. Finally, teachers are leaving the profession in such numbers that it is difficult to see how we can recruit fast enough to keep pace let alone increase headcount to reduce teacher pupil ratios.
While league tables, assessments and inspection reports seek to assure the public that throughout the education system improvements continue and all targets are met. The reality is that despite more than 10000 hours of compulsory education, young job seekers more frequently fail to meet basic skill requirements of employers than was the case 30 years ago. The reasons for this are complex and partially because of changes in commercial practise but some of the blame lies in the way people are educated. It is for this reason patches such as key skills etc are put in place. ( A recent discussion about key skills number at level 3 being equivalent to A level maths is indicative of lowering standards.)
I have no wish to go into more detail than this on what is after all a motoring board but far from being b****cks there is a great deal of evidence that standards of academic achievement have been relaxed.
Relaxitscool, try and relax and be cool cos I said what I said to gain information and understand your point of view, not to wind you up. I think it is most pertinent to point out that by its nature you role is focused on benefiting the community and therefore the commercial and economic considerations which I consider, are likely to be at odds with your stance at least part of the time.
So let me clarify a few realities. I do not chose to walk around anywhere at 3 am I was earning my crust when I got lost and if I had refused I would have lost all my pay not just 4 days of it. I have indeed had a 12 gauge pointed at me by a scrapyard owner and 38 by a 16 year old boy with a mental age of 6 (that turned out to be a replica but the effect on my nerves was much the same) so yes I have genuinely thought I may lose my life on several occasions. The worst was witnessing a drive by shooting at what turned out to be a crack house in the states.
I never said your employment was guaranteed I said was as guaranteed as any in this day and age, which it is. I don’t think I even inferred your pension was non contributory, neither is mine. I simply stated you have an excellent pension scheme which as I said before you deserve. (It is however not subject to the vagaries of the markets as mine is.) The reason this is possible is because enough people actively and directly maintain the fourth largest economy in the world, including me. I respect and value your contribution but I get the impression you do not reciprocate.
You have every right to make empirical judgements about individual GATSOs equally I have every right to oppose them and the laws which permit their use. You will no doubt see that my tongue in cheek comment about police driver / miles / deaths followed a statement about spin and propaganda. You are convinced that our government and indeed police departments provide conclusions drawn from data and subject to statistical interpretation are irrefutable fact, yet you question my reasoning behind a comment which is after all numerically factual. Bearing this in mind is it not possible that as my conclusion is questionable so are the conclusions about DD and indeed road safety in general?
My final comment was not intended to speak for anyone, it was an observation. As you correctly observe I cannot know what it is like to be a policeman. I have over a number of years employed a fair number of ex police and military people. I have socialised with, played sport with and worked alongside both police and military personnel. Hence I don't believe I have ever criticised the police on this board, at least below the rank of chief constable and indeed I am much happier with the judgement of traffic cops than magistrates and other repressed, anally retentive individuals.
So let me clarify a few realities. I do not chose to walk around anywhere at 3 am I was earning my crust when I got lost and if I had refused I would have lost all my pay not just 4 days of it. I have indeed had a 12 gauge pointed at me by a scrapyard owner and 38 by a 16 year old boy with a mental age of 6 (that turned out to be a replica but the effect on my nerves was much the same) so yes I have genuinely thought I may lose my life on several occasions. The worst was witnessing a drive by shooting at what turned out to be a crack house in the states.
I never said your employment was guaranteed I said was as guaranteed as any in this day and age, which it is. I don’t think I even inferred your pension was non contributory, neither is mine. I simply stated you have an excellent pension scheme which as I said before you deserve. (It is however not subject to the vagaries of the markets as mine is.) The reason this is possible is because enough people actively and directly maintain the fourth largest economy in the world, including me. I respect and value your contribution but I get the impression you do not reciprocate.
You have every right to make empirical judgements about individual GATSOs equally I have every right to oppose them and the laws which permit their use. You will no doubt see that my tongue in cheek comment about police driver / miles / deaths followed a statement about spin and propaganda. You are convinced that our government and indeed police departments provide conclusions drawn from data and subject to statistical interpretation are irrefutable fact, yet you question my reasoning behind a comment which is after all numerically factual. Bearing this in mind is it not possible that as my conclusion is questionable so are the conclusions about DD and indeed road safety in general?
My final comment was not intended to speak for anyone, it was an observation. As you correctly observe I cannot know what it is like to be a policeman. I have over a number of years employed a fair number of ex police and military people. I have socialised with, played sport with and worked alongside both police and military personnel. Hence I don't believe I have ever criticised the police on this board, at least below the rank of chief constable and indeed I am much happier with the judgement of traffic cops than magistrates and other repressed, anally retentive individuals.
Nonegreen 30 years ago the literacy and numeracy rate was much lower. As I stated in my previous post qualifications are now expected. Including higher expectations from Industry, 30 years ago apprentiships assumed no mathematical ability, now they have day release to college to futher their education.
I actually write resources for KS4 and GNVQ and teach As/A2 ICT and Computing (on contract) and I can tell you its a fact that the level has not dropped. Thats the whole point in standardisation. In fact I have recently been teaching students privately that are doing programs of equal complexity to the style I produced for my own A level. Although in fairness it is often said that ICT and computing is one of the "hard A levels" to get the grade so maybe you have a point, I of course can only comment on the subject I know about.
I too have worked for both examination boards and had close links with industry. I quite agree that education has some shortcomings in comparison to what industry wants but by the same argument Industry also has some shortcomings in what it actually expects. If we did exactly what industry wants there would be no drama, no history, no geography etc. Beacuse those subjects are not "useful". However education is more than just pushing young people through a machine so they can go work for industry. Industry has ALWAYS complained, they did when I left school with O and A levels. (guess what they said "the standard was dropping"!))
In my opinion Key Skills will be changing soon (classic government "oh thats a good idea, lets do it" without a thought of how). Just like GNVQ and NVQ will be changing in 2003 (or didn't you know that?) because of some of the very points you have made.
The argument from Universities about poorer standards is also not surprising as one thing I have seen is a lowering of entry requirements. For example when I went to uni it was expected you would have 3 A levels to start a degree, thats no longer the case. If you lower your standards of entry, you cannot complain that some of the students don't make the mark! I have seen students that have been offered places (having had an interview) even though my reference clearly stated that I did not feel they were suitable.
I agree with a lot of your points nonegreen that education does have its shortcomings, one of the biggest problems is certainly the fact that government often come up with ill conceived ideas which are sometimes impossible to implement.
Finally I can tell you why teachers are leaving the profession, they are p*ssed off that because they improve students education. It is either the government has doen a brilliant job, or that standards are going down. Teachers cannot win.
I quit to run my own business in developing resources for schools and I can tell you the expectation and suggested marking schemes I write certainly do not lower the standard in any way.
Anyway you're quite right this is a motoring forum. We both agree about f***** "speed kills" w@nkers, one BIG disadvantage of working in school is you often meet the lefty vegan environmentalists, so I'd turn up in a leather jacket, revin the engine good and proper
I actually write resources for KS4 and GNVQ and teach As/A2 ICT and Computing (on contract) and I can tell you its a fact that the level has not dropped. Thats the whole point in standardisation. In fact I have recently been teaching students privately that are doing programs of equal complexity to the style I produced for my own A level. Although in fairness it is often said that ICT and computing is one of the "hard A levels" to get the grade so maybe you have a point, I of course can only comment on the subject I know about.
I too have worked for both examination boards and had close links with industry. I quite agree that education has some shortcomings in comparison to what industry wants but by the same argument Industry also has some shortcomings in what it actually expects. If we did exactly what industry wants there would be no drama, no history, no geography etc. Beacuse those subjects are not "useful". However education is more than just pushing young people through a machine so they can go work for industry. Industry has ALWAYS complained, they did when I left school with O and A levels. (guess what they said "the standard was dropping"!))
In my opinion Key Skills will be changing soon (classic government "oh thats a good idea, lets do it" without a thought of how). Just like GNVQ and NVQ will be changing in 2003 (or didn't you know that?) because of some of the very points you have made.
The argument from Universities about poorer standards is also not surprising as one thing I have seen is a lowering of entry requirements. For example when I went to uni it was expected you would have 3 A levels to start a degree, thats no longer the case. If you lower your standards of entry, you cannot complain that some of the students don't make the mark! I have seen students that have been offered places (having had an interview) even though my reference clearly stated that I did not feel they were suitable.
I agree with a lot of your points nonegreen that education does have its shortcomings, one of the biggest problems is certainly the fact that government often come up with ill conceived ideas which are sometimes impossible to implement.
Finally I can tell you why teachers are leaving the profession, they are p*ssed off that because they improve students education. It is either the government has doen a brilliant job, or that standards are going down. Teachers cannot win.
I quit to run my own business in developing resources for schools and I can tell you the expectation and suggested marking schemes I write certainly do not lower the standard in any way.
Anyway you're quite right this is a motoring forum. We both agree about f***** "speed kills" w@nkers, one BIG disadvantage of working in school is you often meet the lefty vegan environmentalists, so I'd turn up in a leather jacket, revin the engine good and proper
Smeagol, We definitely both agree about f***** "speed kills" w@nkers and I have always suspected a lot of school teachers of lefty green vegan hug a tree save the whale spliff smoking cars are bad oh wow these sandals were worn by god and I am the chosen one nutcase opinions. More power to you for doing your bit to redress the balance. I bet they all gossip about you in the staff room
Just a couple of points though, I know it’s a motoring forum but it is 1 am and I have had a few beers. Most of what you said I agree with, but it is not really possible to compare ICT standards with 30 years ago because ICT did not exist, at least for schools. I do concur though that your subject area is a top performer.
Literacy and numeracy were worse 30 years ago but then they were better in the middle of the blitz when elementary schools were in existence. This is a good example of schools and teachers being victims of politics.
Where did you get the notion that apprenticeships assumed no mathematical ability 30 years ago. I should say here that I have directed 2 industry training schools including all too briefly the most technologically advanced in the world. There were such things as Whitworth scholars in the 19th century. Funded and founded by Joseph Whitworth, Henry Mawdsleys apprentice who set up his firm in Manchester and founded the Manchester college of technology on Whitworth st (now UMIST). My own father served an apprenticeship starting in 1946 which included day release and fees / books to HNC and ultimately associate (degree) level. When Harold Wilson introduced the levy on industry in the 60s and created the Industry training boards, their charter was to promote education and training in tandem which they did successfully until some daft woman disbanded them, well mostly, because of her hatred of trade unions (and teachers come to think of it). Modern apprenticeships are a significant improvement for say the retail industry, but I can assure that they are in some ways a reduction in requirement for engineering.
Yes industrialists expect too much but then do we really need another counselling course? Unfortunately industry pays the bills and he who pays the piper etc. However I do concede that a broader curriculum benefits us all in the end. Thanks for an interesting discussion
John
Just a couple of points though, I know it’s a motoring forum but it is 1 am and I have had a few beers. Most of what you said I agree with, but it is not really possible to compare ICT standards with 30 years ago because ICT did not exist, at least for schools. I do concur though that your subject area is a top performer.
Literacy and numeracy were worse 30 years ago but then they were better in the middle of the blitz when elementary schools were in existence. This is a good example of schools and teachers being victims of politics.
Where did you get the notion that apprenticeships assumed no mathematical ability 30 years ago. I should say here that I have directed 2 industry training schools including all too briefly the most technologically advanced in the world. There were such things as Whitworth scholars in the 19th century. Funded and founded by Joseph Whitworth, Henry Mawdsleys apprentice who set up his firm in Manchester and founded the Manchester college of technology on Whitworth st (now UMIST). My own father served an apprenticeship starting in 1946 which included day release and fees / books to HNC and ultimately associate (degree) level. When Harold Wilson introduced the levy on industry in the 60s and created the Industry training boards, their charter was to promote education and training in tandem which they did successfully until some daft woman disbanded them, well mostly, because of her hatred of trade unions (and teachers come to think of it).
Modern apprenticeships are a significant improvement for say the retail industry, but I can assure that they are in some ways a reduction in requirement for engineering. Yes industrialists expect too much but then do we really need another counselling course? Unfortunately industry pays the bills and he who pays the piper etc. However I do concede that a broader curriculum benefits us all in the end.
Thanks for an interesting discussion John
Nonegreen, didn't take offence to any of your comments and if you took offence to mine I apologise. Likewise, been a bit busy, hence the late reply.
Re our conversation....I think we can conclude that where speed is concerned, the few spoil the fun for the many. That is, in appropriate use of speed causes the powers that be to make knee jerk reactions which by and large work, but persecute the many who are otherwise sensible...
Re our conversation....I think we can conclude that where speed is concerned, the few spoil the fun for the many. That is, in appropriate use of speed causes the powers that be to make knee jerk reactions which by and large work, but persecute the many who are otherwise sensible...
quote:
Nonegreen, didn't take offence to any of your comments and if you took offence to mine I apologise. Likewise, been a bit busy, hence the late reply.
Re our conversation....I think we can conclude that where speed is concerned, the few spoil the fun for the many. That is, in appropriate use of speed causes the powers that be to make knee jerk reactions which by and large work, but persecute the many who are otherwise sensible...
Agreed, hence I am much happier with the judgement of most traffic cops than with the judgement of machines or politicians with green tendancies.
"tough on greens, tough on the causes of greens"
quote:
For a Gatso to be of use outside a school the setting needs to be adjusted by time. During school hours the limit should be 15-20 mph and the Gatso set accordingly. During evenings, nights and holidays it should revert to the normal speed limits.
Actually I'm gonna be different, and disagree with this. But only because I want to raise the point that little by little, we are ALL being influenced by the HYPE.
With careful road design, and suitable road furniture, schools can be made into safer places. How?
Simply create a proper full size car park for those stupid parents to collect their kids, thus eliminating parked cars on the road outside the school.
8ft tall railing to prevent kids crossing the road except at designated, warden controlled crossings. Railings on other side of road to prevent kids loitering in the danger zone.
Speed limit could be 30mph as usual, the key is to keep vehicle and pedestrian apart !!! Infact why not place the school at the end of a long spur road, and NOT on a main road?
Thus with a bit of cash, we could reduce accidents to almost zero, while keeping traffic free flowing.
Easy, huh?
rgds, Carl.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff